Talking To Waves...

[Frequency]

Love to know your feelings....



Regards

 

[Actinometro]

I like the composition and the perspective a lot.
At that angl,e light didn't help lowering the impact of the beautiful rose color.
Can't touch the exif but it seams that dof is too week or too height depending on what what you intended to do: get all the persons in focus or defocus the ones on the left.
All in all: very good and creative photo.

 

[Frequency]

Thank you Actino

Regards

 

[jaxx419]

I like how the little kid in the waves has his head forward and hands out almost like he is "listening" to the "talking" waves!

 

[Frequency]

Thank you jaxx; it was a candid click...that is why i feel many images happen....not we plan them

Regards

 

[SCraig]

That's a beautiful shot, Frequency. I to would love to know what he is thinking, but then perhaps if we did it would ruin the image.

I did notice something odd though. Look closely at the still water behind the subject, the lower right corner of the shot. There is a very regular, square pattern in the background. It's faint and much the same colors as the image itself but it is certainly there. I thought at first it was my monitor but I moved it to my second monitor and it shows up there to.

 

[fokker]

That's a beautiful shot, Frequency. I to would love to know what he is thinking, but then perhaps if we did it would ruin the image.

I did notice something odd though. Look closely at the still water behind the subject, the lower right corner of the shot. There is a very regular, square pattern in the background. It's faint and much the same colors as the image itself but it is certainly there. I thought at first it was my monitor but I moved it to my second monitor and it shows up there to.

That is noise, this looks it was shot 2 shots underexposed at a high ISO and pushed up brightness in pp.

 

[Bossy]

Thats noise on crack. I imagine that image SOOC actually just looks completely black.

​

 

[Frequency]

That's a beautiful shot, Frequency. I to would love to know what he is thinking, but then perhaps if we did it would ruin the image.

I did notice something odd though. Look closely at the still water behind the subject, the lower right corner of the shot. There is a very regular, square pattern in the background. It's faint and much the same colors as the image itself but it is certainly there. I thought at first it was my monitor but I moved it to my second monitor and it shows up there to.

Thank you Scraig.... this image was taken in 2008.... i took this in RAW... but i seldom edit in RAW (Justified by ignorance)... it was one among several random shots before leaving the place and darkness was falling... the image was totally under... and i never even attempted to see what was there in it. A few days earlier i was verifying old stocks and i saw this too dark image and when i added some light i saw these things happening there...actually i don't even remember i had seen this there .... Then i saw this image as anybody else see... poor in quality, but a story to tell...that is why i posted it... i see full of color noise.... and only now i noticed the square you mentioned... i am not square enough to remove it though

Thank you for your emotional and technical evaluations

Regards

 

[Frequency]

That's a beautiful shot, Frequency. I to would love to know what he is thinking, but then perhaps if we did it would ruin the image.

I did notice something odd though. Look closely at the still water behind the subject, the lower right corner of the shot. There is a very regular, square pattern in the background. It's faint and much the same colors as the image itself but it is certainly there. I thought at first it was my monitor but I moved it to my second monitor and it shows up there to.

That is noise, this looks it was shot 2 shots underexposed at a high ISO and pushed up brightness in pp.

ISO 100, i read ; it was dark and that is why noise flooded in when brightened

 

[Frequency]

Thats noise on crack. I imagine that image SOOC actually just looks completely black.

That is the truth about it... unhappy about it, but have accept that....

Regards for your visit

 

[Frequency]

Ito my surprise, i found this image was shot in RAW!!! Then i installed the bundled canon edit software and made minor adjustments there, then transferred it to photoshop and made minor adjustments there.... I removed the pink tone there...but i could not remove the texture found in the right bottom corner.... Please tell me how do you feel about it !!! which one is better.... can we compensate underexposure in RAW edition? Obliged in advance



Regards

 

[SCraig]

I'm not sure. I think I like the first one better even though the coloration wasn't natural. It gives more of a Sunset / Sunrise feeling.

Yes, you can compensate for under / over exposure in RAW files. Most editors will allow simply changing the exposure value for RAW files or you can change the lightness / darkness, whichever works best.

 

[Frequency]

I too like the pink tone, because it creates a mood....

Actually the kid is bathing, i think...you can see another head adjacent to him

Thank you very much Scraig

 

[jowensphoto]

I really like the original. The unnatural color and noise don't bother me at all, in fact, I think they add to the photo. An example of the old "rules are made to be broken" adage. Lovely photo, Frequency.