Need extremely rough critic

CallumPhoto wrote in post #11844400
Okay seriously, I honestly really appreciate people replying but this is useless haha.

dude... your water mark is useless

korrektor wrote in post #11844469
dude... your water mark is useless

Indeed. Feel flattered if someone steals your pic. It means you're doing something right.

CallumPhoto wrote in post #11844400
Out of context (for example if only the first line was read) then yeah I can see how we could have a misunderstanding but this was wrote before the image and before the additional text. I didn't say anything because I try not to effect peoples perception before they've seen the image. Did you read the other bit?

Perhaps you need to edit your original message, so that other new readers of the thread do not have to read 24-30 posts into the thread to figure out what you are seeking in the way of real information.

Listen to what others are saying. The watermark completely conceals the transition from the junk on the horizon to the sky. And then I pointed out that the angle looks artificial. Part of the reason the angle looks artificial is that the dune is exactly parallel to the clouds in the sky, something one doesn't often see in nature.

The other reason the angle looks artificial is that people don't often recline against a steep wall of sand. Not only would you have to fight to stay in that position (look at the model's knees) but you'd be getting sand sliding down your dress.

Anyway, you want to know if it's a good sky replacement? Can't tell if the seam is good because of your watermark, and it looks artificial because of the angle of the clouds.

Every good picture tells a story. The story behind this one is "discomfort" both for the awkwardly posed model, the weird cloud angles, the penitentiary on the horizon, and the fear that someone is going to rip off this photo.

Send me a ticket to Australia and I'll get together with your model and straighten things out.

korrektor wrote in post #11844469
dude... your water mark is useless

cameronrad wrote in post #11844603
Indeed. Feel flattered if someone steals your pic. It means you're doing something right.

In most cases I would agree with the above posts but special circumstances (a print size image and a client + other stuff) besides this is not a debate about watermarking and image theft so really, lift your post count somewhere else.

Does it really need to be said 10 times?

Wilt wrote in post #11844670
Perhaps you need to edit your original message, so that other new readers of the thread do not have to read 24-30 posts into the thread to figure out what you are seeking in the way of real information.

It's actually there in the original post, the context would be there if people read it.

Anyway I made a new thread: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1000683 because I think I've done a better sky replacement. Plus there's a bit too much off topic disgussion. Take a look and see if you think it's a better job

I wouldn't have buried her elbow in the sand

CallumPhoto wrote in post #11844400
This is more or less what I mean by above and what I was after haha, thank you. Though for the sake of my education could you elaborate on why it needs fill flash? The contrast is already pretty low and the light is soft so I don't totally understand why it would be useful? Maybe to create catchlights?

Well, it's only my opinion, but since the pretty girl is your main subject, she should stand out a little bit more from the background. You could also just have flashed her upper torso a little bit, if you wanted her to not totally stand out.

Bear in mind, I think most of the people who wanted fill flash are not talking about super bright, killer shadows kind of flash. We mean fill flash subtle enough to almost not realize it is flash.

If only 10% of the replies even mention the sky, obviously your question is being lost on most of the readers. Therefore the original post isn't emphasizing enough the true topic of interest to you.

Wilt wrote in post #11844900
If only 10% of the replies even mention the sky, obviously your question is being lost on most of the readers. Therefore the original post isn't emphasizing enough the true topic of interest to you.

"I really need an exceptionally tough critic on my replacement of the sky as some of the photos from this series are going to print and I don't know if the sky is beleivable or not. I cannot stress enough that you need to be brutally honest with me.

Any other random critic is nice but that sky is the most important part. Please and thank yous!"

Educate me how to make it more specific, not being rude. I'm serious, so message me if you have any suggestions because it seems pretty emphasized to me. A lot of these replies aren't even relevant to the PP section of the forum.

Anyway this will be my last post in this thread

I know you don't want to hear anything more about your watermark, but surely you could make one that is just as hard to remove but that is a lot less obnoxious. It's so obtrusive that I cannot evaluate this photo for you. I feel like I'm trying to watch a movie while seated behind a tall person wearing a hat.

CallumPhoto wrote in post #11845287
"I really need an exceptionally tough critic on my replacement of the sky as some of the photos from this series are going to print and I don't know if the sky is beleivable or not. I cannot stress enough that you need to be brutally honest with me.

Any other random critic is nice but that sky is the most important part. Please and thank yous!"

Educate me how to make it more specific, not being rude. I'm serious, so message me if you have any suggestions because it seems pretty emphasized to me. A lot of these replies aren't even relevant to the PP section of the forum.

Anyway this will be my last post in this thread

Perhaps it would be as simple as not starting (before the photo) with the statement, "I would really love it if you could look at my photo before reading on, just take a look and see if anything looks wrong. I normally don't water mark my images but because I'm uploading a much larger file than used I have in this case."

...and then putting the comment about the sky after the photo.

State the main question up front, and add secondary comment later.

snap, I missed the sky part.

Ok, I won't take apart the perspective on the clouds, because it doesn't stick out right away, though if you look closer you will see that the clouds don't diminish or lose opacity with distance. The biggest
part, and that was tough to notice at first, because of your watermark, however, is the white out line (photoshop soft brush) on the horizon. That has to go. Other than that - the pic looks believable.

Her arm looks like someone from the grave is reaching out and grabbing her by the head Besides all the other statements about EV, WB, ETC.

Okay ... two things:

One - where the sky meets the grass on the right ... things are muddled, fuzzy and not seamless. Your new sky doesn't merge into the landscape well around that area.

Two - she looks like she needs to pee and is holding her legs in that position to hold it in. Honestly, that was my first impression. But it would take a woman to understand, cause we've all been there. And that is what I initially thought was wrong ...

the only thing that distracts me in this portrait is she looks uncomfortable. She doesn't look relaxed enough... it is in her face, but her body language is saying different.