What do you think about this photo?Do you have questions or curiosities about this image? Do you want to ask something to the author, give him suggestions for improvement, or congratulate for a photo that you really like?
You can do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 252000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
| sent on July 11, 2014 (16:10) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Hello, you captured a beautiful landscape with beautiful natural colors, but I can not make me happy weeds in the foreground, too invasive in my opinion. It would be nice to know the reason for this choice:-P
In addition, the photo seems to me in general underexposed (it's a choice?!? :-/ I see that indicates -1 / 3 ev in description)
I hope you did not get offended and that this comment can be of help and encouragement to both
Greetings
Stefano Ciao, hai immortalato un bel paesaggio con dei bei colori naturali, tuttavia non riesco a farmi piacere la sterpaglia in primo piano, troppo invasiva a parer mio. Sarebbe bello sapere il perchè di questa scelta 
Inoltre la foto mi sembra in linea generale sottoesposta (è una scelta?!?  vedo che indichi -1/3 ev in descrizione)
Spero di non averti offeso e che questo commento possa essere di aiuto e di stimolo ad entrambi
Saluti
Stefano |
| sent on July 11, 2014 (19:25) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Hello Stefano, thanks for the comment.
The decision to include the field cut im first floor is desired but also a bit 'forced, I walk in and I only had a stand 15cm. It was more of a first test 10-24 at 10mm. I agree that is a bit 'too invasive effectively.
Instead, for the underexposure npn know, I see it in the monitor well but I have to say that I have a monitor of the bales, then it may be that the problem stems from that. Maybe the third stop I could avoid it, it may be that the light too harsh early afternoon I was misled.
Thank you for the time you have dedicated to comment
Greetings
Mark Ciao stefano, grazie per il commento.
La scelta di comprendere il campo tagliato im primo piano é voluta ma anche un po' forzata, ero in passeggiata e avevo solo un cavalletto da 15cm. Era piú una prima prova del 10-24 a 10mm. Concordo che é un po' troppo invasiva effettivamente.
Invece per la sottoesposizione npn saprei, io a monitor la vedo bene però devo dire che ho un monitor delle balle, quindi può essere che il problema derivi da quello. Forse quel 1/3 di stop potevo evitarlo, può essere che la luce troppo dura del primo pomeriggio mi ha tratto in inganno.
Grazie per il tempo che hai dedicato a commentare
Saluti
Marco |
user62173 | sent on August 16, 2015 (19:17) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
I look on the S4
and it seems to me also underexposed.
Look at the histogram ... Io la guardo sul S4
e sembra sottoesposta anche a me.
Guarda sull'istogramma... |
| sent on August 16, 2015 (19:22) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
yes, clearly underexposed, now with calibrated monitor the difference is huge si, nettamente sottoesposta, ora con il monitor calibrato la differenza è enorme |
|
Publish your advertisement on JuzaPhoto (info) |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
2.5 MEGAPIXEL
Resize to fit window
