| Image |
Comment |
| 10/11/2010 03:15:09 PM |
Ericaby Yo_SpiffComment: More flash than fill flash, but the image is really good |
 Photographer found comment helpful. |
| 10/11/2010 03:03:31 PM |
|
| Photographer found comment helpful. |
| 10/11/2010 03:01:31 PM |
Samanthaby fotomann_foreverComment: Excellent in this category - and at least this is fill flash. I think it would work better with a less saturated background |
| Photographer found comment helpful. |
| 10/11/2010 02:58:33 PM |
You can't see me! by KelliComment: I can't unfortunately clearly see him, indeed. Moreover the image don't say "fill flash" IMO - and even don't say obviously flash. I'm this capture was a great moment for you, but seen from here, as a photographic result, it's less interesting. |
| Photographer found comment helpful. |
| 10/06/2010 05:01:44 PM |
|
| Photographer found comment helpful. |
| 10/06/2010 04:56:33 PM |
|
| Photographer found comment helpful. |
| 10/06/2010 04:54:27 PM |
The End of Conversationby dafletchrComment: Just added to my favs.
Extraordinary capture. The photos in the background - telling other old stories of happy people - change this into something far above a candid or street capture. Funny and sad, telling simple and moving things about life and time. |
| Photographer found comment helpful. |
| 10/05/2010 03:51:42 PM |
Drilling for starsby JudiComment: The star are nice...and deserved to be above something more interesting than two trucks... |
| Photographer found comment helpful. |
| 10/05/2010 03:45:52 PM |
Majestic Rockiesby artvetComment: Sincerely, I think it could be much better without the selective desaturation - the scenery is contrasted and spectacular enough, it don't need that kind of artificial emphasis.
By the way, the postprocessing created pale halos around the trees.
As is, 5. Would be in the range 7 or 8 with a more natural processing IMO. |
| Photographer found comment helpful. |
| 09/19/2010 05:00:35 PM |
|
| Photographer found comment helpful. |
