Hi and welcom this is just my take of your fine image. Crop off each end to help the viewer enjoy the main attraction - Some dodge and burn tool work. Flipped the image to help composition and feelings. I upped the contrast using dehaze and Nik Tools Tonal contrast - Saturation +18 thank you for sharing.

Hello again, Daniel. Thank you very much for taking the time and making the effort to offer your very interesting adjustments. I shall certainly ponder on't and put your version into the mix when the review ends. I shall not yet compare the two but I do like yours, for sure. Much appreciated and all the best. Cheers.

Hello, Woad

Welcome to our forum and thank you for sharing your image with us. I like both the original and the suggestion by my friend. The original has attracted me with its content and color scheme. The main subject in a well saturated color makes it stand out. I like expressing feelings through art and artistic work. There might not be many out there who use a composition in this way but gain attention. I hope it does well in curation. I wish you good light and luck... Cicek

Hello Woad

Thank you for sharing your beechwood photo with us. It definitely appeals to me with its textures and contrasts. If I worked on it in colour I think my result would be similar to Daniel's so I tried it in black and white just as another option to consider. I cropped each side a little, increased the definition and contrast.

Good light, Elizabeth

Hello, again, Cicek. Thank you for your kind reply. I am not sure I shall enter it into the main system; it and my work do not seem to go well together (there is not even a category for any botanicals). But I do value this forum, hence my preference for posting here. Best wishes. Cheerio.

Hi, again

You might try macro or still life which are the closest...

Hi Cicek, thanks for your suggestions.

I have tried "landscape" and "macro" labels - but was (correctly) told by one critic I had posted in the wrong category - tyhat was their only critique. I cannot, in all honesty, post in "Still Life" because, to me that means something very different. But thank you for your ideas. The irony is my two published images - both birds in-flight  - pleased though I was they were published, are the ones which least represent what I am trying to do and are the closest to straight-forward photography. The ones I care for most do badly. The problem with that, for me, is that I wanted to establish a respresentative portfolio on here and I doubt I can now do that.

I fully support quality-control - that is one of the attractions of 1X.Com but do think if I (or many members) posted a whole series of funky-angle, looking-up modern buildings with long-exposure skies, moody female nudes with a black or brown back-drop, female nudes swarthged in red-tape, else steam-punk portraits, I would stand a very good chance of having many published (I analyised over 500 published images over the last month). Don't take me wrong: many are very good images and, not for a minute, do I blame the photographers submitting so many similar images (though I do wonder why, beyond more accolades) but I have no intention of changing my subjects - eg dead leaves, moody woodlands, surreal visions, etc to pass the gate because there would be no point.

However, what I have come to value on 1X.Com is viewing and critiquing high-quality images, on a level and quantity impossible elsewhere, and excellent crit in the forums. So, whilst I may not be able to establish a representative portfolio here, I still benefit greatly. In short, I do not like the curation process - even when I have won-through, it seems ludicrious - but I love many of the images and the critique available. I may even renew my "Pro" status because of those benefits available. And then, who knows, I might grumpily submit the occasional image for curation - but it does seem a waste of time and effort at the moment. 

Thank you for being one of the fab positives here. Cheerio.

Hello again, Elizabeth. Thank you also for your time and effort. Now, although I am presently inclined to maintain this image in full-colour, your greyscale monochrome does offer a fascinating alternative. The main subject (that large leaf) has taken on a certain glow which makes it appear under a veil of ice. And shooting leaves under ice is something I aim for but suitable subjects can be hard to find. So your work certainly gives me ideas, either for an alternative version of this, else how to work other images. So thank you very bmuch indeed. As you sign-off: good light!

Thank you Elizabeth. Also much appreciated. Cheerio.

Woad,

Thanks for posting the photo, telling the story of how you made it, and explaining the title.  I don't know the song, but did Google and read the lyrics to get a sense of the theme. 

I like the compostion as it is - with the 2:1 panoramic proportions.  It seems to create a 'flow' from left to right to suggest that the main subject leaf will move in that  direction as it changes. 

I share your fascination with photographing leaves.  The colours of autumn seem to evoke something melancholy, but, at the same time, comforting and reassuring.   

I don't think the photo really needs any 'improvements', but in the spirit of Critiqe Forum I edited a screen capture by blurring the background and intensifying slightly the texture and clarity of the main leaf.  To blur the background, the main leaf had  to be first selected and then inverted so just the background could be blurred.   The frost-like details on the bottom left stem are aritfacts caused by my quick and sloppy selecting - but I thought they looked OK and somewhat realistic.  You know when it comes to creative editing, the guarantee is "Everything in this photo is true . . . . or could be  true."

The title . . . .  if viewers know the song they will appreciate the title more.  Using a song title, or lyric, or line from a poem to help viewers understand the theme of a photograph will sometimes work.  If the photogher has a special feeling for the song but the viewer has a different one - or none at all - then the title may not work as hoped.  For this photo, apart from meaning intended by the songwriter,  "My Life Has Been Saved" could suggest that the leaf may die, but then move on to another plane of existence.  I don't know - I'm just riffing.  Do you know Leonard Cohen's "If It Be Your Will"?

. . . . Steven, senior critic

Hello again, Steven. Thank you very much for your effort and time, too. Apologies for my, somewhat, tardy reply.

I do not know your musical tastes but that Queen track is (in my view) well-worth listening to - I'll provide a link to Queen's official YT channel if you (or anyone else reading) is interested. Apropos the Leonard Cohen track, sorry I do not know it - indeed, I am unfamiliar with his music but I do have a book of his poetry. However, I shall listen soon: thank you.

I don't ever specify images by (height x width) ratio - though I watch zillions of YT vids and so many other toggers do, indeed, think of that. However, I simply shoot to the full-extent of my Canon APS-C, 24 Mpix camera, then crop (if necessary) to suit my taste in post. So I did not know what ratio this is - thank you for telling me! Nevertheless, I do find myself being influenced somewhat by the plethora of YT landscape toggers who have been provided with free Hassleblad cameras, with its X-Pan facility. (We can dream).

Apropos direction: Yes, I do pay careful attention to the "travel" direction within images. Thus, unless one is (say) an Arab, who reads right-to-left, I recommend giving images internal travel-space to the right. So thank you for noticing that.

Leaves? Fantastic are they not? I love them in all seasons. Autumn is obviously fab - this particular shot what taken about five days ago but obviously reflects the Autumnal process, wrought upon recumbent leaves. I suppose they have it all – beauty, drama, life-and-death, contrast, etc.

Thank you very much on your suggested version. Again, it goes into the mix when I am reconsidering this image. Very interesting results.

Aside: I never cease to wonder why LightRoom / PhotoShop is/are so ponderous. In ACDSee, all I have to do is “Select Background” and the AI makes (usually) an excellent job of isolating foreground from background (I can invert that). Heck, the years I have spent hunched over those damn marching ants and now, with AI, a few seconds and it is done. Can I have that part of my life back, please? Perhaps Adobe has sorted that now – I imagine they have - but can’t say I am a fan (I did use Adobe for a couple of years). I think the AI algorithm works on what is, and what is not, in focus.

Apropos truth in photography. There is never literal truth in art, is there? There may be poetic truths but literal? Oliver Cromwell (The Lord Protector of England in the 17thc interregnum) ordered his portrait painter to depict him (Cromwell) as “Warts and all” – which was not the flattering approach usually employed by portraitists. I never try to be literal in my work. In photography, I will happily crop, excise, re-colour, de-colour, combine, etc. – whatever it takes to make an image I am somewhat content with. I don’t care a fig for literally presenting when I saw. I do, however, fully acknowledge this must be different for photo-journalists – they have a different responsibility.

Apropos your riffing on music. The fact the track came-out with Mercury as lead-singer, some four years after his demise has a certain irony. Likewise, this leaf is clearly dead but has a post-life “existence” as the star of my humble show. Today, with audio-video recording technology over a century old, we have a vast back-catalogue of long-deceased performers which we can enjoy – they all have that post-life availability. One could, axiomatically, say so has (say) Shakespeare. However, we do not even know if the celebrated portrait of “him” really is of him. I do fear that, in the future, AI may deceive us again. But, for now, so many people do have that post-life presence in our lives in many ways.

I try not to be too prescriptive in my work but my titles do reflect my thoughts. If others want to see my works otherwise, that is fine by me – I am just grateful anyone sees them at all!

Thank you very much, again, Steven. All the best. Cheerio.

Queen's "My Life Has Been Saved"

Hello, thanks for the great crits and ideas, all. (I am still listening, should anyone else wish to add anything, too).

Here's an experiement. I though I would post both an original shot (converted to JPG from a Canon Raw image but without any other changes) and a, hitherto "final" image (I might change things in the light of these crits, though). I always border images, even though 1X.Com does not accept them. So here are the original and that hitherto final. Thanks for viewing. 

Woad,

Thanks for posting the original.  With your editing skills you discovered and showed us the beautiful image lurking in all that autumn detritus.  

I took a screen capture of the original and played with it a while - but couldn't come even close to your 'final' version. 

Many years ago I made a similar photo of autumn leaves frozen in a small puddle. (similar in that the subject was leaves)  The bargain-priced film was very grainy, and the original looked pretty sad, but some darkroom tricks helped to bring out what I thought was a pretty good image.  When Photoshop came along, more 'improvments', were possible.   Comparing the original and final version shows two things - first, that I was very sloppy when shooting - and second, that a lot can be done in editing. 

I'll post the photo here if you want to see it.

. . . . .  Steven  

Hello, Steven, thanks for your rejoinder.

Apropos your attempt at editing my original - I am at an unfair advantage: I use ACDSee Ultimate 2025 (The most recent version) - though I bordered and scripted in ACDSee Ultimate 9 - a much older version but simplier to make borders and script. All my work over the last twenty years has been in that. I did try a subscription to Adobe for a couple of years, using LightRoom and PhotoShop but I was too set with my ACDSee ways and never seemed to do well with Adobe. I gave the subscription up and saved a lot of money and was back to my old way of working. (ACDSee started as a DAM (Digital Asset Management) system - where one does not import files into it (unlike LightRoom) but keeps the Windows folders and tracks the files in those. But it had a whole suite of editing software built in. Then it introduced layers - which I still am not brilliant at - with masks galore. Now, with AI selection / Sky-replacement and repair (ie removing unwanted things) it compared to Adobe but has useful special effects and so on.

This particular image relies heavily on ACDSee's "Special Effects" of "Edge-Detect" and some "Orton," plus all the more usual colour / exposure tweaks both before and after those Special Effects. I used the Orton globally but with the Edge-Detect I used extensive masking to give some areas a double-dose and exclude other areas completely. Before any of that, I took the CR2 (Canon Raw) file directly into Topaz Photo AI to denoise and slightly sharpen it. It is those sharpened edges which the ACDSee Edge Detect later latched onto. Hope that makes sense.

I'm not on commission but their home-page link is at the bottom of this. They have several photo-editors but Ultimate is the most-featured.

Now your images. Yes I have leaves, etc under ice - fab, aren't they? I would love to see your photo(s), please - yes be my gues, do please post within this post. I shall look forward, thank you in antuicipation.

All the best. Cheerio.

ACDSee Home Page

Steven, FYI here's a couple of my ice-ground shots, too. (Click to enlarge). Cheers.

Woad,

Thanks for the info on the editing process for "My Life Has Been Saved".  Thanks also for the two new photos and the link to ACDSee.  You wrote that you started with that software 20 years ago and found Photoshop awkward when you tried it.  That's been my experience in reverse - I started with Photoshop in 2004, tried some NIK, Lightroom, and various others that I've forgotten now, but was so used to Photoshop's controls that I just couldn't get started with anything new. 

The two new photos you posted have great impact and colour.  It's said that successful abstract images will evoke emotions in the viewer.  Colour has a lot to do with that.  Both images seem a bit 'violent' with all the sharp, broken elements and high contrast.  I can see a face in Shardzazle 1.  (pareidolia).  Some viewers won't even look at an abstract until they're told what the subject matter is.  That may be a phenomenon only in Photography.  I don't think painters are troubled with that one.  

"You will find poetry nowhere unless you bring some of it with you."  . . . . Joubert

I see you've just joined 1X last month.  Did anyone say welcome?   Welcome!   You may have missed the Golden  Age of 1X.com.  Before the big update to the site a few years back it was possible to create one's own gallery by uploading any photos you chose.  That's gone now and our galleries only show the photos that make it over the 'Published' hurdle.  I'm guessing many members feel as I do that our best photos are invisible. 

Anyway, here's the photo I thought might be interesting to you.  Two versions.  The leaves were in a small puddle with a thin layer of perfectly clear ice that had frozen overnight.  It was a film picture shot with a Pentax and 50mm lens.  There's a long story to the provenance of the image - I won't bore you with that except to say that 30 years ago we made photograhs with something we called 'film', and that film negatives don't usually survive house fires. 

I called it 'Frozen Leaves'.  Not particularly original.  Funny that I've written about the importance of a perfect title in hundreds of critiques, but obviously didn't follow my own advice with that one. 

I see you clicked 'Favourite' on my gallery photos.  Thank you for that. 

. . . . Steven

Hello, Steven. Thanks again for your reply.

Before I reply to your text, I do want to say how much I like your very painterly images (and appreciate the before / after set). They are beautiful images, to be sure. I have hardly ever seen anything like them - perhaps only in paintings. They are not of a style I am likely to emulate but I certainly appreciate them as a viewer. (i.e. if I were a musician, I would aim to produce music somewhere between The Beatles, Tangerine Dream, Pink Floyd, Queen and John Michelle Jarre - but I would still (as I do now) listen to Glenn Miller, William Byrd, Mozart and medieval plain-chant. - I hope that strange example makes sense).

I love the way in which you have teased-out whole colour pallets from such unpromising starts. All I can say is "well done" but my admiration exceeds that simple phrase by quite some way.

Your Photoshop journey and mine whilst, prima facie, are opposites are, in reality, similar - we both latched-onto something and became comfortable with it. Just human nature, I suppose.

Thank you for your kind "Welcome." No one had said it per se, though various critics on this forum have expressed that for here. So much appreciated. It is unsurprising, however, it is a big site and one arrives unnoticed - perhaps just as well! What would be useful is a better FAQ system and, most certainly, a much better curation system - those stats are crazy. I found an old post by (I think) Daniel, moaning about them - and they seem to be the same as when he complained.

Interesting you say that about 1X's "Golden Age" because I joined for a few reasons - but one was to have a visible portfolio of what I thought my better work. Because (I think) 11/13 of my submissions did really badly in curation - and because the two which were "published" were both birds-in-flight (Not my main subject) I do not think I can now achieve that. Yes, I could re-submit and a few might pass and I could up-load more but, quite honestly, the process takes ages, the stats are mad, clearly my styles / subjects are not popular on 1X, some of my images may-well be sub-quality and, after all that, I still cannot construct the portfolio I want to. My gripe here is that I do like the quality hurdle but (a) I think it is not objective quality but a bias for certain subjects and styles; (b) I do not know why I cannot construct the portfolio I want - but images shown on 1X site galleries are subject to quality-screening. (c) I am quite prepared to pay a fee - I even think it a good idea. But there is no point in paying a fee for the process if I cannot take full advantage of it. However, I really like (a) the overall high-quality of images; (b) The excellent crit on this forum; (c) My ability to crit excellent toggers - one learns from considering other images. So I might pay and then even try some more (or past) image (re)uploads. But, yes, I do feel many of my best images are not able to be shown and my less interesting images have been "published."

As you might image, I am fascinated by that back-story but horrified by the mention of a domestic fire. Film, however - I shot from being a very young child, in about 1963, to the 1990s. But I saw it mainly as a tourist thing, as oppposed to an art-trip. But, yes, I know film well.

Apropos a perfect title. Think I'll agree and disagree. I don't think perfection exists. However, one can aim for that unreachable target. I think you and I have discussed poetry and words before (well, touched on the subject, anyway). I think we are both students of poetry and really appreciate engaging titles. Either not that many people agree with us, else we see things differently from them. Either way, interesting titles seem few-and-far-between, as the cliche goes. I would just point to JWM Turner's titles - literal but excellent. Surely most people could do that, at least?

Your personal gallery is absolutly fantastic - such an eclectic and wonderful collection - thank you for showing those.

OK, I'm off to study your ice-leaf images. Cheers.

Oops, sorry I omitted a reply to a paragraph, apologies...

You wrote:

"The two new photos you posted have great impact and colour.  It's said that successful abstract images will evoke emotions in the viewer.  Colour has a lot to do with that.  Both images seem a bit 'violent' with all the sharp, broken elements and high contrast.  I can see a face in Shardzazle 1.  (pareidolia).  Some viewers won't even look at an abstract until they're told what the subject matter is.  That may be a phenomenon only in Photography.  I don't think painters are troubled with that one. "

That violence was caused by the origins of the images being shattered ice (as opposed to smooth see-through). Hello to the face you see! I had to look-up "pareidolia" - so thank you for the new word. It is a concept with which I was familiar but did not know it had that fab word. If we tell views the meaning of a pure abstract, then, I would submit, it is no longer a pure abstract and has lost all bar one of its possibilities. I think pareidolia does exist in all art - frequently people take all sorts of meanings from music. Paintings, too - I do paint (acrylic) a little but never anything literal, so I leave it to views to put their own intellectual and emotional constructs on (or not) as they wish. In fact, I have taken to photographing my own -paintings, then crazy-editing them as photographs - what confusion! (I do claim that I photograph for three reasons: to portray the aesthetic, to understand the World (though we all have little chance of that!) and to undermine people perception of reality - it is this last one where I think most interesting works may be.

Before I am wheeled-off to "Pseud's Corner", I shall say cheerio again.

Woad, 

Thank you for the reply. 

I think we agree on many points - eclectic taste in music and photographic style, that the return of the personal gallery at 1X would be welcomed, and there are opportunities to learn the craft by viewing and critiquing other members' photographs. 

On titles, you are quite right - there is no perfection.  They are like frames, though, in that they can be the finishing touch for an image.  Some photographers believe in naming photos 'Untitled'.  Sometimes that's best, but it can say to the viewer "I have no idea what I've created here - you figure it out for yourself, and whatever you decide, that will be OK with me'. 

Two of my 'rules' for judging photographs . . . .

1.  Just because it's weird doesn't make it art

2. Just  because I don't understand it doesn't mean that it isn't art. 

Thank you for the new words . . . . 'Pseud's Corner', and, from another of your posts, 'antepenultimate'. 

. . . . Steven

“Poetry is when an emotion has found its thought and the thought has found words.”  . . . . Robert Frost

Hello, again, Steven. Thank you, also.

We do, indeed, appear to agree on a surprising number of points (most unusual for me - I seldom find people of a like-mind - so I am very sorry for what it might say about you!).

I have used a version of "Untitled" - something like "Robot No 137a" on a flower image, where I see no link and can think of no title; perhaps someone might make some link? The reason I tend to avoid the word "Untitled" is because I would probably label many of my images precisely that if I started. So I try to offer some link from my strange perceptions. However, the problem is that I often think I have a mental form of sythanesia and, rather than link (say) particular colours to a particular taste, I do not see logical patterns but forge all sorts of very strange links between, apparently unrelated, links. This has benefits in life but many drawbacks, too.

Your rules:

1. Absolutly (we agree) ! The same applies to monochrome and the new, latest, jittery-style. Also, I am very hacked-off with the number of YT photography vids which sell the concept that art is bestowed by technique. Thus, apparently "Fine Art Photography" is now achieved by anybody taking a long-exposure photograph of the seaside, regardless of anything else. Grr!

2. I fail to understand most things in the world, so would agree. However, I am a tad worried that, should I adopt your Rule No.2, I might have to admit that some Strauss waltzes and punk rock are art... that might be a stratch too far. So I'll think on't. :)

Glad you like those words. The phrase "Pseud's Corner" is a section of the famous and long-running British satirical magazine "Private Eye," where public figures have their pompous, over-blows quotes deposited. Over about seventy years it has stabled a fine collection from politicians, visual artists and rock musicians amongst many others. 

Robert Frost! Fab words from a brill poet - his nature poetry, especially, is wonderful. Thank you.

(Cut and paste, below) Here's a quote from Private Eye's photography collections (seems so apt for 1x, methinks):

From the introduction to a book of photographs by a darling of the collector set who has basically taken the same photograph a thousand times over the past twenty years.

“For his simplicity and his unbridled passion for his art, for all that has gone before and for all kinds of other reasons, a lot of which have nothing to do with photography, but a lot to do with art, and for never knowing when to stop chasing rainbows, B is a hero to his own generation and beyond.”

Perhaps we should all put the accolade on our CVs?

Cheerio for now.

Dear Woad,

Thank you for participating in critique - both ways.  We really appreciate when people spend time in our forum and try to help others. A lot breaks down to personal preferences, and recommendations are only meant as inspirations fro an other pair of eyes. I'm not fond of blacks in color photography. Black, even deep and taking significant space, can sort out the motif in b&w photography. In colo(u)r :-) photography it's heavy and distracting in my opinion. 

I applied a LUT called "Earth" to your photo, which  reduces the dynamic range from the lower tones up and gives it a warm, brown-ish ton. For the brighter tones I removed the effect by double- clicking the color modification (3DLUT) and pulling down the range it applies to. I also cropped a bit because I found your canvas too panoramic. Panoramas are there to explore, you have a clear subject, positioned on the 33% mark deliberately. I left it on that position, but reduced width a bit. Here's my take on your frozen leaf:

Maybe you like it... It's abit more abstracted and moody in my view.

Best regards,

Mike