Ivan Letokhin, can you show the original? The scale is clearly out of sync here; the reed leaves and other plants, and the birch trees, can't be that big.
Pavel Nagin, are you implying that the "doves were cut off"? Perhaps. I'm looking at the closest birch tree on the left—it's way too big in relation to the girl. Although, 17 mm might be fine and distort the proportions quite a bit.
Ivan Letokhin, nothing could be simpler than to present this unbelieving Thomas Pavel Nagin as a rabbi, thereby proving the truth of both this work and your own words. Pavel will apologize, and your good name will be preserved.
The local truth-tellers screwed up, it happens )))
Vic, oh, grab a cookie from the shelf. But seriously, the author significantly misled the viewer. Because the original was significantly edited. Due to the "stretching" of the frame lengthwise and crosswise, the proportions were distorted. Therefore, there were reasonable doubts. Or am I wrong here?
Ivan Letokhin, I agree, the original is fine. I agree with Alexander, the original is better, and the resulting image distorts the proportions and is misleading.
Pavel Nagin, but for me, the difference between the work and the original is like the difference between an evening dress with a wasp waist, suffocated by a corset, and a simple cotton sundress with small flowers on the brim - it might be easier to breathe, but there's no effect)
Alas, the girl wasn't shopped) I don't care about tags, I put the portrait everywhere
Letokhin Ivan, not at all, alas, quite the opposite
And regarding the category, you're being disingenuous - on the portrait of the white rat, they wrote "nature and animals," and there's also "wedding photo," "person"... ..well, you're still not above thinking for half a second)
I mean, with so many letters, I like the processed photo better than the original, and what questions are there? arose - the author himself is to blame)
Ivan Letokhin, the girl wasn't photoshopped, you were telling the truth.
However, there's a lot of geometric Photoshop, and this is photo art. Pavel Nagin is right about the unreality of this work. I think the misunderstanding was resolved in the best possible way. It's advisable to correctly indicate the category, because reportage and realistic elements are very important in almost all photo categories.
I liked the author's work. It adds to the unreality. The original photo is boring and dull. But the green is too much
I don't get it. Why the hell are all these paid idiots on this site talking about lens focal lengths, in this day and age? What's so funny about that? Have they already introduced paid accounts or what???
The second circle, in short, even though the entire Civilized World has already completed the Third, and in some places even the Fourth Circle!
They're real idiots. Especially the one who isn't saying goodbye!
Atlas, don't get personal; it's better to write about the photos.
Pavel Nagin, First: I didn't get personal, that's how I started. Second: I don't say goodbye has no personality. He's a troll.
Third: Give site visitors a crash course in demagoguery, because a list of literature and advice for budding amateur photographers is already available in the relevant forum thread.
But I have no formal complaints about the second part of your comment. Yes, it is a photography site, after all.
I don't get it. Why the hell are all these paid idiots on this site talking about lens focal lengths, in this day and age? What's so funny about that? Have they already introduced paid accounts, or what???
About the Second Circle, in short, even though the entire Civilized World has already completed the Third, and in some places, the Fourth Circle!
They're real idiots. Especially the one who's not saying goodbye!
Very good work, and the guys who doubt are just fulfilling their mission; they can't do it any other way. Without them, it would be really boring here.
Although, 17 mm might be fine and distort the proportions quite a bit.
Here it is - https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/89294108/%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0.jpg
The local truth-tellers screwed up, it happens )))
But seriously, the author significantly misled the viewer. Because the original was significantly edited. Due to the "stretching" of the frame lengthwise and crosswise, the proportions were distorted. Therefore, there were reasonable doubts. Or am I wrong here?
I'm not saying goodbye, well, to each their own)
is like the difference between an evening dress with a wasp waist, suffocated by a corset,
and a simple cotton sundress with small flowers on the brim -
it might be easier to breathe, but there's no effect)
Letokhin Ivan, not at all, alas, quite the opposite
And regarding the category, you're being disingenuous - on the portrait of the white rat, they wrote "nature and animals," and there's also "wedding photo," "person"...
..well, you're still not above thinking for half a second)
I mean, with so many letters, I like the processed photo better than the original,
and what questions are there? arose - the author himself is to blame)
However, there's a lot of geometric Photoshop, and this is photo art. Pavel Nagin is right about the unreality of this work.
I think the misunderstanding was resolved in the best possible way.
It's advisable to correctly indicate the category, because reportage and realistic elements are very important in almost all photo categories.
I liked the author's work. It adds to the unreality. The original photo is boring and dull.
But the green is too much
Why the hell are all these paid idiots on this site talking about lens focal lengths, in this day and age?
What's so funny about that?
Have they already introduced paid accounts or what???
The second circle, in short, even though the entire Civilized World has already completed the Third, and in some places even the Fourth Circle!
They're real idiots.
Especially the one who isn't saying goodbye!
First: I didn't get personal, that's how I started.
Second: I don't say goodbye has no personality. He's a troll.
Third: Give site visitors a crash course in demagoguery, because a list of literature and advice for budding amateur photographers is already available in the relevant forum thread.
But I have no formal complaints about the second part of your comment. Yes, it is a photography site, after all.
Firstly: I didn't write this. It's copypasta.
Secondly: the original was much better quality. The site is compressing it.