07-31-2018, 10:57 PM
|
#2
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16
|
I really quite like the first shot.
|
|
|
|
07-31-2018, 11:26 PM
|
#3
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Delaware
Posts: 204
|
Photos of MOW equipment have always had a long history of getting the PAQ.
|
|
|
|
|
08-01-2018, 12:29 AM
|
#4
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,270
|
I prefer the second one.
As always, I have an intense dislike for large watermarks! Most can be removed, so why bother adding them in the first place? 
|
|
|
|
|
08-01-2018, 01:28 AM
|
#5
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Fairfield, Ohio
Posts: 24
|
1st shot is unique, but it isn't easy to see what's going on without reading the caption. The workers seem to be standing around, and while the human aspect is nice, it doesn't give a feel that they're working, it lacks action, IMO. That said, in favor of the second picture, however. 
|
|
|
|
|
08-01-2018, 01:33 AM
|
#6
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,674
|
I really like the second. The first - compared to many generic accepted MOW shots, would be a welcome addition, but on its own, not sure I like the composition with the pole straight down the middle of the frame.
Both show a process, each captured well - with the exception of the first with centered pole.
For the second - perhaps try again, but darken the brighter parts of the image - perhaps a graduated neutral density filter for the bottom ever so slight, and less brightness to the far right - even if it means cropping slightly, but only if the brightness can't be reduced.
Good luck!
/Mitch
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2018, 07:09 PM
|
#7
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: France
Posts: 59
|
Thanks at all for advises...
I will resubmit in few days...
__________________
My RPN pictures: Here
|
|
|
|
|
08-07-2018, 02:24 PM
|
#9
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,861
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel MINACA
|
Maybe mention that you had permission to take the photo, and were wearing the required safety gear? That seems to be the way to do it. Otherwise, some people might assume you were trespassing, and RP doesn't want to convey that.
Outside of that little tidbit of info you didn't include in the caption, I can't see why they'd reject this. It's a very cool shot. Lots to look at and appreciate.
|
|
|
|
|
08-07-2018, 04:04 PM
|
#10
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 432
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias
Maybe mention that you had permission to take the photo, and were wearing the required safety gear? That seems to be the way to do it. Otherwise, some people might assume you were trespassing, and RP doesn't want to convey that.
Outside of that little tidbit of info you didn't include in the caption, I can't see why they'd reject this. It's a very cool shot. Lots to look at and appreciate.
|
I agree, that's possible, but there is also a rejection for trespassing that can be used if that's the primary reason for rejection.
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:33 AM.
|
PAQ again
