|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 60 |
Jan 22 |
Comment |
I like macro, and have spent a fair amount of time on it, but it seems to be seasonal. Thanks for the compliments on the DoF. In this case, I was shooting in the field, with a live subject, so maintaining a constant composition long enough to do a focus stack didn't really seem like an option (plus it would have been pretty impossible with the older camera I was using).
One of the big reasons I posted this was to get some idea of its shortcomings, because I already submitted this to PSA ND (so I could not have removed the dust and grime from the back) and it only got a 9 . It's one of, if not my best macro-in-the-field shots, and I really thought it would do much better than that, so I wanted to get other trained eyes on it to see what it's failings might be. I gotta say, it was a little bit of a kick in the teeth, but all you can do is try to learn from it and move on.
By all means post it in your other group. Thanks for thinking of that. |
Jan 21st |
| 60 |
Jan 22 |
Comment |
Concur on the lighting. Seeing this really reminds me of the caveat in the ND definition about the importance of the nature "story." It makes it. Frankly, I don't mind the sticks/nesting material, which I think are sufficiently...homogenous? that they don't interfere with the image and kind of act to frame the pair. I dig the razor sharp beady little eye, and am not seeing anything overexposes (I did a little pixel peeping and can still see a touch of detail in the whites). So, short story, good planning and execution pays off. |
Jan 16th |
| 60 |
Jan 22 |
Comment |
Thanks for the suggestions Jane. I'll check those out. |
Jan 13th |
3 comments - 0 replies for Group 60
|
3 comments - 0 replies Total
|
