|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 32 |
Aug 25 |
Reply |
Thanks Jennifer, I agree. probably there is too much room on the top.
|
Aug 31st |
| 32 |
Aug 25 |
Reply |
One of my close friends switched from Sony to OM - mainly to be able to carry longer lenses - he does a lot of bird photography. He tells me he does have to use denoise regularly, but his results are very good. So I think wildlife with M4/3rd is very doable. Andy Rouse (from England) used to post amazing wildlife photos using the OM system, but he has now switched to Sony - He is a brand ambassador, so I guess he goes where the money is. But the point is that if one knows one's equipment, it is usually possible to get the shot you want. Modern sensors and post processing software have made some of the old rules redundant. Even on OM system, I think an ISO of 4000, should be manageable. Because of VR/OS it is often possible to handhold at much slower shutter speeds than what I would have dared to in the past. |
Aug 17th |
| 32 |
Aug 25 |
Reply |
Diana, thanks - Yes- I am going to rework this image, with all the inputs received.
When out in the Jungle, I set ISO to auto, and don't really worry about what ISO I get, off course - I will open the aperture as much as possible if the light is low. Shutter is dictated by the action (or anticipated action). Then I have what I have - and have to work with it. If the shot is unusable because of high ISO, then so be it. Keeping ISO low and getting an underexposed shot is more difficult to manage in post, than a correctly exposed high ISO shot.
Also, Denoise in Lightroom does a great job, so these days, there is no real need for plug-ins or other software to deal with noise (at least for me) |
Aug 7th |
| 32 |
Aug 25 |
Comment |
Thanks Ed, does look better, I have to rework the image, thanks
|
Aug 6th |
| 32 |
Aug 25 |
Reply |
Thanks Tom, will try that
|
Aug 5th |
| 32 |
Aug 25 |
Comment |
Nicely done! |
Aug 4th |
| 32 |
Aug 25 |
Comment |
I like Tom's version. Personally I would have added a little more contrast and sharpening, to make the portrait more "gritty", but that is a matter of taste. |
Aug 4th |
| 32 |
Aug 25 |
Comment |
Stephen,
Interesting subject, but the shot does look rather bland. I have cropped to remove the weather canopy as much as possible as it doesn't go with the ruins. I guess this is not someplace you can casually go back to. If you could, I would think of using the tops of the walls as converging lines.
I guess you were restricted to the walkways, which would greatly restrict your point of view.
Regards
Som |
Aug 4th |
 |
| 32 |
Aug 25 |
Comment |
Ed, the colour looks better than the monochrome to me. I agree with Stephen that the black in the sky draws attention and the plant is too light in the mono.
Unless you were documenting plants in the area, forgive my saying so, but this is not something that appeals photographically. One has to do something to make the image grab the viewers attention.
Maybe put your camera on the ground close to the yellow flower, camera pointing upwith a wide lens, to get an image of a plant reaching up to the skies? That's one idea.
Or make a series of abstracts of leaf patterns, with close shots of the leaves?
My thoughts: your mileage may vary.
Regards
Som |
Aug 4th |
| 32 |
Aug 25 |
Comment |
Hi Wes, I have lightened the background, will try darkening it and see what it looks like.
Thanks
Som |
Aug 4th |
6 comments - 4 replies for Group 32
|
6 comments - 4 replies Total
|
