|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 32 |
Mar 21 |
Reply |
Got your two shots? |
Mar 7th |
| 32 |
Mar 21 |
Comment |
Looks like our once in a lifetime huge snowstorm here in Texas, but that is not a negative remark. IR works well in some images, altho I can't define, and it works well in this image. Your inclusion of some Zone 2 areas is very effective .. Nice. And the clouds seem to me to be just perfect. |
Mar 7th |
| 32 |
Mar 21 |
Comment |
Mono is my preference here. I like the comment from Ata to increase the contrast (at least on the dark side of the scale), and Diana's vignetting which creates a strong Center of Interest, ..... but your objective was to concentrate on the "patterns," so here again is an example of a Picture within a Picture. Nik has a variety of pre-sets that can be customized to create a lot of different vignettes. Do you have? |
Mar 7th |
| 32 |
Mar 21 |
Comment |
I think what you have here: A picture within a picture, or in this case, several pictures possibilities within a picture. It all depends on what your intention is for the shot. I don't see any bad alternatives, just a source from which to create several other images in the future. I like some of the suggestions already made, but I don't see only one perfect composition: You can "mine" this and similar images.
Aspens in BW are a favorite subject for photographers ...... And I have one in the Queue. |
Mar 7th |
| 32 |
Mar 21 |
Reply |
come to Texas. Our good guv'nr just opened everything up, so it must be over. (he's an all-knowing kind of an idiot), but travel is back to normal. |
Mar 7th |
| 32 |
Mar 21 |
Comment |
Indeed. A simple straight forward shot that includes several diagonals and triangles. (Think how boring it would be if the stem were to be vertical?) In the color version the actual (individual) seeds appeared sharper, so it must have been your intention to soften them. (EVERYthing doesn't need to be tack sharp to create a nice image.) I think you achieved what you intended: to make a nice soft image. |
Mar 7th |
| 32 |
Mar 21 |
Comment |
You've opened Pandora's famous Box (of creativity) so it obviously has gotten the attention of the group. I'm a bit late to the party so I have nothing to add other than What a Fun Time you have had. Probably good therapy to get the mind off of the Virus. Maybe this could morph into a similar attack, but not from a space ship, but from a SuperVirus? Lots of good ideas can derive from your work. |
Mar 7th |
| 32 |
Mar 21 |
Comment |
It's been a long time since we purchased one, so there may be a lot of other newer and better ones. I use a mini ball head but I have strong hands. My wife uses two, both Manfrotto. 496RC2 and 308RC .....the latter has only one control while the former has two.. I like the latter better. Both are sturdy (heavy) and good.
Our monopods are Manfrotto 679B.
It will be interesting to read what other DD32 members use.
If you have a good one on your regular tripod, it might be good to have the same on your mono so your reflexes only have to remember one way to do it. (ie, keep the stick vertical and use the ballhead to turn, tilt, swivel. That way the weight stays on the stick. Hold the camera as usual with left hand, palm up, under the center of weight. Let the camera flop down when not in use. Never lock the ballhead and try to swivel the stick around.
I've always liked Manfrotto.
Best to try one out on your monopod and see what you like. |
Mar 6th |
| 32 |
Mar 21 |
Reply |
With a long lens, if I'm not using a tripod, then I'm using a monopod. Can get tiring, but with a nice ballhead on the mono, it works fine for moving subjects. Just let the pod carry the weight, and you move the body/lens around while looking thru the viewfinder. If you don't have a ballhead on your mono, it's a disaster situation. |
Mar 5th |
| 32 |
Mar 21 |
Reply |
Learning Curve: Yep - My grandson gave me his Fuji 100 for Christmas and it's so much more complex than my Canon DSLR. So it sits on my shelf. Right now, I've come to the conclusion that I'll never need to take another photo since I can make all the prints and do all the exhibits with what I have already done and those that I'm reviewing for further action. I think the place to put money for "hardware" is in lenses. After all the body is just a place to hold the film....errr: I mean the digital thingey. |
Mar 4th |
| 32 |
Mar 21 |
Reply |
I use Helicon "Focus".
thanks
wes |
Mar 4th |
| 32 |
Mar 21 |
Reply |
Thanks. And: this image definitely violates the PSA's definition for Nature subjects where nothing can be added nor subtracted, much of which was done to create the composition here. |
Mar 3rd |
| 32 |
Mar 21 |
Reply |
Actually, I created the short stem in the original.
When doing so, I had to decide where to stop. I felt (feel) that to have taken it to the perimeter would be to create an "eye snag" that leads the eye away from the primary subject. With no stem, there is a nice line from the bottom blossom up and around and back, thus keeping one's eye in the picture. I think the stem placement is a matter of "what is/was the intention of the photographer," and this BW version, vs. the color version, is closer to a Fine Art image and less realism is necessary/required. |
Mar 3rd |
6 comments - 7 replies for Group 32
|
6 comments - 7 replies Total
|
