|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 95 |
Mar 26 |
Reply |
Agreed! I don't do the watermark unless I'm posting on the Internet. I appreciate the input, though! |
Mar 25th |
| 95 |
Mar 26 |
Reply |
Thanks for the input! It is greatly appreciated! |
Mar 19th |
| 95 |
Mar 26 |
Comment |
I redid my flower with the center now reflecting the original sharpness. I didn't like the way it looked, so I cropped it to a 1x1. Thoughts? I think it needs a slight corner vignette at a minimum. |
Mar 10th |
 |
| 95 |
Mar 26 |
Comment |
Hi John, I decided to play around in Photoshop with this a bit...I cropped it to approximately a square, tightening the crop. I then warmed it up just a little and then added some contrast, first with dodging and burning, and then with an S-Curve using Curves to make it more drastic so you could see it. It may not be any better but see what you think? I think you could do it more subtly, but I just was trying to show an example of what I was talking about. |
Mar 10th |
 |
| 95 |
Mar 26 |
Comment |
Wow!! Cool bug, great capture. So sharp and detailed with stunning color capture. I think the only suggestion I would make is to try to capture its face if you see another one. The eyes are so important in live things, even bugs. I have been watching a video of Emile Talpin (hope I got that right) and she talks a lot about capturing the face. Unlike many macro photographers, she will sometimes capture the face perfectly, and the body is behind but not the real focus area (almost like photographing a flower and showing some hint of a stem only so it doesn't look like the flower is floating). |
Mar 10th |
| 95 |
Mar 26 |
Comment |
This is a nice image...and I agree with Margaret about the tighter 1 x 1 crop. It has nice symmetry and is very sharp throughout. The lighting is extremely even; I might even suggest you try to increase the variation of shadows v. highlights here and there? |
Mar 10th |
| 95 |
Mar 26 |
Comment |
I think this image is wonderful for its sharpness and detail in your subject! I have also had the consistent problem of the magnification increase when stacking, and I always forget as well. I think I see the "haloing" you are referring to...is it the white line on the rear underneath of the grasshopper? The only way I've been able to eliminate those is 1) using caution if I either lighten my subject or darken my background in post or 2) using a teeny clone brush and going slowly right along the halo line. Maybe someone else has another idea? At any rate, it isn't very noticeable, honestly. My only other input is to always straighten the horizon line...in this case, the very bottom row of ???cement? |
Mar 10th |
| 95 |
Mar 26 |
Comment |
I feel like when comparing the original to the "processed" image, the tonal values of your highlights are much better in the original? I do see your explanation on the response to John's comments, so maybe I just prefer the unposterized (is that a word?) treatment? But it's always fun to try something new. |
Mar 10th |
| 95 |
Mar 26 |
Comment |
This image is so impactful in its softness and blending between the overfly and the flower. For me, the softness feels appropriate to the image, especially since the front part of the hoverfly is in focus. The white balance is great as is the amount of details in the highlights and the shadows. Great job! |
Mar 10th |
| 95 |
Mar 26 |
Comment |
A beautiful abstract. My own personal feeling is that either a border is large enough to be a real frame, or else I would leave it off entirely. It doesn't seem to add anything to the image itself and is so thin as to be almost invisible. |
Mar 10th |
| 95 |
Mar 26 |
Reply |
I sometimes just set my ISO below a thousand, for no reason at all except that is a low-noise range for me. I had the shutter speed very high because I was hand-holding in a very bright light. I will try what you suggested for the center and see how I like it, but I did like the fact that the circular pattern was consistent throughout the flower. Thanks for the suggestion! |
Mar 8th |
8 comments - 3 replies for Group 95
|
8 comments - 3 replies Total
|