|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 68 |
Jul 17 |
Reply |
I would have just told the guy to sell me a couple of "feeders", ones that are used as food for larger fish. You probably wouldn't get the best image from those fish, though. |
Jul 5th |
| 68 |
Jul 17 |
Comment |
Very clever idea, well executed. I like the concept, and your image captures and perfect. I probably would have had to wait for my wife to leave the house for awhile before I would attempt such an image.
|
Jul 5th |
| 68 |
Jul 17 |
Comment |
This is a good capture, but some cropping would make it much more accessible. I think that the background over the top of the butterfly should be cropped out. It is way too far back to be included in the image, and it doesn't add anything to it. After all, you want the viewer to look at both the butterfly and the flower, and I think at would be more comfortable to view with the to cropped out.
John |
Jul 5th |
| 68 |
Jul 17 |
Comment |
I think you have a good image here, but the camera was not held parallel to the stage or floor that the dancer is performing on. As a result, the ceiling is slanted so that the viewer has a hard time fusing the images into a good 3-D pair. It may not be possible to manipulate the images to correct the problem.
Perhaps the best way to see the problem with this pair is to look at the dancer's head relative to the ceiling. On one side, it is bi-sected, in the other, it is not connected. This reminds me of the Stereo Realist, which had a level built into the front of the camera to provide a reference to level the two chips.
John Ballou |
Jul 5th |
3 comments - 1 reply for Group 68
|
3 comments - 1 reply Total
|
