|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 15 |
Jul 20 |
Reply |
PSA forbids it for competitions. In the setting of a study group, since we are in the process of “study” with images that are not yet finished, it is permitted for the sake of demonstration. |
Jul 20th |
| 15 |
Jul 20 |
Reply |
If any edits would have been made, it would have been me, and I did not.
I see duplicates on occasion and it usually is from an inadvertent double-click of the [Submit] button. |
Jul 20th |
0 comments - 2 replies for Group 15
|
| 53 |
Jul 20 |
Reply |
Why didn't I think of that?!? d;¬{D |
Jul 26th |
| 53 |
Jul 20 |
Comment |
Based upon what Arabella did, here's my redo of my redo, showing a bit more of the model's arm, but cloning out the distracting poster: |
Jul 13th |
 |
| 53 |
Jul 20 |
Reply |
The more I think about your question, the more I realize I can't think of a situation where the "horizon" wasn't "straight". Even if you cannot actually see the horizon, there will be objects like trees or buildings that are perpendicular to the ground with which we can establish a sense of horizon. When those are tilted, we have a sense of being off-balance. |
Jul 13th |
| 53 |
Jul 20 |
Reply |
The issue with unstraightened horizons is the unease it causes to the viewer. When we are physically in a location, even if standing on a slope, our body rights itself to perpendicular. When we view an image that is tilted ever so slightly, our inability to adjust ourselves physically causes a bit of discomfort. It's like seeing a framed picture that is not level - we want to level it even if we didn't hang it. |
Jul 13th |
| 53 |
Jul 20 |
Reply |
Hmmm I'm curious why you cropped out the end of the slide. |
Jul 13th |
| 53 |
Jul 20 |
Reply |
Was that YOU peeking into the window this morning? d;¬{D |
Jul 13th |
| 53 |
Jul 20 |
Reply |
I know what you mean! d;¬{Ã |
Jul 13th |
| 53 |
Jul 20 |
Reply |
I think you're onto the best idea here. Perhaps a bit more of the hand holding the sunglasses. Hmmm. |
Jul 13th |
| 53 |
Jul 20 |
Comment |
Your treatments add color and texture that is very transformative. Your original is nice but rather bland, while your result is totally new and vibrant. Wonderfully done. |
Jul 10th |
| 53 |
Jul 20 |
Comment |
There are definitely some distracting elements here, but the basic image works for its purpose.
I would suggest cleaning up the pipe behind the customer, the cabinet on the left. I find the poster beside the customer is very distracting, but it would need something to fill in the space it currently occupies.
I did a quick heal and clone job to give you an idea about the 1st 2 items on my list, though I didn't put a lot of time into it: |
Jul 10th |
 |
| 53 |
Jul 20 |
Comment |
You capture some amazing images from your car - quite an eye. I'd be curious to know the camera settings you had to pull this in so well. I like the textures you applied and the painterly feel it resulted in.
I did find issue a little bit with the placement of the windmill, which becomes an important element in your image. I think that's what Stuart was attempting to address with his 2 versions.
I took your image into Affinity Photo, cropped it to put the windmill at the lower right sweet-spot. Then added the original sky, compressed to fit the new dimensions, then blended it in with the In-Painting Brush (equivalent to PS's Spot Healing Brush), because I couldn't bear to see that ominous sky cropped away. Thoughts? |
Jul 10th |
 |
| 53 |
Jul 20 |
Comment |
You brought out amazing detail, though it's clearly not based upon the dark original you submitted. Turning it into a sepia-toned image really fits and gives it an early 20th-century look.
I was intrigued by your original and wanted to see what it would look like pushing the silhouette of the church a bit more. I brought it into Affinity Photo, worked to correct the perspective of the church to upright, desaturated the sky, and cropped a bit off the top and right. Thoughts? |
Jul 10th |
 |
| 53 |
Jul 20 |
Comment |
Definitely a unique angle for capturing GG! Your focus is good and you lucked upon a great sky.
The thing is, from my perspective, the bridge is very much a background element, not the subject. I think you should focus the viewer's attention on the ornamental grasses in the foreground. Here's an approach to illustrate what I'm talking about: |
Jul 10th |
 |
| 53 |
Jul 20 |
Comment |
What an amazing place! Your angle of capture makes for incredible symmetry and the various groups of people throughout give a good sense of the dimension. Your focus, exposure, colors and composition are great. I have no suggestions. |
Jul 10th |
| 53 |
Jul 20 |
Reply |
Appreciate that, Stuart! I'm thinking it needs something, though. Can't put my finger on it. Hmmm... |
Jul 10th |
7 comments - 8 replies for Group 53
|
| 86 |
Jul 20 |
Comment |
You did a good job removing the distracting elements and focusing the viewer's attention on the important ones. Only suggestion I would make is to straighten the image a bit so that the things like the light poles and other upright elements are straight up and down. |
Jul 10th |
 |
| 86 |
Jul 20 |
Comment |
That's really very pretty, Phil. You added a sense of movement and a nicer choice of colors. Actually, I really like the bottom pane you started from as it is, too. |
Jul 10th |
| 86 |
Jul 20 |
Reply |
It's an app I found. It actually has a ton of options for free and many more for a small fee. |
Jul 7th |
2 comments - 1 reply for Group 86
|
| 95 |
Jul 20 |
Reply |
I looked into the Helicon Tube when I first started using Helicon Focus, but I didn't (and still don't) have a means of controlling it via phone or laptop. If you get Helicon Focus, they also have an app for certain smartphones or laptops that will control the camera in a similar fashion.
When I first started doing focus stacks, I manually did what this device does, change the focus using the focus ring (which this device does electronically). My results were less than satisfactory and I soon opted for the focus rail instead, which made a world of difference.
The issue with this device when it comes to true macro, is that it will be changing the focus point of the lens off of 1:1, which will mean your images will slip to close-up mode. Not really a practical approach, unless you're using extension tubes that pass the signal from camera to lens. |
Jul 24th |
| 95 |
Jul 20 |
Reply |
If you get the extension tubes that allow for communication between the camera and lens, there will be no functional difference. If you get the cheaper variety that doesn't pass communication, you'll no longer be able to adjust the aperture of the lens (or autofocus, which you don't want to do anyway).
You will, however, notice 2 things when using extension tubes of either type: 1) your distance from the lens to subject becomes a lot smaller; 2) your light decreases. Also, depending on the length of your lens and the amount of extension you add, your on-camera flash may no longer be practical because the lens may block the light on your subject and put it in shadow (lesson learned). You'll have more control over your light if you employ off-camera lighting (flash or constant).
I almost never shoot macro handheld because of my shaky hands, instead using a tripod most of the time which allows for a longer shutter speed. |
Jul 24th |
| 95 |
Jul 20 |
Reply |
The carrier attaches to the tripod, and the camera to the rail. There are 2 knobs on the side - one controls the tightness of the rail's movement through the carrier, the other advances or retracts the rail. All rails work pretty much the same, though the mechanism for moving the camera varies from rail to rail, with some being far more precise than others. The rail I have is not really that precise for stacks, but works extremely well for fine-tuning the focus without taking the lens off 1:1.
The camera can attach to either the fixed mount or the slide mount, depending on what works best for balancing the camera and lens. In my case, I used the fixed mount practically all the time. When attached to the slide mount and tightened down, the camera is still fixed to the rail. |
Jul 24th |
| 95 |
Jul 20 |
Reply |
Then a monopod might just be the answer, since it will relieve both hands of bearing any weight. I used a monopod for years and still have one in my car. |
Jul 19th |
| 95 |
Jul 20 |
Reply |
For me, shooting without a tripod is mainly a waste of time because of the shake in my hands. I do manage to get fairly good shots with my smartphone, but it's a heck of a lot lighter than my DSLR and lens.
Everything I could find on the Sigma 150mm lens indicates 3 switches on the lens - focus type, AF/M and OS. How many switches does yours have? |
Jul 19th |
| 95 |
Jul 20 |
Reply |
Bill -
In cases where the subject is an animal of some sort, which includes insects and arachnids, the eyes are almost essential and should be in focus. The eyes are how we connect with a creature and they often are the key to interpreting the mood of that creature. Spiders, in particular, show no variance of their eyes, so body language is necessary to determine mood, but the eyes are still the most important focal point. Softness elsewhere on the body is automatically compensated for by our brains if the eyes are in focus and composed properly in the frame. |
Jul 18th |
| 95 |
Jul 20 |
Reply |
When using a macro lens like you have, it's important to set the focus ring to 1:1, turn off autofocus, then either move the camera or the subject forwards and backwards until your subject comes into focus. If you adjust the focus ring at all, you will be no longer capturing true macro.
It took me the longest time to get this through my head. What made things better was my starting to use a set of extension tubes, which compensated for my adjusting the focus ring off of 1:1. Focusing is made easier if you use a focus rail, even if you're not doing stacks, because it allows some finer control when you're close to in focus. |
Jul 18th |
| 95 |
Jul 20 |
Reply |
You're very welcome. There are, of course, other approaches to reaching true macro, some of which can be quite pricey indeed. I went a couple of years before I got that I wasn't really doing true macro. That's when I got the extension tubes and started getting really close. I've learned a lot since then and there's still so much to learn. I follow a couple of guys on YouTube that I've learned a lot from: Allan Walls and Stewart Wood. Wood is basically a handheld macro shooter and does a lot of jumping spiders and other miniature beasties, and Walls is into extreme macro, but has some great videos on the basics of macro photography. |
Jul 13th |
| 95 |
Jul 20 |
Comment |
I think it's a little pricey at $209, but it does automate focus adjustments. Here's the thing, though, the device will be changing the focus of the lens, which means it will not be capturing at 1:1 if you use it. If you're not concerned about true macro, this could be a convenient gadget for doing stacks in a remote setting. If you want to do true macro, however, this is not the device to use.
You're better off using regular extension tubes, like these https://www.amazon.com/SHOOT-Extension-Focus-Digital-Cameras/dp/B072PYB94B/ref=sr_1_18_sspa?crid=1O7Z144ZQVDFF&dchild=1&keywords=extension+tubes+for+nikon+f+mount&qid=1594665345&sprefix=nikon+f-mount+extension%2Caps%2C218&sr=8-18-spons&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUEzRDFNNDZWNjNMR1RZJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwOTc4MjcwMU43RFhPQ0YzM1NZTCZlbmNyeXB0ZWRBZElkPUEwMTIzNDk0MkxUT0YwTTJWREZMNSZ3aWRnZXROYW1lPXNwX2J0ZiZhY3Rpb249Y2xpY2tSZWRpcmVjdCZkb05vdExvZ0NsaWNrPXRydWU= ($37), which is what I've been using for a few years now. You will be a lot closer to the subject, but you can use the focus ring and still be in true macro. There are cheaper versions that don't pass on info from the camera to the lens, but you won't have aperture control with them. |
Jul 13th |
| 95 |
Jul 20 |
Reply |
That's not a bad idea, actually, d:¬{D |
Jul 13th |
| 95 |
Jul 20 |
Reply |
If you move the focus ring off 1:1, you're no longer shooting macro. If you cannot adjust the position of your camera, then you must adjust the position of your subject until it comes into focus. Also, make sure your camera is in manual focus mode, not auto.
I follow several macro photographers who do not use a tripod and have learned to move back and forth until the subject comes into focus. This takes a lot of practice. I have enough shake in my hand that I must use a tripod.
Another way to focus while on a tripod without using the focus ring is to use a focus rail. The one I use was around $20 and I've used it for years. I can adjust the position of the camera very precisely to get my subject in focus. This also allows me to do fairly precise focus stacks, but that's another discussion. Here's a link to one just like mine: https://www.amazon.com/DSLRKIT-Focusing-Slider-Updated-Version/dp/B007L41QZG/ref=pd_sbs_147_5/138-7071498-6850544?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B007L41QZG&pd_rd_r=3a93103b-118e-4d8e-86f2-5b1fb426160d&pd_rd_w=Htz38&pd_rd_wg=kQ6rd&pf_rd_p=bc074051-81d1-4874-a3fd-fd0c867ce3b4&pf_rd_r=EVN2VCSK1W939C36PT7R&psc=1&refRID=EVN2VCSK1W939C36PT7R |
Jul 10th |
| 95 |
Jul 20 |
Comment |
Nice job capturing this little guy, Carol! The focus on its face is where it needs to be for being at F9 with its rather shallow DOF. The fact that you got a live one is even better - I typically have to stick to ones that have expired. The angle of the shot lets us see the shape of the whole spider well enough.
While the dark line is a little distracting, it's also kinda representative of a spider's silk in reverse. I really don't mind it as I'm drawn into the spider's eyes and fangs straight off. |
Jul 10th |
| 95 |
Jul 20 |
Comment |
Lovely flower, Barbara. I agree with Stuart about the top getting cut off, and would really like to see you get a lot closer to your subject so we can see details in the pistil and stamen.
For true macro, it's important to set your lens to its 1:1 setting and move the camera or subject until it comes into focus. Otherwise, you will only be in the close-up range. You might also consider picking up an inexpensive set of extension rings to get you much closer to your subjects. |
Jul 10th |
| 95 |
Jul 20 |
Comment |
This is absolutely fascinating, Stuart! Your angle of capture makes for a great study. The rendition you did for Carol is even better, as the colors give more dimensionality to the image. Some dodging and burning would bring out even more. |
Jul 10th |
| 95 |
Jul 20 |
Comment |
Also in agreement about the crop being too tight. Otherwise, this is a very nice floral image. I wonder if it reaches the 1:1 threshold of true macro, though.
Here's my crop, with some dodging and burning thrown in for free: |
Jul 10th |
 |
| 95 |
Jul 20 |
Reply |
Only controls are position of the lens vs the subject and the brightness of the ring of LEDs. The scope's software is extremely rudimentary - start/stop video or snap a low-res photo. |
Jul 9th |
5 comments - 11 replies for Group 95
|
14 comments - 22 replies Total
|
