|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 64 |
Jan 18 |
Comment |
I agree, images for judging in comps and images for appreciating at leisure are often very different, and generally I prefer the latter too.
I mentioned in my bio a piece of advice that I read many years ago regarding the value of colour. I think that both colour and mono versions have merit. I think that the textures in the mono are delightful, but the contrast between the rocks and the distant background is much reduced in the mono. Cropping off the background loses the "explanation" that it gives to the rocks. Whereas in the colour version (no. 2), the identity of the background is clear, and I think that makes it a better picture. Colour is important here (in my view). |
Jan 13th |
| 64 |
Jan 18 |
Comment |
Yes, it's a very deep subject for macro, so it's not surprising that the DofF is inadequate.
I'm not sure about other makes and models of cameras, but my Olympus cameras do focus bracketting. This means that they can take a number of images (up to 999) with the focus point progressively shifted away from the camera, so you set how many to take and how much to change the focus between successive images. Then you focus on the closest point and press the shutter release and off it goes. The camera or Affinity Photo can then take these images and combine them, a bit like a focussing version of HDR. An interesting feature of this is you get effectively a broad depth of field, but the falloff to out of focus in front of and behind the range of focus points used is as quick as the aperture used gave on the single images, so background items are not brought into focus as they would possibly be with a small aperture. I've used it a lot. It takes a bit of experimentation, and I prefer to process the result in Affinity than in the camera (so that I can select which images to use). There are also dedicated programs for doing this such as Helicon Focus which is very good. |
Jan 13th |
| 64 |
Jan 18 |
Comment |
I hope I'm not infringing any copyright here! My poor copying technique should mean no-one would be upset |
Jan 13th |
 |
| 64 |
Jan 18 |
Comment |
I've nothing to add, I agree with the others.
I was reading a National Geographic today (Jan 18 issue) and a guy has been taking videos of birds in flight and then combines selected frames into one image. They are fascinating! |
Jan 13th |
 |
| 64 |
Jan 18 |
Comment |
Another converging verticals pic, and here it is even and, I think, looks right. The dome is a huge part of the building and even in the "straight" picture it looks unusually large to me. The "straightened" one done by John looks quite unnatural to me. Great experiment, though.
I agree, the sky makes it an even more interesting, dynamic image. Great! I'd love to see a 3D version of this! |
Jan 13th |
| 64 |
Jan 18 |
Comment |
Great texture! It looks very sandy to me, almost like loose sand. I think it's very interesting and enjoyable. |
Jan 13th |
| 64 |
Jan 18 |
Comment |
Sorry, I'm a very rectilinear guy and like verticals to be vertical! As we have converging verticals, I can cope with both sides out equally. Perhaps if you correct the converging verticals it will lose some feeling.
We are used to photos with an "appropriate" background to highlight a portrait, and there's no-one in this picture. Would a model help? Perhaps they'd be a bit too small if showing the big picture like this. Although people above have noticed the open door, so maybe not.
Having said that, I do like it for the reasons others have given. |
Jan 13th |
7 comments - 0 replies for Group 64
|
7 comments - 0 replies Total
|