|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 64 |
Jan 21 |
Reply |
Yes, an improvement I think. |
Jan 18th |
| 64 |
Jan 21 |
Reply |
Thanks, number 3 is out, then! I've often disagreed with judges who focus on this "odd numbers" "rule", and you are all just proving that.
Regarding the sharpness, your exposure setting would have been better, I agree. Lack of attention on my part. I often get distracted by the subject and fail to scrutinise the camera. This lens isn't Olympus' best, although it can give surprisingly good results sometimes. One issue I've always had with both my M5 and M1 is that sometimes I get poor results, and at other times I get exceptionally good ones, and 50:50 hindsight doesn't explain either.
I don't know the exact distance of those ducks, but let's say it was 20m. I think it was probably further, but let's err on the safe side. If I use the PhotoPills depth of field calculator (which I've found is used by several PSA members with whom I've discussed DoF), it gives a total DoF of about 3m. I don't think the foreground ducks are 1.5m apart in distance, but the camera might have focussed on something too far forwards I suppose. |
Jan 9th |
| 64 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
Well, you did the right thing, then! I hadn't thought of it hanging from the (photograph) frame. I'm surprised there wasn't some sign of the stress at the hanging point (eg more intense folds close to the hook or pin) which would have allayed that feeling of "floating". Without that, I was imagining it was on the floor and we were looking down on it, which seemed OK- but you know how it was photographed! Either way, I still like it, and the uncropped version. |
Jan 7th |
| 64 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
Yes, I too think it's a dramatic picture. I like the variety of shapes and balance of straight and curved lines. |
Jan 6th |
| 64 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
Very imaginative and a nice result, I think. I like the shape and the simplicity. Plus the contrast, of course!
My only comment for improvement would be not seeing the top of the scarf. I think seeing it would make it look more complete. |
Jan 6th |
| 64 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
Great night citiscape,Stan.
I think the foreground is a bit distracting as it looks a bit like out of focus railings or something, but I can see it's texture on the water and reflections of the museum and far buildings. Would a little cropped off the bottom improve this?
But lots of detail and shape to like here. I like the clouds too. |
Jan 6th |
| 64 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
I think it wouldn't benefit from a vignette, as it is pleasing to have this consistency of tone in the darker and lighter areas. I like the paralellism of the bricks too that you've created.
As for a stroke, yes I think every photo to be seen on a monitor benefits from one. I just need to keep telling myself as I usually forget!
|
Jan 6th |
| 64 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
Wow, love this too! Strong lines, great tone and tone contrast, nice graphic contrast between the bridge and the jagged reflections. Sharp too. What's not to like?
Well, I wonder a littleabout the telegraph post top left - I would have cloned that out.
And what about the house - a bit distracting it might be said, but cropping it out loses the nice symmetry of the bridge, so best left in I think. The building is nicely muted but its reflection is quite bright- perhaps darken that a little?
|
Jan 6th |
| 64 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
There's this "rule" of threes that judges like. What have we here? 1 1/2 peaks, or 2 1/2 if we count the smaller foreground one.
I'm just pulling your leg, John. Happy New Year, one and all.
I like it the way you do. Probably a mono without the need for a mono layer, except for the sky which I guess was quite blue. But this works well as mono as we then have the light texture of those clouds against the hard rocks.
Love it! |
Jan 6th |
7 comments - 2 replies for Group 64
|
| 95 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
Nothing more for me to say. I agree! |
Jan 18th |
| 95 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
An interesting photo! The light is great.
I agree, Tom's removal of the 5th seed improves it. It was on the edge too, spoiling the harmony. Pity about the 4th one. Ididn't notice it at first, but once seen it does spoil the flow of the picture. The stem (?)top left is a little distracting for me as it's different. A great subject for more shots. |
Jan 18th |
| 95 |
Jan 21 |
Reply |
Looking at the noise between all three, it seems to me that Affinity and Topaz have done similar jobs. Your addition of clarity has certainly enhanced the texture over both (I didn't try that. I was just looking to denoise it). I like the crop off the left to remove the different petal pattern, but that off the bottom. |
Jan 17th |
| 95 |
Jan 21 |
Reply |
Thanks, Tom. Yours still doesn't appear to be "tack sharp", as lots of non-macro photographer think is essential. I would argue it is (as much as we can get it) - the apparent softness is the nature of the surface, I agree. As I come from RAW files all the time, I use both clarity (usually in the Develop persona) and unsharp mask (in the Photo persona), and then usually some noise reduction, although that often has no appreciable effect |
Jan 16th |
| 95 |
Jan 21 |
Reply |
Ollys can be controlled from a PC or a phone too. I did try it but haven't used it much. When I had a 14-50mm "macro" lens (another "macro" lens that can't do proper macro) it could be zoomed as well as focussed from the PC. Fun! |
Jan 13th |
| 95 |
Jan 21 |
Reply |
Do you think the stacking software requires that the steps between frames is the same? I'd not thought about that before. When doing stacks by manual increment, I don't take much care over making them the same, althought the repetitive movement must be roughly similar I suppose. I've just been taking a pic of a tiny flower (3-4mm diameter) and getting soft areas. The petal tips are all nice and sharp but the internal surfaces look like there's fog in there, which I can't understand or correct. But I was incrementing by hand.
Your new rail looks sturdy. Not cheap though. My Velcon one was a similar price and doesn't look sturdy, but seems to be. I did look at the Novoflex one which looks even better and can be motorised, but it is "sharp intake of breath" price. Did I tell you I bought a Novoflex reverse adapter? Beautifully made, but due to the vanishing lens to subject distance (which the far end part of the adapter reduces by about 15mm), it was close to useless IMHO. Sold it again! |
Jan 13th |
| 95 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
Yes, they are absolutely beautiful. Being quite large, we do have to crop and seek interest from a fraction of their total.
I've been having a discussion with my mono colleagues on group 64 as I submitted an "unsharp" picture taken with my M5 and 14-150 "consumer class" Olly lens, as sometimes I get unsharp results and can't explain it in hindsight.
In this case, however, I did a lot of critical looking after seeing the result on my computer, and came to the conclusion that the texture and of these blooms just aren't "sharp" in the way we think of it. If you look at the black areas, some of their outline is pin sharp, so why shouldn't other features at the same distance be equally sharp? The answer, I think, is the nature of the surface.
As for the composition, yes, I agree, the black is a bit intrusive. I still like the overall shape; perhaps I should have worked on the background when I lit it to get a more pleasant look there, a bit like in the far background nearer to the top? |
Jan 11th |
| 95 |
Jan 21 |
Reply |
So the magnification of both photos was similar? Being familiar with ice crystals, I knew the sort of magnification there, and I realise now that part of my initial impression was some degree of confusion because I thought that the two photos were at very different scales, as I associated the blooms with normal narcissus types rather than miniature ones. The paperwhites I've just found on the internet are closer to "normal" narcissus size, but sounds like there are other varieties out there. |
Jan 11th |
| 95 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
You've created a very pleasant photo, I think,Carol. It has a somewhat diffuse look, but there are areas I can see which mean it can't be criticised for lack of sharpness. At f2.8 I would expect a noticeable depth of field, but I don't know what are "paper-whites" and why the subject was flat. Being flat you escape the DoF problem of course, provided you get the sensor plane dead parallel with the subject.
But whatever, I find it very pleasant to look at. |
Jan 6th |
| 95 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
By the way, all the best for 2021, everyone! |
Jan 6th |
| 95 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
Well first and foremost I'd say its a really nice study. The cropping intensifies the focus on the centre, and the yellow colour and detail there adds to the draw to my eye. Super!
As for the noise, yes, it is a bit noisy. All I've done in the attached was to take a screen shot, open it in Affinity Photo, apply the noise reduction filter at maximum settings, and this is the result. Denoising usually reduces the sharpness a bit, but I think it's done a good job of removing the noise at little cost to sharpness. Having had a tripod (I hope you had image stability turned off!), it's true you could have dropped the ISO, taken a longer exposure so long as the subject was still, which I think it was from your description. But whatever, it's still very pleasant in my view. |
Jan 6th |
 |
| 95 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
Novel subject! It looks like bread to me too.
I would agree, apparently not as sharp as we might expect. But I'm learning that some subject just don't look sharp as they have no features that we associate with sharpness (high contrast edges). My picture this month of an orchid interior is a case in point - it just is that way. Let's see if people disagree! But f45 is well into diffraction country. We've seen this lens at incredibly small apertures before and I don't recall it being a limitation, though. |
Jan 6th |
7 comments - 5 replies for Group 95
|
| 98 |
Jan 21 |
Comment |
There are a few people from other groups who regularly comment in my groups! I'm not one to do that much really, but I do sometimes.
I like this, but do like Beverly's modification too. Might I suggest that the 2nd from left guy in the background needs a little space, as Bob suggested - his cap is just clipped. Clone brush would sort that out.
ATB Stuart
|
Jan 29th |
1 comment - 0 replies for Group 98
|
15 comments - 7 replies Total
|
