|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 64 |
Feb 21 |
Reply |
Thank you! Firstly, that day was one of those days when you come home with a cardful of good images. I'd been a bit reluctant to go out as it was cold, and of course we had lockdown, but I had my arm twisted and went knowing at least I could take my camera! So glad I did.
Secondly, this technique (taking a RAW file and manipulating it to deal with a high contract ratio) is very interesting. This actually is a simplified version of the full technique which can be found here - https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/tutorials/photo/desktop/video/341759551/
I'm routing out other older images to give suitable ones this treatment! |
Feb 15th |
| 64 |
Feb 21 |
Comment |
It looks pretty sharp to me, Jerry. A super shot, telling a good story.
I would have taken an HDR bracket and seen if that could improve the picture, by revealing is bit more detail in the dark parts of the interior. But I often do that and find I prefer just the one, best-exposed image. But nothing is lost by taking them! |
Feb 9th |
| 64 |
Feb 21 |
Comment |
Divided opinion! I like the grain, but not the loss of detail in the table top. I'm unsure of the value of the vertical shadow, although it is revealing detail in the egg's reflection (as is also done in the egg's shadow). Perhaps that can be exploited, as the interplay of egg, its shadow and the reflection is fascinating. |
Feb 9th |
| 64 |
Feb 21 |
Comment |
Much better in mono! Very interesting. My only comment would be, how about blurring or toning down the words on the left? |
Feb 9th |
| 64 |
Feb 21 |
Reply |
With the viewpoint being half way up the building and the camera horizontal, I would expect to see it too. But the depth is considerable compared to the height, so perhaps that explains the lack of apparent perspective?
|
Feb 9th |
| 64 |
Feb 21 |
Comment |
I think this is great. I don't think I'd have guessed it is 50 years old, but the people do seem to suggest antiquity for some reason.
It's a social commentry in my view - the effect of a surreal sculpture on the public. Nowadays I suppose it would be water off a duck's back, but then it would have been quite controversial. Which ages it for me, perhaps that's why it seems old. |
Feb 9th |
| 64 |
Feb 21 |
Comment |
A great shot in those conditions. In this country I suspect it would have been locked and the public banned! Super industrial archaeology. |
Feb 9th |
| 64 |
Feb 21 |
Comment |
Very nice. Often I think "milky water" is overdone and false looking, but the balance is just right here for me.
I horizontally flipped a copy of this and found myself prefering it slightly. Flow from left to right usually gets my "peaceful" vote. |
Feb 9th |
| 64 |
Feb 21 |
Reply |
Thanks, Don. I like your breakdown into different characteristics of the photo.
In fact the sand is snow! One of the disadvantages of a mono conversion, I guess. |
Feb 4th |
6 comments - 3 replies for Group 64
|
| 95 |
Feb 21 |
Comment |
I think this is a pleasant abstract macro photo. The original has interest but doesn't have much impact for me, and Tom's variant is much more striking I think. |
Feb 21st |
| 95 |
Feb 21 |
Reply |
Two points, here.
First, I didn't want all the flower to be sharp,I wanted the far edge to be a little soft to give a sense of depth,so I didn't stack, although selective stacking can control the DoF to what you want, of course. A single shot at f22 seemed to achieve this. The classic argument is that f22 suffers from diffraction, but we've seen your lens at f32 works well without much sign of diffraction, so whether it's a contributor to softness here, I'm not sure. Maybe I should have stacked a few over the front edge at f8 or f11.
Secondly, your Topaz AI result is perceptively much sharper in places than mine, particularly in the body of the petal as you point out. Did you just do this from a screen shot? Software these days is becoming both excellent and offering too many options! I've just been messing with Franzis Sharpen Projects Prof 3 this evening, and coming to the conclusion that it can't beat Affinity (using clarity in the Develop persona and unsharp mask in Photo persona), although it seems to introduce less noise sometimes). But Topax clearly beat Affinity here. I trialled Topaz some time ago and came to the conclusion it wasn't any better, but maybe I was wrong. |
Feb 20th |
| 95 |
Feb 21 |
Reply |
Yes, I think you're right. |
Feb 20th |
| 95 |
Feb 21 |
Reply |
Hi Carol,
I'm wondering if I'm misunderstanding you. The dioptre adjustment in our viewfinders is just for helping people who need eyesight correction to see the viewfinder sharply without their specs on. I fall into this category, but I haven't adjusted the setting since unboxing the camera, there should be no need to unless my eyesight is changing.
The far edge of the flower is a little out of focus, but I'd intended that to distinguish it from the front edge and to give a little feeling of depth. The front edge might not be pin sharp; I'm not a good judge I'm finding of distinguishing between what is an unsharp image of a perfectly sharp edge, and what is an inherently "blurry" edge. Tom and I have been debating this recently on our Bulletin Board, as the problem seems to get worse as the magnification increases. Many objects up very close seem to have edges which are diffuse in some way, and natural edges like this seem particularly prone to being this way. If the edge is that way, then the best camera in the world won't change that perception. I've been looking at the many other images I made in that shoot, and they all look similar in this respect. So I don't think it's camera shake, or a stacking fault (as none were stacked!) which sometimes reduces maximum sharpness, I do think it's the nature of the petal surface. If anyone has a different perception, I'd love to hear as I'm often looking at my gear and asking "did you cause that, or did I?"
|
Feb 16th |
| 95 |
Feb 21 |
Reply |
Yes, I got it. Am composing a reply right now! |
Feb 13th |
| 95 |
Feb 21 |
Reply |
Thanks, Bob. I didn't really analyse the background, just moved it about until I liked it without really thinking why I liked it. So next time I'll think about it more (but it might not be as nice!) |
Feb 11th |
| 95 |
Feb 21 |
Comment |
Hey Tom, don't tempt me into buying more kit, please! Fortunately that lens isn't available in micro 4/3 - yet, at least. Their 2x macro is available in micro 4/3, so maybe it's a matter of time. Pity they couldn't manage to make it take over from "normal" macro lenses at 1:1 and go up to 5:1, but the gap can be covered well by tubes. I look forwards to seeing your results.
This looks nice and sharp, well merged and finished. Some might say "Where's the subject, then?" but to me the whole picture is the subject, and there are lovely details all over the place to keep my eye busy. Very good.
Suggestions - well only the loss in the shadows could be improved for me. Perhaps a directional light pointing straight into the centre might lighten them? Failing that, how about stacked HDR? I recently took a panorama of a sunrise here with 18 sets of 5-image HDR sets, and processed the HDR sets in Franzis HDR Projects (my latest software acquisition, has some advantages over Affinity HDR, together with their Focus projects for focus stacking which is good and more akin to Helicon). Having said that, I returned to more familiar territory and panorama merged them in Affinity and the result came out well. So maybe 27 sets of HDR merged in Affinity? Come to think of it, only the further-focussed steps would need HDR to lighten the shadows. Worth an experiment?
I've not explored the features of 1.9 yet. A friend has tried the astro features, and said it needs James' tutorial to understand! |
Feb 10th |
| 95 |
Feb 21 |
Comment |
I see lots of pictures of these little critters on the net, yet I don't think any live here in the UK. Is this a jumping spider? I gather they are all tiny with a row of eyes.
You've done a great job to capture it in a flower. The focus is bang on the eyes which is great, although more depth of field would have been a bit better I think, as the front legs in focus as well would have made it "scarier". But maybe f22 is your smallest aperture (mine too). Tom has a lens which goes to f32 I think.
I would crop it a little as the spider is overshadowed in my view by the sweeping petals. Also lightening the spider and darkening the petals, especially the yellow parts, would focus attention on the star of the show. |
Feb 10th |
| 95 |
Feb 21 |
Comment |
I like this. It reminds me a little of my orchid last month, but you've not used a straight-in view, your view is oblique and better for that I think.
The focus on the centre is bang on, and the depth of field is sufficient for that. Your foreground and background are going soft, but if that was your intention then it's bang on. I like it this way, too sharp on the far petal would be distracting from the focus of attention.
In terms of a high key theme, there's not much of the white background to give the dreamy sort of image that we often see with this technique. It's only the background that needs chronic over-exposure; this and having the main part of the image at the top end of the histogram is all that's needed I think, but it's not a technique I use much.
I love the water drops. I forget to do this, they give it such a "fresh" feel. |
Feb 3rd |
| 95 |
Feb 21 |
Comment |
Well, I'm the last one you shold ask really as I know nothing much about flowers, I just like them and look them up on plantnet.org! I've tried to do that, but it thinks they are most likely dahlias, or failing that zinnias. But to my limited knowledge, those are much bigger flowers. Drying does reduce the size and distort the appearance (in a botanical sense), so I can't say I blame the site!
As a photo, I do like it, and I think you are using the depth of field to good effect to give an attractive pattern as well as interest in recording the flower itself. The exposure and post treatment does a good job of the detail I think. Maybe the centre could be lightened just a little bit more to add to its pull to the eye?
In terms of depth of field, a little more would bring the rear petals of the main flower into focus, which I think some would prefer. At f16 you're heading to that end, maybe your lens has f22 as well? Failing that, a 2-shot stack would have grabbed it, although stacking afficionados would then say stop up for better sharpness and do a merge of say 10 images with smaller increments. But the sharp parts of this are sharp enough for me, so why make life complicated, two would do. More shots at higher aperture would also blur the background more, and that might not be desired as those flower might become indistinct blobs rather than support the main flower.
In terms of composition, I would like a little more space on the left of the main flower to balance the picture - I think the main flower is a bit too much off centre. You could crop a little off the right edge and maybe then also the top, but I like the space as it is apart from wishing for a little more on the left. |
Feb 3rd |
5 comments - 5 replies for Group 95
|
11 comments - 8 replies Total
|
