|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 58 |
May 21 |
Comment |
When I have a spare half hour, I like to surf the groups looking for pictures that grab me. This one grabbed me! I love the dynamic involvement between the waiter than the potential customers. The scene with the jugs, display cabinets, bottles (keep them even though incomplete - it just links in the picture we can't see!) and the menu sets a clear scene, and the faces tell the detailed story. Wonderful!
It's a pity a little of the shoes is chopped off, but often street scenes don't wait for us to delay, so imperfection is quite acceptable to me. As a result, I wouldn't crop it. I'm glad you kept it in colour, a routine conversion to mono would have lost the great colour in the cabinet.
I would however clone out the red sign, and maybe even the lady in the red dress, if you don't object on principle.
I wish I'd taken it. |
May 6th |
1 comment - 0 replies for Group 58
|
| 64 |
May 21 |
Reply |
Thanks, Isaac.
It's interesting that Jerry also commented on the "square" crop. It was accidental, I was studying the contours of the full image to find a simple flowing result, and it just came out square-ish. What do you mean by "in context"? |
May 9th |
| 64 |
May 21 |
Reply |
Thanks Jerry. Just an optical illusion then, or my wonky eyes. I have a "thing" about vertical verticals, and once seen I need to convince myself! I rarely set up a tripod with a pan head on to get really straight horizons, and the software always seems to do a good job an any hand holding errors, but I just wondered here. |
May 7th |
| 64 |
May 21 |
Comment |
It has a nice sepia appeal to me. Attractive sweeping lines leading up to the rain. A fascinating scene with bags of depth.
My first reaction was that it isn't level, but the more I look, the right is level (witness the level horizon and evenly sloped sides of the rock structure on that side) whereas the left seems to me to be tilted clockwise. Is it possible the stitching has cause this? |
May 6th |
| 64 |
May 21 |
Comment |
You could turn it all pink, I suppose!
Quite fun. Great contrasty detail, perhaps helped by the bright sunshine. The shadow at the bottom troubles me a little. Would a little off the left benefit by removing some, or would it be better to lighten / clone some out?
|
May 6th |
| 64 |
May 21 |
Reply |
|
May 5th |
 |
| 64 |
May 21 |
Reply |
Yes, there are such clever people in the world in so varied theatres. I couldn't even begin to model a full size elephant, and if I did it would look hideous I'm sure. I'll attach a more understandable picture now.
If we are strict in the interpretation of the term "macro", no, it isn't, it's not high enough magnification. Macro really refers to pictures where the image on the sensor is as large as the subject itself and greater (magnification x1 or more), whereas this is probably around x1/10. The subject is large! Macro would have the eye filling the frame. But it's certainly "close up".
Taking identifiable macros is a topic we are wrestling with a bit over in group 95. Come and have a look! Comments are very welcome. |
May 5th |
 |
| 64 |
May 21 |
Comment |
I have to confess I immediately thought "Infra red!" (It's no secret that I don't like infra red photos as a general rule.) But no, it isn't, and that is most interesting. A great capture of unusual light!
The size of the tree is also impressive to me, so I wouldn't crop it.
Alas, though, I think you need to rotate it a few degrees anti-clockwise, as the verticals (edges of the house) ain't vertical.
|
May 5th |
| 64 |
May 21 |
Comment |
I think you are absolutely right about the range of greys. I took a screen shot and pasted it into Affinity, and you can see the histogram below - the most bell-shaped histogram I've ever seen! There are some blocked blacks and burned whites, but they are small enough to not compromise the picture in my view. The brightest windows perhaps could do with a tad more toning down, they do glare at me a little.
As a picture I think it's an attractive one. Ceilings in churches and cathedrals are awe-inspiring at times. A far cry from plasterboard and emulsion paint! Often I see pictures of such ceilings taken perpendicularly, concentrating on the pattern, but this picture highlights those patterns but puts them nicely in context. |
May 5th |
 |
| 64 |
May 21 |
Comment |
I do like the detail of the animals in this picture. It has a nice flow, and some of the hooves have a bit of motion blur despite the shutter speed, which adds to the feeling of movement.
I think that, given your intention with the picture, a little cropped off the left, say up to the flag, or maybe including the flag as that would remove the wheel as well, would be better. I suspect the same is true for the sign on the right - better out than in. Pity about the hand obscuring the face - a short burst might have caught a better one. The same is true of the second person, the flag is obscuring him a little. Bad luck! |
May 5th |
| 64 |
May 21 |
Comment |
I've got to agree with Helen. The colour version is very attractive, although I would suggest some background darkening to emphasise the main blooms would add to the impact as the small flowers in the background do reduce that for me. Having said that, the background seems less intrusive in the mono version, but it loses clarity and detail in the petals somehow from the colour version. The stigma have lovely detail in both versions, but overall the colour version works best for me. |
May 5th |
6 comments - 4 replies for Group 64
|
| 95 |
May 21 |
Reply |
Me neither, but it was part of my research which led to my MP-E. I tend to think that the scope for pictorial creativity drops as the magnification increases, so microscope pictures are going to be mainly analytic, technical illustrations or abstract I think. But one day I might be tempted. |
May 18th |
| 95 |
May 21 |
Comment |
Hi Tiffany,
That's a super shot! I'm used to seeing my bees with pollen all over their rear legs, but they never look like that.
FYI, you bio looks like you intended a link to be in there, but it's missing for some reason.
Seems we both have a Canon 90D. Mine's quite new and I'm not thrilled with it at the moment (I'm too used to mirrorless) so might swap it. Tom has a Laowa 2.5x-5x, and I have a Canon MP-E 1x-5x plus Olympus macro stuff. |
May 15th |
| 95 |
May 21 |
Reply |
What's MeWe?
As I'd concluded previously, if we want to go closer than 5x, then a stereo microspcope seems to be the way to go. You can get those going from 6x to 40x, decent quality ones cost under $1000, and have an option to attach a camera for photography. My [or I should say my wife's ;-)]Bresser digital microscope has no facility to take an external camera, I'm stuck with the rather crappy internal one, so after playing with it I found it a bit of a non-starter. |
May 5th |
| 95 |
May 21 |
Reply |
Thanks, Carol, we aim to please!
Yes, a Laowa was an option I considered. I felt the lack of 1x to 2.5x in its range was a hindrance. They do a Canon fit version, but not an Olly version (when I could have used my Olly macro lens + extension tubes etc to fill the gap), so having to buy a different body seemed to push me towards the Canon MP-E and a Canon body instead. The MP-E is 3x the price which was a hindrance, but everyone said how brilliant it is, I figured it was the right choice. I had far more difficulty deciding which body to put it on. Many advised a 60D, and that would have been much cheaper than a 90D, but I figured I need all the help I can get, and had I found it lacking then I'd have blamed my choice of an older model......
The disappointment is that in non-macro use I find the 90D's viewfinder a real hindrance after using Olympus mirrorless for so long, but the choice available in Canon APS-C mirrorless bodies hadn't inspired me. Now I'm looking at a Canon RP and have ordered one on the Canon loan system to try out in a couple of weeks. I'll report next month! |
May 5th |
| 95 |
May 21 |
Reply |
A polarising filter sounds like an excellent idea. The MP-E has a 58mm filter thread, and the closest polariser I have is 72mm. I found some stepping rings and nearly got there, but failed to find a 67-72mm. There must be one round here somewhere....
A hand held stack at 4x - in my dreams. Even my M1 doing internal braketing at up to 60 fps is unlikely to achieve that! (If I could have mounted the MP-E onto my Olly M1 I'd have skipped the Canon 90D body) I should have said that no buds were harmed in the taking of this photo - it was on a tree, about 5' above the ground! |
May 5th |
| 95 |
May 21 |
Comment |
A hummingbird workshop sounds interesting. I gather you were taking pictures of birds and then inserting them onto backgrounds like this. It would seem very suitable for that due to the lovely soft bokeh, and space on the left.
I did notice the shape and thought "that looks like a butterfly". I'm afraid I find it rather distracting, wishing I could see the butterfly! But maybe when a stronger main focus of attention is there, it will have a "supporting" role in the picture. That's just me - somehow animate life trumps inanimate life. Does anyone else think that way?
Anyway, I do like the flower, it nice and sharp, and the other buds and their stems are attractively arranged around it. |
May 5th |
| 95 |
May 21 |
Comment |
I suspect it's a Platycodon grandiflorus (Jacq.) A.DC. (Chinese Bellflower). ID courtesy of https://identify.plantnet.org/the-plant-list/identify
This has come out well, I think. The palette is limited, but varied enough to be interesting and sort of soothing. The anthers stand out really well, not too much to exceed the DoF, but enough to give depth. All the radial lines draw attwntion to the centre. The area towards the tips of the petals are a little soft, but this just increases the draw of the centre.
I like it!
|
May 4th |
| 95 |
May 21 |
Comment |
I can see we are going to have fun with these lenses! Interesting pattern and textures, it looks rather like wood grain.
Can't resist playing with filters in Affinity! This was gradient map / darken |
May 4th |
 |
4 comments - 4 replies for Group 95
|
11 comments - 8 replies Total
|
