|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 64 |
Jun 22 |
Reply |
Thanks for your comments. It seems a bit flat to me. I have tried increasing contrast etc of course, to no avail, so maybe it's fine and my mental camera is wrong.
My grandfather was a blacksmith after WW1, and I'm a keen metal worker, but more machining than forging. |
Jun 20th |
| 64 |
Jun 22 |
Comment |
My first impression was that the baby was alone - I completely missed seeing the mother until I read the comments above.
So now the picture makes more sense to me, and I feel that lightening the mother, particularly her face, would bring hre into the picture more and show the interaction between the two. I'd then darken down the tree to stop it drawing my eye.
Alternativey, a severe crop (reframing, really) shows the interesting detail in the end of the branch that mirrors the baby's face I think! I've done a little retouching. |
Jun 20th |
 |
| 64 |
Jun 22 |
Comment |
I think this is well spotted in the first place, and very well developed to give this result. I agree with Jerry, some areas are hard to understand at first, but persistence pays off for me. The high key has come out almost like a posterisation with only a few levels.
I suspect you left in the building on the left to anchor the stairs. Personally I'd remove that, the stairs seem to me to have more impact without it. |
Jun 20th |
| 64 |
Jun 22 |
Comment |
I think the mountain looks great with its super texture and shape.
As Jerry says, I think the foreground isn't so interesting, althought the foreground grass does give depth. Trading the grass and say half the depth of the tree line for more sky would probably be good in my view. A viewing point a little to the right might have revealed more of the left site of the rock and lost the tree, if that were possible? |
Jun 20th |
| 64 |
Jun 22 |
Comment |
It's odd how different things attract different people. I'm sorry but I still dislike nearly all IR shots. They look false with no benefit over a standard mono to me.
Compositionally, I wonder if the obilisk is best shown off with the trees behind it? Would it have been clearer with the sky behind it? |
Jun 20th |
| 64 |
Jun 22 |
Comment |
What a fantastic trip! We are off on a river cruise on Wednesday from Passau in Germany along the Danube to Budapest, and then a couple of days there. Some outline similarity, but a rather smaller scope for us! Our ship has only 130 passengers, so we won't be dwarfing any other ships unless they are human powered!
Anyway, I think the mono conversion has improved the photo from a memory shot to an interesting picture. Ocean cruise liners are so large, but the vantage point enabled the fuel ship to be clearly depicted. I can't see how you could have improved it (except perhaps with a drone), but as Don says maybe a bit less on the right would help focus attention.
Super detail. I've just looked up that camera, and with 18 MPx on a 1/2.3" sensor and 30x optical zoom, it's a great travel camera and a good result. I must say I thought it was a picture taken from a quayside when I first saw it. Sony make some amazing sensors. |
Jun 20th |
5 comments - 1 reply for Group 64
|
| 95 |
Jun 22 |
Reply |
60mm micro 4/3 distance from camera to subject on 1:1 is about 7". On my Canon MP-E (65mm APS-C) it's about 8", and on my Canon 100mm macro about 11" (it's a big lens!)
I know you had a bad experience, but honey bees are very calm usually unless you squash them. Sole bees just want to collect pollen. It's wasps I mistrust! |
Jun 21st |
| 95 |
Jun 22 |
Reply |
Of course, we are just a bit picky! I'm not surprised it won at the competition, it's both attractive and different.
f2.8 is a challenge though. According to the program DoF, set for micro 4/3, your depth of field was less than 0.1mm |
Jun 20th |
| 95 |
Jun 22 |
Reply |
O guage is for model trains! |
Jun 20th |
| 95 |
Jun 22 |
Reply |
Yes, it was late evening and starting to get dark. I perhaps could have got a hand-held focus bracket done, I was just wandering around looking for things to shoot, and this one came out better than expected!
You've definitely improved it by noise reduction, Tom. |
Jun 20th |
| 95 |
Jun 22 |
Comment |
I like this, Keith. The flower is all context to the pollen as a result of your title, and that's fine for me. The cropping has improved it a lot - just a little green remnant in the bottom right to remove still! A bit of cloning or healing brush would fix that in seconds.
There's enough that's a bit soft to suggest that a smaller aperture would probably have improved it. You had plenty of shutter speed and ISO "space" to go to f11 or f16. |
Jun 20th |
| 95 |
Jun 22 |
Comment |
I like this! I like the stronger bottom lighting, it moves it from being a record / scientific shot to a more artistic one I think. Maybe retake with it a bit less strong bottom light, but don't lose the effect.
In that case, I wonder about it being "in mid air". Was it on glass? Or have you removed whatever it was placed on? I suppose a twig would look best.
As it was dead, as you say, trying to move limbs usually just causes them to fall off, which rather spoils things.
|
Jun 20th |
| 95 |
Jun 22 |
Reply |
Thanks, Pat. You 're right, it's not from a stack, and its head is a bit soft as a result I think. If it had been a person I'd have taken it facing me rather than away from me and then could have focussed on the eyes! It was on a tree trunk, if I remember correctly.
It was alive, but stayed still for quite a while. |
Jun 14th |
| 95 |
Jun 22 |
Comment |
I like the idea, and your strategy is bold! One might expect a complementary colour to the bee would work best, but no, this similar colour works well for me. Your blurring in post has added to the artistic effect, I like it.
Personally I always like some out of focus parts in artistic macro.
However I think that the best focus is just missed here, the sharpest parts seem to be the legs closest to us and hair on its back. I think that as with all live creatures, the focus must be sharp on the eyes, which is difficult with bees, but I suspect that the focus here is a mm or so too close to the camera for that. |
Jun 5th |
| 95 |
Jun 22 |
Comment |
Well, as with Bernie's I think this is a good, successful result, Pat. I love the bits of web that I can see, too.
You could have gone to 1/125 sec at f16 and got a little more in good focus, but actually I think there's no need to do that. Lots are nice and sharp, as is the leaf at the top, and the rest just adds context. Pity about the yellow dot which is well out of focus, it's rather distracting I think, a different viewpoint would be the best way to remove it. The light patch on the bottom left is also a bit distracting, easily cropped out.
But overall a nice result! |
Jun 5th |
| 95 |
Jun 22 |
Comment |
I think it's a good result, Bernie. Getting down to this size of subject is a struggle at first, but I'm sure you'll get hooked!
You seem to have made a good selection of camera settings. Some petals are a bit soft, but that's fine, they are a small proportion and can be seen as showing the subject realistically.
Well done! |
Jun 5th |
5 comments - 5 replies for Group 95
|
10 comments - 6 replies Total
|
