|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 64 |
Aug 22 |
Reply |
Thanks, Chris. I love photographing things like this. I must say that the colour version has an appeal too, but my love is mono. The light was existing, natural light. |
Aug 24th |
| 64 |
Aug 22 |
Comment |
Thanks for your positive comments! |
Aug 16th |
| 64 |
Aug 22 |
Reply |
You must have an unusual predictive text system! |
Aug 8th |
| 64 |
Aug 22 |
Reply |
There was nothing "handy" to press into service, so yes, it was literally hand-held. A fairly steady hand and image stabilisation can give amazing results these days. |
Aug 8th |
| 64 |
Aug 22 |
Comment |
The tones are very nice in my view. However, I'm finding the thin branch and leaves closest to the camera are spoiling this picture for me. |
Aug 7th |
| 64 |
Aug 22 |
Comment |
This is another well spotted mono, Helen. The composition and conversion are super. Sorry, I don't share your view of the leaves (I presume this is the detail on the top right). I would remove those, they resemble a pimple on a supermodel's face to me! |
Aug 7th |
| 64 |
Aug 22 |
Comment |
Clearly you are a surf man! I do like the subject and composition of this shot, action all the way.
I'm wondering if a bit more contrast would add to its punch?
When I was starting photography in my teens, I read a book where the author said "If colour is important to a photograph, use colour. If not, use mono". I've always followed that philosophy, and it's appropriate here, I think. |
Aug 7th |
| 64 |
Aug 22 |
Comment |
What a lot of windows! It's an odd building I think, with different building materials in different places, but interesting symmetry.
I like the photo and the mono conversion, although I would prefer the white cloud on the right to be darkened a little. |
Aug 7th |
| 64 |
Aug 22 |
Comment |
A fascinating story, John, and a splendid photo for a phone. I'm still surprised by phone cameras, I just find them so awkward to use.
I wish that the frame hadn't made the top left corner of the building opening touch the frame - can you add the frame to the outside rather than to cover the edge of the photo?
The NIK conversion has done well, to me, the plaque seems more alive than on the original.
|
Aug 7th |
6 comments - 3 replies for Group 64
|
| 95 |
Aug 22 |
Reply |
Hi Gloria,
Thanks for your comment. You are not alone with that wish (see above). It's just personal choice I think, and some even think that the cropped stamens mirror the cropped petals nearby. |
Aug 23rd |
| 95 |
Aug 22 |
Reply |
Thanks, Tom. It was one of those shoot where you set it up, take a number of images, then on review realise that one is special in some way. I put this into a club competition last weekend and it came second, which was pleasing. The "haze" might be light, but I think it was just the subject getting out of focus.
The tips of the stamens (dots) on the edge were lost because as the focus shifts, the image is progressively cropped, and Helicon's merged image is cropped to the closest image. I'd made the mistake of not putting enough space round the exdge.
However the weekend judge, a very experienced national and international judge, didn't comment on either issue. He wanted to give two firsts, but as competition secretary I had asked him not to give duplicate awards, so he tossed a mental coin and I misssed out. Such is life! |
Aug 23rd |
| 95 |
Aug 22 |
Reply |
What "resonates" with other photographers and judges is one of the mysteries of photography I reckon. But generally a single point of interest seems to do better than two. I like your picture with the landed butterfly better.
Sorry to hear about covid for you. Depending on the variant, it will probably pass like a cold. My wife and I got it four weeks ago. She hardly noticed it whereas I've been distinctly lacking in energy since, but slowly getting better. |
Aug 15th |
| 95 |
Aug 22 |
Reply |
I cheat on this as well - see https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/biodiversity-counts/plant-identification/plant-morphology/parts-of-a-flower for a good diagram ;-)
From that, I think it's the pistil.
|
Aug 15th |
| 95 |
Aug 22 |
Reply |
Thanks, Pat. The miniature world continues to fascinate me. I've been noticing recently that many wild flowers are tiny, so would make good macro subjects, even several blooms on a single 1:1 picture like this. I have a small plot of wild flowers in my garden, I need to concentrate on them. One problem is that when the flowers are packed tightly together, I always get parts in the viewfinder that I'd rather do without. Perhaps I should just do some macro horticulture and trim them off, but in a way a formal presentation of a perfect specimen isn't what I'm looking for.I don't suppose it would impress a judge who is looking for the latter, but I like it as it's "real".
|
Aug 15th |
| 95 |
Aug 22 |
Reply |
I'm no botanist or gardener, I get my flower names from https://identify.plantnet.org/ most of the time.I'm no poet, either, so such titles go over my head. |
Aug 14th |
| 95 |
Aug 22 |
Reply |
I'll have to try that! |
Aug 14th |
| 95 |
Aug 22 |
Reply |
I note that you don't say what the flower is. I don't think plantnet would identify it from such an image, so I've not tried (my knowledge of flower names being appalling). Do you think that not identifying it lets the viewer concentrate on the artistic outcome, the actual flower type having become almost irrelevent? It's just that it gives you a problem with the title."Softly" is obvious, but "Slowly" is less so to me. |
Aug 8th |
| 95 |
Aug 22 |
Reply |
I keep a stock of A4 light cards in different colours as backgrounds. Sometimes these are too plain, and I have some fuzzy abstract colour prints which I made, in different predominant colours for those situations.
BTW, static lighting can be used to get shadows on multiple sides, or a reflector for your flash, although trial and error is needed for that. Ring flash is brilliant for single shots of things that move, but you can set up static lights more easily for static subjects as you can see what you will get.
|
Aug 8th |
| 95 |
Aug 22 |
Comment |
Thanks, both. My current hardware and software setup works well for me. The hardest part still for me is finding subjects and/or viewpoints that are a bit different. This arrangement popped into my viewfinder screen as I browsed the plant (which had dozens of flower heads, all about 1/2" diameter) and so I said "Thanks very much!
|
Aug 8th |
| 95 |
Aug 22 |
Reply |
That's an interesting point, I should set up an experiment sometime to test it, if I can.
We rely on the software to select which pixels, or more likely pixel areas, to place into the final merge (I presume, I don't really know) and if the frames were perfect overlays of each other then I guess it wouldn't matter how many frames were being used in the stack. However if there were some movement between frames, even a pixel width or two, it tries to de-ghost somehow which must mean some guesswork, interpolation and so on to place the pixels or pixel areas to correct this and to complete the job. So, I've always thought that more frames will lead to some deterioration of the sharpness or accuracy of the final result. But I could be completely wrong!
I'll see what I can find out. |
Aug 8th |
| 95 |
Aug 22 |
Comment |
I do like your subtle flower photos, Carol. You have reached your goal here, and the result is delightful. |
Aug 7th |
| 95 |
Aug 22 |
Comment |
A nice subject, scope for lots of pictures.
The focus merging doesn't seem to have worked very well in my view - the surface texture and green surface look a bit fuzzy to me. I'm not familiar with PS, so can only comment on the result.
I think a more neutral surface rather than the green woven material would be better and less distracting. Also, I think it would be better if it were less tight in the frame. |
Aug 7th |
| 95 |
Aug 22 |
Comment |
Leaves have such lovely patterns and textures, and this is no exception. 16 images at f16 sounds a bit drastic, isn't it fairly flat? Whatever, the result is good, I think. |
Aug 7th |
| 95 |
Aug 22 |
Comment |
An interesting picture, Pat. I'm debating with myself whether including the out-of-focus vertical edge (bottom left) helps or hinders. You must be close to 1:1 as even f20 hasn't given you enough depth of field for that to be sharp, and the very top part, too. On balance I think I like it. |
Aug 7th |
| 95 |
Aug 22 |
Comment |
Hi Gloria, and welcome!
I think this is a striking photo. I'm surprised how blurred the butterfly has become at 1/40 sec shutter, they must beat faster than I realised. As such, I needed your narrative to explain it to me. A different title might explain it without need of a narrative?
The focus and depth of field are good. I would burn in the light yellow to avoid it being distracting. |
Aug 7th |
6 comments - 10 replies for Group 95
|
12 comments - 13 replies Total
|
