|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 64 |
Apr 23 |
Comment |
A strong foreground often is key to a good landscape, I find. The cactus is starting to provide that,but it is a little camouflaged to me by its surroundings. I would try to alter its brightness a little to make it more prominent. Maybe even have got a bit closer to it as well to help with this.
However overall I like the photo too, it gives a stron sense of a wild place.
Unusual camera settings, it that caused by the phone? Using f1.8 wouldn't be seen as a good choice for a DSLR I think as it's well away from the lens' sweet spot, with bags of light available, although it looks reasonably sharp to me.
|
Apr 16th |
| 64 |
Apr 23 |
Reply |
I'm glad that you were able to see something worthwhile there after a while, John. Just repeating the same type of photo doesn't help me to develop, I find.
There's no "grain" in the sense of high ISO noise or film grain. The bobbly effect is caused by the greys having been replaced by white or black. I assume it maps greys below 127 to black and above 127 to white, but you can shift the histogram of course with a brightness layer and change the overall effect.
Thanks! |
Apr 15th |
| 64 |
Apr 23 |
Reply |
Ah yes, I see the likeness. Your teeth would have come off the worse if you'd tried to bite my subject! ;-)
You've given me a good macro idea for Group 95, thanks. |
Apr 11th |
| 64 |
Apr 23 |
Reply |
What's a Pizelle, Jerry? I attach a picture of the whole end of the seat. |
Apr 11th |
 |
| 64 |
Apr 23 |
Comment |
Thanks, Helen. It's definitely not something I'd do to many images, but can be interesting. I remember doing it in darkroom days.
I haven't used Photoshop. In Affinity, you add a posterisation layer, and the dialogue which appears lets you select any number of shades of grey from two upwards. |
Apr 11th |
| 64 |
Apr 23 |
Comment |
This reminds me of when we were in Australia, people left boxes of unwanted items on the side of the road for others to pick up and take away. Great idea, people should be repurposing and recycling more. Here, people would probably get a fine.
I think it has made an interesting picture. I might have cloned out that object on the road.
|
Apr 8th |
| 64 |
Apr 23 |
Comment |
Another good graphic image,Helen! I've been to Lyon several times to pass through, but not to stay, so I've not seen this before.
I don't think it's someone else's work. The building was, but your photo of it is unique and your work, so I would disagree with any such complaint. Not that that usually gets me anywhere....... |
Apr 8th |
| 64 |
Apr 23 |
Comment |
I think this is well spotted and well photographed. The mono conversion is very interesting. I like the featureless sky too, it lets us concentrate on the buildings.
The waterline cuts the photo in two, and its bul isn't very interesting to me. I think that by cropping say half of it off, the water would complement the buildings better and make for a more balanced photo. |
Apr 8th |
| 64 |
Apr 23 |
Comment |
Great capture, Don! Your timing was spot on. The composition and pose of the bird are ideal I think. An excellent eye, both yours and the birds.
Could you extract a little more detail from the dark areas under the wings and body using the dodge brush?
|
Apr 8th |
| 64 |
Apr 23 |
Comment |
I like that you've caught him in his habitat, doing his thing. Well, trying to, anyway. I hope he had some luck later.
I like the reflections and the details. The dark water makes a nice background to the bird.
I wonder if cropping off the bank would detract from the overall, giving the bird more prominence? |
Apr 8th |
7 comments - 3 replies for Group 64
|
| 95 |
Apr 23 |
Comment |
Oh well, I'll get Sue to take a picture of me in it. I was wearing it yesterday, checking the little ladies are all fine, but splitting their home into two. Nasty beekeeper! But they we chock full, they might swarm, and I don't want that. So soon they will be two families. |
Apr 30th |
| 95 |
Apr 23 |
Comment |
I think this is well establised as one of your styles, Carol, and very nice it is too.
I know we differ slightly in how much blur we feel comfortable with, so it will be no surprise to hear that I think the spoiler here is the blurred bottom centre area. Being closest, had it been sharp, I think it would have given more impact to the photo. The same can be said for the front edges of the petals, although less so.
I was at my club's "mage of the Year" competiton last night, and the judge was criticising a white vignette on an entry, saying it "almost never" worked well. Perhaps we should send him some of your photos, as the white vignette here is lovely, I think. It gives the whole photo a lift into lightness, which you usually achieve with this style. |
Apr 19th |
| 95 |
Apr 23 |
Comment |
Generally, I find that dead insects like this take on foetal-type poses that makes them difficult to photograph. Sure, you can move them around (brittleness allowing) which is good, but they often look dead, which spoils the photo I think, making more a scientific record shot.
The antennae and much of the body have a grey outline - has that come from masking to remove the background? Maybe not, there is a feint shadow, which is much better than no shadow.
As Pat says, there are a lot of specular highlights, which is another issue with many insects. A polarising filter often helps to reduce these. Otherwise, good lighting.
I don't understand how a macro lens could only produce your original as its highest magnification - how big was the wasp? Our wasps are typically 1.5 cm long, easy to get 1:1 with a normal macro lens. |
Apr 19th |
| 95 |
Apr 23 |
Comment |
I think I'd have been pretty pleased if I'd taken this, because taking bugs in the wild is quite a challenge. Such opportunities present themselves for short periods of time, you can't be too fussy about backgrounds, etc. However the "failure" or "not quite" shot is the commonest. I think after my initial enthusiasm I'd have put this into the "not quite" category. The best learning comes from such shots, if you take the punch on the chin, which I often don't so avoid such subjects by and large!
I'd agree with the comments above, there's a lot right with your picture, but overall the composition lets it down. I always try to remember my own advice, as shots cost virtually nothing with digital cameras - take as many as you can until the beast moves away! |
Apr 19th |
| 95 |
Apr 23 |
Comment |
Thanks for your comments.
The enlarged view (click the image in the normal view) is quite revealing here, and I've spotted a number of processing artefacts which I should have removed. However it also shows that whilst the body is nice and sharp, the head is out of focus, so I should have used a smaller aperture and compromised on shutter speed and ISO, as stacking wasn't practicable.
I do like bees! My colony of honey bees will become two, and I'll get some photographs taken of them this year. It's hard holding a camera in a bee suit, though! |
Apr 18th |
| 95 |
Apr 23 |
Comment |
Thanks Carol, but I think you've hit a nail on the head - I'm going to have to get out of my over-sharpening habit. I think I've been over-impressed in the past by some razor sharp images, and been concerned about my micro 4/3 sharpness from time to time (most probably caused by the operator, not by the equipment), so I over-compensate. Sometimes it's a nice result, but here, whilst the bee's hairs were nice IMHO, other parts were not.
I've looked at cropping in a bit more, and yes, I think it improves.
So here is a revised version - any improvement?
|
Apr 9th |
 |
| 95 |
Apr 23 |
Comment |
Ha! I guess you had to put it nearly on his nose to get such a close shot! Poor animal, the things they have to do for owners!
;-)
I think it's come out well considering he won't have been still, and the sensor depth of field would be small, so any hand wobble would have messed it up. It's just the light areas on the right that I don't care for. Crop, and darken the remains?
|
Apr 8th |
| 95 |
Apr 23 |
Comment |
I think this is an interesting picture, Pat.
Full frame cameras are heavy for macro work hand-held. I do recommend that you get a focussing rail to help, it will make all the difference for you. Make sure it is heavy enough to prevent the camera wobbling, I'm sure you know. You did a good job considering this, and the details aren't too soft in my view.
The leaves look nice after lightening. Personally I don't often like white vignettes, I find that dark ones concentrate the eye on the subject better in most photos.
|
Apr 8th |
| 95 |
Apr 23 |
Comment |
What an unusual plant. Glad there aren't any here for kiddies to chew on.
I like your photo. The blurry bottom is fine to me too, it just shows that the seed pod is deep and gives a good leading line to the sharp top.
The usual comment applies, I think. Bright bits which are not the centre of attention ought to be darkened down to prevent them being distracting, and your top right and bottom left worners both have bright parts. I would just paint over them with the burn brush in Affinity, Photoshop etc, and they will easily disappear.
Nice new camera! We expect technical perfection from you now ;-)
|
Apr 8th |
9 comments - 0 replies for Group 95
|
16 comments - 3 replies Total
|
