|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 64 |
Jun 24 |
Reply |
Thanks, John.
It was a dull, grey day, and no end of messing with the controls and layers in Affinity seemed to be able to make it "pop".
The compostion was pretty much Hobson's choice, but I agree, I was fortunate to find that vantage point.
|
Jun 19th |
| 64 |
Jun 24 |
Reply |
Thanks, Jerry. Initially I saw the small boats as "in the way", and there was nothing I could do about it. But you are right, there is a harmony. The little boats remind me of the bees following the queen in a bee hive. |
Jun 19th |
| 64 |
Jun 24 |
Reply |
Thanks, Chris. I thik you describe the background well, I'll remember that for future similar images.
There was little scope for altering my viewpoint, so "no conflict" is just good luck. The Historic Dockyard suffers from what seems to be common here - overcrowding. Plus to access any non-public areas (Which are in the majority) you have to pay an entrance fee of over 50 GBP, even for pensioners. That's a lot for a couple for only a few hours we think. Museums here now seem to have jacked their charges up a lot, in return they say "your ticket is valid for 12 months". Well, that's grand for locals, but when it's a 5-hour drive away, we are very unlikely to return to most of these.
Still, I did get a few nice shots, this and some visible parts of Victory. Most of that, and all of Marie Rose, were hidden by tarpaulins / structures as they work on them. |
Jun 15th |
| 64 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
I do like your cropping of the original to emphasise the leaning tree and its reflection. I agree with Don, the rippling of the surface causing the reflection to be a little disturbed is good, as it delineated the real from the reflection - a mirror reflection would have been less interesting here, I think. Plus, you've moved the shoreline off the half-way point, which I think is better composition. A good result! |
Jun 10th |
| 64 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
Sorry, Kiesha, but this image doesn't float my boat. I do a lot of macro, often of flowers (small ones, or parts of flowers), and sometimes I convert to mono to see patterns, textures and contrasts better.
In macro, deciding the depth of field is a key input to the photo, and maybe you planned the rearmost petals to be soft, but somehow that doesn't seem in keeping with the image to me. The difference betwen the sharp left foreground and soft right background is uncomfortable to me, and the lack of distinction between the outer petal edges and the upper right petals confuses the picture to me.
Your dodge and burn has emphasised the patterns on the petals, but sorry, I find it too strong. The blocked-in bottom of the rose is distracting, and I prefer to see a stem on a flower picture that shows the whole flower.
The sepia, in my view, is a nicer rendition of a delicate flower.
Sorry to be critical, only trying to help! |
Jun 10th |
| 64 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
My initial reaction was "Super", until I noticed the original, and thought "Superb". Then I read your narrative, and must agree. The mono version shows off all the detail so well, but the colour version is compulsive viewing for me, I opened it before the mono one. It's the sky colour more than the temple's colour that wows me there. I like the shape of the background hill in the mono version which is less clear in the original, but both are lovely pictures. |
Jun 10th |
| 64 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
Very brave of you to take a photo that most (me included) would have said "Underexposed" before reading the title.
I think your processing has resulted in an interesting picture. I like the detail of the buildings best, and so wonder if there's more area devoted to cars than is optimal. A crop off the bottom doesn't draw my eyes from the buildings to much. |
Jun 10th |
| 64 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
I loved aerial photography, and took many hundreds of pictures from my light aircraft. I also took some from commercial jets, altough usually their cruising height is a problem for photography. Alas I have hung up my light aircraft headphones now, and I don't fly commercial as part of my contribution to global warming issues.
It must have been a very clear day for this photo, the texture and clarity are great. A very barren and featureless landscape, but I thought deserts were all sand! |
Jun 10th |
| 64 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
This reminds me very much of a photo I took in a derelict lime kiln, and I think it was posted here, maybe 4 years ago. Exposure was a problem, but your phone has coped with the contrast very well. I believe I was told that iphones apply HDR automatically - maybe it did here. I can't fault the depth of field, either, and phones always use maximum aperture, usually wider than f2, but that is physics, due to the small sensor dimensions. Overall, a super result. |
Jun 10th |
| 64 |
Jun 24 |
Reply |
Thanks, Don. It amazes me how much detail is in this image considering it was pared down to under 1 MB as per usual. Plus how well the cheap Olympus 14-150mm can do. |
Jun 7th |
| 64 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
Thanks, Keisha. It is an impressive sight.
It was a dull day, and I did try to enhance the sky texture in post processing, but this was about as dramatic as I could get it without doing a complete sky replacement. There wasn't a scrap of blue sky! |
Jun 6th |
7 comments - 4 replies for Group 64
|
| 95 |
Jun 24 |
Reply |
Nothing!I picked the stem, took it indoors, held it in a "third hand" (cheap stand with a couple of small alligator clips on it)and took the pics. I guess it is like that when it was growing in the garden 10 minutes earlier. |
Jun 19th |
| 95 |
Jun 24 |
Reply |
Yes, the detail is what comes out in macro photography. I think that's why people like photographing bugs, but I find them a bit nauseous after a while. The far-away blue flower is kept blurred as I didn't want to distract from the buds. |
Jun 17th |
| 95 |
Jun 24 |
Reply |
Thanks, Carol. It just stood out to me, as you say, more interesting because it's less usual. I was doing some more gardening today, there are masses of tiny flowers on weeds there (and, alas, masses of weeds) so I might do a pictorial project on mini flowers. I've been looking for a good topic for a PSA portfolio, maybe this could be it. |
Jun 17th |
| 95 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
Thanks, Gloria. If I find another one, I'll photo it again.
Stacking is only part of the equation. There are the usual camera settings and lens to consider of course, as without the basic quality you get nowhere. But given that, I find that the key to this sharpness (which I love, I never agree with people who say a picture is "too sharp" unless it's a soft portrait) is in post.
In Affinity, I start in the Develop persona of course as I only take RAW images, and the contrast and clarity sliders in the Basic tab set to say 8% and 40% respectively, and the Detail Refinement in the Details tab set to about 50% radius and 50% amount, give this sort of emphasis to the detail.
Then in the Photo persona, I find there's no need to sharpen further.
|
Jun 14th |
| 95 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
I think this is a really nice photo, well spotted, with good final composition and colour / brightness.
I think you clipped a bit too much off the top edge, you've removed a little of the stem. I would have blurred, or clipped off, the leaf on the right where it is sharp.
It looks like you have been masking the flowers in post - the edges of them all all look false to me. Selecting for darkening etc certain parts it not easy. I don't know what software you use; in Affinity, you can select with "Soft Edges" ticked, and there is also a "Refine" tool associated with the Selection Brush, where you can play with the ramp rate and other parameters which usually remove the outline of the selection area which can look falsely sharp, especially if the area selected is not sharp. Photoshop has more sophisticated selection tools from what I hear, but no doubt has similar to Affinity. |
Jun 10th |
| 95 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
Yes! I think it's a super result. The colour, texture and shapes are all very interesting in my view. The soft areas just contribute to the effect.
Your modified image is slightly cropped and slightly lightened from the original, both of which I like. But I'm not sure what you mean by "yellow pink". Maybe my eyesight and/or computer monitor are letting me down.
Don't forget, if you're struggling with focus for a single frame shot, I recommend that you DO take a focus bracket! Then look for the one with the best focus and discard the rest. |
Jun 10th |
| 95 |
Jun 24 |
Reply |
Drat, you're right, I was in too much of a hurry, as usual. I took a few photos of this flower of course, and they were all pretty much "same as", but this one grabbed me as it is different to the others. The focus for me is on the unopened flowers, the opened ones are showing life receding. I must be getting old! |
Jun 7th |
| 95 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
This really looks like a composite image to me! It's unusual and interesting, and seems to be suspended somehow above the background. The key attraction to me is the super detail of the fly.
"Impossible to focus stack" - I'd say not! I don't know the detail of the R5 and suspect its bracketing isn't as quick as my Olympus due to it being full frame, but give it a try! Even 3 or 5 images can make a difference, if you want it. I usually focus bracket every macro shot, even if I don't intend to stack them, as it gives me several shots with slightly varied focus point, and I can then choose the best image and discard the rest.
|
Jun 6th |
| 95 |
Jun 24 |
Comment |
Well, it's pretty good in my view. Yes, it's close-up rather than macro, but that doesn't mean it's not beautiful. I'm glad it spurred you on to buying a macro lens - why not go looking for webs again? If you move in so that only that centre drop and the first couple of rings, you can see the lens effect that people like Dom Komarechka use a lot. He puts flowers behind the "lenses" and other things, but not beaches! But why not, it doesn't have to be a small subject in the background.
As a matter of interest, I rarely carry my macro lens when just out and about, it's too big and heavy. But I do carry a set of extension tubes, they work well with my 14-150mm zoom - not as well as the 90mm macro, but well worth carrying in my "man bag" with the camera, wallet etc. for the unexpected shot. |
Jun 6th |
5 comments - 4 replies for Group 95
|
12 comments - 8 replies Total
|
