|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 64 |
Aug 24 |
Comment |
I like the David & Goliath feel of this picture, too. I can't add to the comments, except perhaps to agree with Chris' comment on the sail overlapping the bridge structure a little. |
Aug 22nd |
| 64 |
Aug 24 |
Comment |
Well I wasn't going to mention my suspicion that it needs a degree or so rotation right, butI can see that John has had the same thought.
But that's not to detract from a nice result, well taken and skillfully processed.
I wouldn't crop the right as it would lose the shape of the birds in the water, coming to a nice point on the right.
|
Aug 22nd |
| 64 |
Aug 24 |
Reply |
Yes, it was hand held. At 1/750 sec I'd have hoped for better, so sharpness was disappointing, I can sometimes see the crew in similar shots. Maybe after a thousand or so shots my hands were getting wobbly. |
Aug 14th |
| 64 |
Aug 24 |
Comment |
I think this is a good street photo. Serendipidy plays into the hands of those who are ready!
Not quite perfectly though - 1/10 of a second sooner on the shutter and the dog's face wouldn't have beeen partly obscured by the products on the tray. But I'm splitting hairs.
I love the way it looks like the seated man looks ready to swallow whole the items on the tray!
I think a bit more contrast and slightly lightened highlights might give it more pictorial punch. Personally I don't think it lacks "grain", unless you are determined to mimic a pushed mono film. |
Aug 10th |
| 64 |
Aug 24 |
Comment |
Like old blokes with beards, this monkey has bags of character! I love the detail,the short depth of field and great background, and the filled frame. Technically, I think this is spot on.
My only comment would be the detail in the reflections in its eyes. I guess you can't edit that if you plan this for a wildlife competition entry, but for a general picture I'd have cloned or blurred out the cars and horizon. |
Aug 10th |
| 64 |
Aug 24 |
Comment |
A very interesting and striking photo, Chris! I like it. The texture of the wall seems like a bit of imaginative post processing, but I know it isn't. It contrasts strongly with the "normal" image of the pigeon.
I think I'd have altered the horizontal perspective so that the horizontal lines are horizontal in the picture. |
Aug 10th |
| 64 |
Aug 24 |
Comment |
I agree, it's a nice picture, enhanced by the mono conversion. As Keisha said, it is a little flat in my view too, and lifting the highlights and darkening the shadows might improve this, as well as more contrast.
I'm wondering about the perspective correction. With such an upwards viewpoint, of course convergence of verticals is a result of physics, so removing it completly by software seems a bit extreme to me. I would have left a little convergence in, as parallel sides on the tall tower look odd.
Equally, the tall tower looks stretched to me - perhaps another artefact from perspective correction? Or maybe my eyes!
Thanks for the exif data. Phones seem to choose wierd settings I think. It was very bright and that large aperture forced a low ISO and fast shutter speed. I believe phones only use their max aperture, which is usually large as we can see, and this explains the settings. Does this also explain the white and black edges on some parts of the outlines?
|
Aug 10th |
6 comments - 1 reply for Group 64
|
| 95 |
Aug 24 |
Reply |
It was a focus bracket, but hand held - any camera shake negates the better depth of field, and some frames might have been less sharp than others. I see I failed to tell you the camera settings - they were 1/125 sec, f6.7, ISO 5000. Alas I've recently adopted the habit of culling the originals of stacked photos, but I think I'll reverse that idea. But I can't examine all the originals in the bracket to see if any were blurred, but 1/125sec isn't very quick - it was dull in the hedgerow. But I agree, it has an odd lack of sharpness in some places, and I'm wondering if that's the reason why. |
Aug 10th |
| 95 |
Aug 24 |
Reply |
Ah! Sorry I misunderstood. I thought it was difficult to exactly match the closer view to the wider one, and I figured it was just my dozy old eyes failing to see it. :-( |
Aug 10th |
| 95 |
Aug 24 |
Reply |
The Rule of Thirds is there to be broken in appropriate circumstances! |
Aug 10th |
| 95 |
Aug 24 |
Comment |
Well done on getting a good bracket and stack, Pat. I like the detail, and the little bit blurred at the back is no problem in my view. You could have afforded not to have so small an aperture as you did a focus bracket. This might have improved the overall sharpness, but I like the result regardless. |
Aug 8th |
| 95 |
Aug 24 |
Comment |
I love bees, even when the little madams sting me! This is a lovely composition I think, clear and well balanced. Focus is accurate giving a lovely sharp head, wings and antennae. A little softness at the far part of the bee is quite acceptable I think. Good job!
I suggest you clone out the white triangle, bottom left. There are some specular highlights, I'd prefer to see them toned down a little, especially the ones on the body. |
Aug 8th |
| 95 |
Aug 24 |
Comment |
I think you have done a good job, producing an enjoyable picture. A striking flower. Both capture and post processing are good. The closest petals are a tad softer than the main part, but it doesn't spoil the picture as the flower head is very sharp.
I would clone out that small amount of another petal remaining at the bottom, and also completely remove the traces of lightness on the bottom right. Would it have been better to leave in the tips of the petals on the left? |
Aug 8th |
| 95 |
Aug 24 |
Comment |
I think that this is an unusual image, not a take I've seen before. I do like your composition, with the red petal surrounding the stamens. I think the original wasn't really a macro, but the quality of the lens has allowed you to crop it well into the macro region.
I think I would crop off that little segment of white at the bottom. |
Aug 8th |
| 95 |
Aug 24 |
Comment |
I think this is a really pleasing result. Monochrome! I think the quality of the colour and texture are extraordinarily good. Well done!
How did you stack 72 images without a focussing rail? No problem with banding or less sharp areas with such a stack. Yes, it might have been more frames than you needed, but better too many than too few.
I'm surprised you had difficulty with Helicon. Is this their device that controls the lens directly? (Helicon FB Tube.) Or the Helicon Remote software that can remotely control the camera (and a motorised focus rail if fitted)? I used to control my Canon M50 and WeMacro computerised rail and it worked great. Alas I decided to sell my Canon system, and have tried to get them to do a version for my Olympus, but so far no joy. But they are great people, in Ukraine. Ask for help, I'm sure they'll give it freely. HF helps with how many frames and what step length, I found it very reliable. |
Aug 8th |
| 95 |
Aug 24 |
Comment |
Where do you find these cute frogs, and why do they like sitting on a pile of small sausages?
(Just pulling your leg!)
He is gorgeous.
Technically, I think this is top notch. f8 has made the further leg a little soft, which gives a feeling of depth. But all important bits are pin sharp, even his nostril.
Artistically, again I think it's fine. My only suggestion would be to dull down the brighter bokeh spots.
|
Aug 8th |
6 comments - 3 replies for Group 95
|
12 comments - 4 replies Total
|
