|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 64 |
Apr 25 |
Comment |
I think this is a pleasant scene. I agree with Don's comment, and the question I'd then ask is, does the foreground grass add to the picture? Personally I think it doesn't, and cropping it to a letterbox makes clearer the nice leading lines (3) going to the house. I'd agree, a bit of importing of a more interesting sky would help, or just crop it off? Actually I prefer not to crop the top, as the tree jutting into the sky is attractive I think. Maybe a bit more (interesting) sky would be best of all?
|
Apr 19th |
| 64 |
Apr 25 |
Comment |
I'm going round my comments again, As mentioned in my second comment on Stan's photo, my monitor was showing the images in low contrast, so my revised view here (using my laptop monitor now) is that the contrast on your image is fine. Goes to show how much difference the monitor makes! |
Apr 19th |
| 64 |
Apr 25 |
Comment |
Ah! I've now discovered that the reason I was seeing low contrast was the monitor. I've been swapping my kit around recently and was looking on an older one. Even my laptop screen inproves the contrast a lot, so my previous comment is less relevent. Still, I'd appreciate your reaction to it. |
Apr 19th |
| 64 |
Apr 25 |
Comment |
Sorry folks, the true story is that I forgot to submit on time, Chris reminded me, and this was the first image I found that I thought might make an interesting conversion.
I didn't have a tripod with me, so a lower ISO would have probably lost out in camera shake, and the lens was wide open.
The camera's noise filter was off, as I've found in the past that Topaz Denoise wipes the floor with the camera's and Affinity's denoise functions.
I've tried again with a second image which was exposed at ISO5000 and processed in much the same way, although I've increased the contrast a bit. I've managed to keep the outline of the land in the background as before, which I thought enhanced the picture.
One issue with Topaz Denoise that's a nuisance is that it increases the file size, in this case tripling it! So I had to export at 1400x1050 pixels and 65% quality to get under the 1MB server limit. |
Apr 19th |
 |
| 64 |
Apr 25 |
Comment |
I agree with those comments, and Chris's suggestion. As I had Affinity open (see my comments on Stan's photo) I took a screen shot, upped the contrast, and to me it has more impact. |
Apr 19th |
 |
| 64 |
Apr 25 |
Comment |
I think this is a pleasant photo of the scene including the Cathedral. The quality, as the others have observed, is good, but it seemed a bit lacking in contrast to me. One thing I often do is to take a screen grab of the picture and paste it into Affinity so that I can see the historgram, and doing that here I notice that the Affinity representation (without any manipulation of the phot) is more contrasty and most punchy. I exported and uploaded it, but it and Stan's original were very similar. So I put a bit more contrast into it in Affinity and cropped it - what do you think? The definition is poor now as its a cropped screenshot,
Personally I think the ruins (?) in the foreground are too dominant, and I'd have zoomed in or got closer to emphasis the Cathedral. |
Apr 19th |
 |
| 64 |
Apr 25 |
Comment |
I quite like the original, but the mono version is much more interesting I think. I like the patterns and textures. I'd prefer to see the background darkened down, it doesn't add to the picture in my opinion. |
Apr 18th |
| 64 |
Apr 25 |
Comment |
I quite like the original, but the mono version is much more interesting I think. I like the patterns and textures. I'd prefer to see the background darkened down, it doesn't add to the picture in my opinion. |
Apr 17th |
| 64 |
Apr 25 |
Comment |
A fascinating photo. It's in 2 parts due to the black area. Maybe a little detail could be revealed there? |
Apr 17th |
| 64 |
Apr 25 |
Comment |
Yes, a good story, but the loss of detail on the figure is a shame. I'm sure a bit of dodging or shadow lifting in RAW would give some details up. An enjoyable photo. |
Apr 17th |
10 comments - 0 replies for Group 64
|
| 95 |
Apr 25 |
Reply |
You are quoting the "old" advice of shutter speed in seconds to be less than 1 divided by the focal length in mm. I've often wondered if this applies to micro 4/3, or whether the advice should be 1/2 this or 2x this! I don't know. But I do know that the stabilisation was on, which gives several stops of benefit - I think OM Systems claim about x6 for this body. But of course, a shaky hand can defeat even the best stabilisation! So I'm not sure - shaky hand, imperfect focus, or lens outside its comfort zone.
Do you think the background is too sharp? It's the playoff for us, isn't it, get all the subject sharp (or as much as you decide you want to be sharp) but avoid a sharp, distracting background. I know, I should have focus bracketted!! It gives good sharpness across as many images as you use, then the focus falls off more rapidly if you are using a wider aperture.
|
Apr 19th |
| 95 |
Apr 25 |
Reply |
Thanks Gloria. The lens was at 150mm, sorry I missed that detail! Having a longer focal length wouldn't have helped, as I didn't want to get closer as the frame was already full. Knowing the size of the butterfly, I'd estimate the magnification was about 0.3-0.4x, but that's in micro 4/3 terms. Had it been a full frame camera, it would have been twice that, so not far off the traditional definition of "macro". |
Apr 19th |
| 95 |
Apr 25 |
Comment |
We have a large magnolia in our garden. It's many years old, and is beautiful at the moment, albeit starting to go back now. However, I've never seen a seed pod on it. Your picture shows a lovely structure and details.
Whilst I can see some hightlights that mustn't be blown out, I would have lifted the shadows to lift the lightness and reveal the detail more clearly. I don't know if your original was a RAW file, it would yield this detail well.
|
Apr 10th |
| 95 |
Apr 25 |
Comment |
I found a similar one yesterday when gardening, but the little blighter hopped off! They are very cute. I do think that the blurred rock distracts because it is closer and blurred, so I'd agree with Cheryl's comments. I think I'd crop hard and reduce the overhanging rock to a sliver only, but in contrast to the ladies above, I'd leave it as a letterbox format, then it looks like he's looking out. |
Apr 10th |
| 95 |
Apr 25 |
Comment |
Welcome back, Keith, after your illness.
Being heavily cropped already, it has taken on an ethereal aspect, which I do like. Alas that has made the droplet a bit unclear.
I would clone out the darker area at the bottom left, and the white dot below the droplet.
|
Apr 10th |
| 95 |
Apr 25 |
Comment |
I would agree with the above and that the relatively bland green stem is less attractive than the flower, so I would crop to place the centre on the 1/3 line. |
Apr 10th |
| 95 |
Apr 25 |
Reply |
Than you both for your comments. Yes, it is a bit soft. That lens is not a macro lens per se, and I was pushing it to its limit, but that's not to say there wasn't some camera shake or subject movement. There's no getting round the fact that the best photos come from the correct equipment and techniques. But as Margaret commented, our equipment bags can get heavy, even on micro 4/3,so I didn't have a macro lens with me. Taking butterflies with the 30mm lens is a problem anyway, as butterflies don't like you getting too close and that lens has a short working distance. But the Olympus 90mm macro is a comparitive heavyweight.
Yes, green can be a dominant colour. I don't know why I used a mono layer at reduced opacity rather than just desaturate the greens, maybe I was experimenting. Either way would work.
|
Apr 10th |
| 95 |
Apr 25 |
Comment |
Very good, Pat. To me, for many subjects, the trinity of macro is colours, textures and patterns, and those are here in abundance.
As I often remark, some softness in the right places can improve a macro, so I don't see the softness on the mid left and top right as problems. Had you wanted to get those areas sharp too, I would have guessed that 16 frames at f11 is plenty to cover this scene - maybe your step distance was shorter than necessary. (But much better then too long a step!)
Perhaps a little brighter would have added to the punch?
|
Apr 10th |
| 95 |
Apr 25 |
Comment |
You are welcome to send in your triptych when finished. Then I think it would be a true macro photo. Go on, we've not had a triptych here so far! |
Apr 10th |
| 95 |
Apr 25 |
Comment |
Whilst macro is supposed to be getting magnification in the camera, there's nothing to say that we can't crop our images in the way we would any image in post processing. So I'd suggest that here, to make the most of a nice capture. I would also flip it horizontally and put the stem more on the diagonal.
I don't know what camera system you use - perhaps full frame? I'd like to comment that smaller formats can save a huge amount of space and weight. My OM Systems OM-1 with a 30mm macro is very small and light, and can give 1.25x magnification (thats 2.5x in full frame terms, a 13mm long subject being too long for the frame length!) And modern phones take good close-ups without extra lenses on them.
|
Apr 10th |
7 comments - 3 replies for Group 95
|
17 comments - 3 replies Total
|
