|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 64 |
Feb 26 |
Reply |
Thanks, Chris!
I took out several small lights in my original edit, but I agree, those two at the bottom left could go, to leave a nice "halo" of 5.
I need to find the name of the band before I can email it. We were there with friends, perhaps they'll remember. I did once send a photo of an accordian player to the artist, and it appeared as his Facebook avatar (?) a few days later, which I took as a nice complement as well as his email thanks.
Darkroom print, yes! - ah, the expensive negatives, the smelly fingers, and the magic of watching the image appear in the developing dish. Not everything improves with time!
|
Feb 15th |
| 64 |
Feb 26 |
Comment |
I think this is a nice candid photo. Your mono and square crop work well for street photography.
I like the way the relative brightnesses pulls out the dog and its owner from the background. I don't know what they were all watching, but the dog doesn't look impressed!
Pity the lady didn't look just a little in our direction. |
Feb 10th |
| 64 |
Feb 26 |
Comment |
A bold, daring photo! It certainly makes a statement.
A title would help make your message, I think.
The strong, directional lighting seems a bit overpowering to me. I'd have liked to see just a little detail in the lips, neck and eye socket. |
Feb 10th |
| 64 |
Feb 26 |
Comment |
Monument Valley is definitely a place that would be on my destination list if i were to visit the USA. We have a sort-of similar place called Brimham Rocks (see https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/yorkshire/brimham-rocks), but they are about 1/1000th the size of Monument Valley.
I do like the composition of this photo. The track lead my eye in to between the closer rocks, which frame the background very well.The slight hazing of the background shows that they are at least as big as the foreground ones, showing the scale of the landscape.
I think that the contrast is a bit low, especially in the foreground. I think if you increased that, and darkened the vegetation, it would increase the pull of the track to the distance. |
Feb 10th |
| 64 |
Feb 26 |
Comment |
I think your crop has focussed our attention on the men and their environment well.
I think I'm with Ian and a crop of the foreground to just below the dark crescent would emphasis the flow around them even more. |
Feb 10th |
4 comments - 1 reply for Group 64
|
| 95 |
Feb 26 |
Reply |
I'm sure that microscopes can be fitted with a mechanism similar to these computer-driven rails for cameras, but I know little about microscopes. I know that macro equipment suppliers sell attachments for SLRs that connect microscope lenses. Then you can use a camera computerised rail like WeMacro with a microscope lens. I did this once as I had a bellows unit for my Canon, and used it as an "infinity tube". See https://www.allanwallsphotography.com/blog/2020/5/6/going-deep-part-i-extreme-macro-photography-with-infinity-corrected-microscope-objectives |
Feb 18th |
| 95 |
Feb 26 |
Comment |
I don't know how you softened the result. The softness varies across the flower, and I wonder if you had taken it all sharp and then softened in post processing, the result could have been more even?
I'm not as attracted to a rear view as a front one, but it does make a nice change. Your photos are always so artistic and enjoyable. |
Feb 10th |
| 95 |
Feb 26 |
Comment |
I like this result. Good that you've kept the edge of the drop really sharp.
Using droplets as lenses can give some great photos. Dom Komarechka is an expert - look him up! See https://www.donkom.ca/
Charles Needle is good too - https://charlesneedlephoto.com/
|
Feb 10th |
| 95 |
Feb 26 |
Reply |
John, FYI, if you click the "Reply" button on a comment that you are replying to, the writer will get an email saying you have commented, giving them the opportunity to respond. |
Feb 10th |
| 95 |
Feb 26 |
Comment |
I think this is a nice, straightforward picture. I don't care for the heavy and sudden vignette; I wonder if a circular frame would work? If you took in RAW, I wonder if a little brightening of the shadows would give more detail in the centre.
|
Feb 10th |
| 95 |
Feb 26 |
Comment |
Ah, another WeMacro owner! A great result, Jeff. In my experience, insects are always "dirty", ie lots of bits on their hairy bodies.
Tom Pickering has that lens, you might see some pictures he took with it when he was in this group, maybe 2-4 years ago.
Great result, more please! |
Feb 10th |
| 95 |
Feb 26 |
Comment |
I don't have a microscope, but I do have a couple of microscope objective lenses, 4x and 10x. I haven't used them for some years. They are much cheaper than camera macro lenses! (I think some makes and models aren't cheap, but there are a number of good performance, inexpensive ones, suitable for mounting on a camera.) You need to have a means to mount it correctly to your camera. There are articles online about how to do this. Another thing for me to try again!
Microscope lenses don't have an iris, so you work "wide open". They don't express the light-gathering by an f stop value, either, they use "Numerical Aperture". See an explanation here - https://www.microscopyu.com/microscopy-basics/numerical-aperture
Crystals make nice high-magnification subjects, I think you've done a great job here. It's harder than it looks! I've not tried those chemicals - where did you get them from?
Lighting is also key, and many are taken in polarised light.
Getting the small camera movements needed for focus stacking isn't possible really without precision mechanical assistance. A computerised focus rail such as WeMacro or StackSys make it easy to get tiny movements between photos, say 0.01mm. I have a WeMacro, I believe it can do steps down to 1 micron (0.001mm).
Anyway, I really like your photo. Happy to talk about techniques!
|
Feb 10th |
| 95 |
Feb 26 |
Reply |
I agree, as the magnification goes up, it gets harder to find nice subjects. I guess that's why so many people do bug portraits, which don't interest me much. I had a Canon MP-E which goes to 5x, and my Olly 90mm goes to 2x alone. More with extension tubes and a tele converter, I can get to 5x with those. I've tried various setups to dramatise uninteresting subjects, like cross polarisation, and I didn't get far. I keep looking at the Nikon annual competition website (https://www.nikonsmallworld.com/) for inspiration, as you get some wonderful macros there, but I guess I just put too little time into it. |
Feb 10th |
| 95 |
Feb 26 |
Reply |
True, I'll find something better for next time. |
Feb 10th |
| 95 |
Feb 26 |
Reply |
Hi Jeff,
You could be right.
When I had a Canon for macro, I used Helicon Remote which I think worked out a recommended step length. Alas, Helicon don't do a version of Remote for Olympus (despite me asking nicely!). So by and large, I just guess and inspect the result. If I see valleys of soft focus, then the step length was too great. In hindsight I might have used 0.1mm, I was messing with it to remind myself how it worked and had selected that more or less at random. However, the result looked OK, so I just kept it.
Now I know this procedure is a big reveal for a guy who considers himself a scientist, but I like to live dangerously sometimes! :o)
|
Feb 10th |
5 comments - 5 replies for Group 95
|
9 comments - 6 replies Total
|
