DSLRUsers.com

At least this is one of the terms coined for our destination this weekend. Fortunately Gerry was insightful enough to choose a destination with some height so that we didn't have to feel the blast of the 2.6m swell.

This place warrants another visit and would look quite different in a lower tide.

If anyone is looking to buy unobstructed golf course/sea views nearish the city, look up Little Bay.

As usual for your C & C. I did get some first-hand experience at a bit of field macro and thanks Gerry for the great tips to get things going as well as being a VAL!

My first thought when I saw the the sea image was Wow.. but then I looked at the macros and went 'wow wow'.. there is something about the first one that isn't sitting right with me (maybe its the lens curve?) but it looks off balanced in some way... although seeing at its better than I would do (as I suck at landscapes) I should really just keep my mouth shut lol..

Gotta love that sea urchin and you got some nice colour for it (I reckon it looks more muted here than in real life perhaps?)

I so should have taken the 90mm macro

Love the first one Suren. Always a sucker for nice seascapes. Glad you didn't get washed away. The swell has been pumping in Coffs over recent weeks.

The second is unusual, and a nice macro.

Ozi.

nice captures Suren (:

Love the sea shot, the color, contrast, tones all turned out beautifully.

Your macro work is off to a good hit (:


Personal critique :

#1. straighten against the horizon. that's it. For a personal opinion rather than critique though, I'd crop out the bottom 25-30% of the image, thats just personal taste.

and... thats it (:


Hope you're well mate

+1 about the horizon, but I do love the work with the extension tubes!

Boys, my apologies for the crooked pic so I've corrected it in the original photo. [No one should have to look at crooked horizons] I think there maybe a monitor/eye issue in how I get this problem quite often!
thanks everyone for their comments.

Bindii wrote:. there is something about the first one that isn't sitting right with me (maybe its the lens curve?) but it looks off balanced in some way...

Hmm Maybe it's the horizon. Perhaps it's the composition?

Remorhaz wrote:Gotta love that sea urchin and you got some nice colour for it (I reckon it looks more muted here than in real life perhaps?)

Hmm.. I didn't increase saturation. This is on 'Camera Faithful' profile [Looked just like this on the LCD]. Perhaps Gerry can comment on whether the shell was more colorful?

ozimax wrote:The second is unusual, and a nice macro.

Thanks Ozi. We thought that it might even be beyond 1:1 but can't be certain. The entire shell was about 3cm across but this is a fraction of it uncropped. tis all flash exposure (F16 or so, wasn't sure as there isn't an aperture ring on the lens) with a large diffuser.

aim54x wrote:but I do love the work with the extension tubes!

Ta. Finally I've got some use for my 50mm 1.8.

photomarcs wrote:#1. straighten against the horizon. that's it. For a personal opinion rather than critique though, I'd crop out the bottom 25-30% of the image, thats just personal taste.

Interesting about the croppage. I will repost but my gut feeling is that it will not ring my bell. The main compositional elements are at the bottom left. YMMV.

I like the first two Suren.
I only used extension rings for macro for years. Nice work.

Thanks Colin.

colin_12 wrote:I only used extension rings for macro for years.

Yes I am looking for a lens with an aperture dial so that I don't have to remove it to change the aperture!

surenj wrote:Thanks Colin.

colin_12 wrote:I only used extension rings for macro for years.

Yes I am looking for a lens with an aperture dial so that I don't have to remove it to change the aperture!

I'm not familiar with this procedure, can you shed more light on this?

Why dont you use extension tubes that pass on the electronic info? Kenko?

I quite like them, but I agree with Bindii on the first one.
That top left corner takes away from the general image.

Thanks Zafra and Bindii. I see what you mean. I think I might be able to salvage a noise free shadow (better exposed) from another frame.

Cameron, to change the aperture of my 50 1.8, I need to stick on the camera, do a depth of field preview and remove while holding the button and re attach the cheep extension tubes. If I get a lens with a manual aperture ring, then my problems go away. Although, most of the time the aperture is around f16 or 22 so no big drama anyway.

[quote="surenj"Cameron, to change the aperture of my 50 1.8, I need to stick on the camera, do a depth of field preview and remove while holding the button and re attach the cheep extension tubes. If I get a lens with a manual aperture ring, then my problems go away. Although, most of the time the aperture is around f16 or 22 so no big drama anyway.[/quote]
Get one of the older 50 1.4 lens.

surenj wrote: to change the aperture of my 50 1.8, I need to stick on the camera, do a depth of field preview and remove while holding the button and re attach the cheep extension tubes. If I get a lens with a manual aperture ring, then my problems go away. Although, most of the time the aperture is around f16 or 22 so no big drama anyway.

That sounds like a heap of trouble to me!

surenj wrote:If anyone is looking to buy unobstructed golf course/sea views nearish the city, look up Little Bay.

*watches house prices increase due to google search ranks*

surenj wrote: Remorhaz wrote:Gotta love that sea urchin and you got some nice colour for it (I reckon it looks more muted here than in real life perhaps?)
Hmm.. I didn't increase saturation. This is on 'Camera Faithful' profile [Looked just like this on the LCD]. Perhaps Gerry can comment on whether the shell was more colorful?

looks good from my end, i would just bump the contrast a smidge.


I like the first image, good work given you did not use a GND, the left hand side needs a bit of local brigthening to bring it into shape with the remaining image, the pano crop suggetsed by marcus is a good idea imo, however you need to maintain most of the love on the bottom left since you do not want the viewer wondering whast is so interesting there I would say rather than a 25-30% maybe try 15% ...

That macro of the bumpy shell is awesome, great composition, it really leads you into the image, this can be difficult with macros and limited DOF shots, as previously mentioned maybe just a bump in the contrast to give it a extra kick, personal preference tho.

The second macro is nice, with good colours etc, but I am left wanting to see the rest of the shell rather than the OOF area.

Great idea on the macro on that shelly beach - you could spend hours there with a macro and diffused light source...