FlowerModerators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent. Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature. Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread. Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Previous topic • Next topic
21 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Nice flower... technically great: Exposure, WB, sharpness etc..
A little to "neat and in the middle" for my tastes... New page
http://www.potofgrass.com Portfolio... http://images.potofgrass.com Comments and money always welcome
I reckon it works very well naitm. This is a perfect example of where the Matt K compositional imperative really shines.
Greg - - - - D200 etc
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see. - Arthur Schopenhauer
I like both images, first one is a little better & I like neat & in the middle for shots like this.
Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything. *** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
They're great.
Can you get closer on the first one? I'd love to see the pattern in the centre. Cheers Brett
Very nice, I so want a macro lense now.
Thanks ATJ for showing me the usefulness of the 60MM micro. Given all the talk, I thought the 105MM micro was the macro lense of choice. However you have shown me otherwise.
Nicole,
It is a DIY bracket that I made years ago for my FE2. It is basically two pieces of aluminium with a Hama hot shoe ball joint. It attaches to the tripod socket and the SB-24 is connected with an SC-17 cable. This is only a temporary setup. A friend is in NY at the moment and is getting me a small slave attachment which I can use on an even smaller manual flash. Although, with the success of this, I might keep using it.
These are leaves Nice though... PlatinumWeaver / Dean
Asking the Stupid Questions <a href="http://www.platinumweaver.net/" alt="PlatinumWeaver Homepage">http://www.platinumweaver.net/</a>
It just dawned on me that I could simply crop the original photograph to show the detail of the centre.
The original image was cropped and resized. This latest one is just a crop without resizing. I will take another photograph today (weather withstanding) of just the detail of the centre of the flower.
OK, here's a close up of the flower. This was with the 60mm lens on its closest focusing distance. I have not cropped the image and just resized it from 3028x2000 to 757x500. It is a little over exposed but I couldn't get it any less than that as the flash was on 1/16 (lowest setting) and the lens was on f51.
Kipper - the 60mm is an excellent lens and you must ask yourself why do they come in other flavours. The answer is simple, as you go from 60 to 90 to 105 to 150 to 180 to 200 you can take the same photo but in each case further away from the subject. If you want to take pics of flying insects the 60mm would be a lot harder to use than the other lenses. It’s a matter of physics. ATJ - I like your shots a lot Chris
-------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
Is it possible you missed the focus a tad on the leaves/flowers in the leaves thingy? The leaves seem sharp but the flowers seem soft or blured or something.
If you don't like the neat and in the middle thing, but it doesn't make sense to shoot it off centre, might I suggest moving in slightly closer to the subject, perhaps cutting off some of the petals in order to get a closer and more punchy image? Just a thought, that way you could probably open up the aperture a tad and get sharper pics. Great job, looking forward to seeing some more of your pics.
Previous topic • Next topic
21 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|