Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by MJW, Feb 7, 2008.

  1. MJW

    MJW Guest

    MJW, Feb 7, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. MJW

    Rob. Guest

    Could have been a bit sharper (that's something to do with the aperture
    and shutter speed) and what would have set it off more would be placing
    the spider in its natural environment. besides that its good subject matter.

    Rob., Feb 7, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Nice work, MJ. I agree with 'Terse Rob' (grin), in that they are a
    little soft, but I actually quite like the background and colours - it
    makes a bit of a change from the usual..

    I'm sure Rita will be here shortly to show her stuff.. (geee, is that
    the time?)

    I'll see what I can find also...
    mark.thomas.7, Feb 7, 2008
  4. No, I'm not fixated with the "Master's" spider pics. I'm just striving to
    be such a world renowned photographer as he. Though this one isn't as good
    as Mark's, I'll post it anyway.

    Not bad, but a little blurry. You might want to get a macro lens or

    Well, I have a long way to go to be able to compete with these classics.



    Rita Berkowitz, Feb 7, 2008
  5. Why this (presumably sarcastic) comment, Rita? - still hot and
    bothered? Or are you serious now? If so, thanks!
    At last, what *appears* to be a seriously posted image.. But then you
    have suggested many times that you would *never* do that - so do we
    believe you now, then.. or never? Frankly, the frequent protestations
    that you will never post good stuff, just sounds exactly like someone
    who is *very* insecure about their craft/hobby. Hmm, that reminds me
    of someone else.. (O;

    Does criticism really bother you that much that you have to offer
    these excuses? Just take it on the chin and *learn* from it.

    Anyway, this is a reasonable image, but not great - your comments on
    that page are correct. The washed out background means there is no
    web, which means that not only is there a lack of context, there is
    also the missing connection to the stored food parcels - it just looks
    like two images pasted on. The only thing worse than photoshopping is
    something that *looks* like it is..
    At least those parcels lead towards the subject, so that is good. Was
    this taken indoors? Was there no way to change the lighting or return
    at a different time of day? And you are right about the foreground
    spots - they don't look good and should have been cloned out, or...
    heaven forbid that you interfere with nature, but spiders do
    frequently rebuild their webs.. so gently moving a couple of strands
    out of the way wouldn't have been the end of the world for him/her...
    There she goes again... But thanks - I'll take the comment as
    serious. The funny thing is that I don't mind: ...them being reposted. They don't embarrass me, and I'm actually
    happy to get criticism - imagine that, Rita!
    I'll always listen to *considered* criticism. (I tend to ignore
    comments like "they suck". The *next* critiquer will probably be a
    little more sophisticated...)

    Note that unlike Rita, I don't make excuses for them, nor do I feel a
    desperate need to accompany every image I post with a lengthy
    explanation of why it all went wrong. Yes, they've got problems.. but
    others can point those out if they wish.

    It does seem strange (ok, now I'm being sarcastic) that Rita seems
    perfectly able to criticise/analyse that image of her own, despite her
    incredible reticence to do so when she is having a go at people she
    appears to dislike...

    Gee, I wish I understood why that was...
    (end sarcasm)

    I'll be back later with some more serious spider pic's, but don't hold
    your breath - my film scanner is having a fit tonight.

    (However, unlike Doug, I *will* come back..)
    mark.thomas.7, Feb 7, 2008
  6. It's just a simple repost of a hardware test I posted here last year. I
    make no claims of it being good or bad as that wasn't its purpose. It is
    more than adequate to satisfy the targeted audience. Why would I be
    "insecure about my craft/hobby" when I'm having such a great time with it?
    Guess what? My pics don't even have to be good for me to be blessed with
    all the joy I'm getting. Unlike you, I have no mission to impress or garner
    praise or admiration from a few insignificant Usenet dwellers.
    Not at all. Good and bad criticism is always welcome from people that have
    earned the right and respect to make such efforts by having credibility and
    are able to demonstrate they have the skills to back up their critique; you
    have demonstrated you have none of the qualifications. So your opinions
    hold the same value, none at all, whether you say my pictures are great or
    they totally suck.

    Rita Berkowitz, Feb 7, 2008
  7. MJW

    MJW Guest

    Thanks Rob, still trying to master manual settings.

    MJW, Feb 9, 2008
  8. MJW

    MJW Guest

    Thanks Mark, look forward to seeing some!

    MJW, Feb 9, 2008
  9. MJW

    MJW Guest

    MJW, Feb 9, 2008
  10. It was a cool looking spider. The amazing part is it was small enough were
    you don't see all these colors and patterns till after you take the shot.
    That's why I always find macro such a joy and treat.

    Rita Berkowitz, Feb 9, 2008
  11. MJW

    Phred Guest

    I've found a similar effect with the extreme telephoto setting on my
    DiMAGE Z10. For example, some time ago I took a photo of a
    basidiomycete cap in the grass between my feet and when I came to
    inspect the image on-screen I found I could see the hairs on the leaf
    margins of the grass that I couldn't see from standing eye height.

    Cheers, Phred.
    Phred, Feb 10, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.