Suggestions/comments

Discussion in 'Photography' started by kombi45, Jun 18, 2005.

  1. kombi45

    kombi45 Guest

    kombi45, Jun 18, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Nice pictures, albiet a bit scary looking at that face.. :)

    Other than trying to get more in-focus...gee how tough can that be,
    it's not like it's flying around or anything! :) (kidding, hope you
    got that)

    Personally I would have adjusted the color histograms a bit, the colors
    in the picture are IMO a bit bla...pale green and a medium red. I
    would try to get the green to show more saturation, more depth, maybe a
    bit darker green, and try (maybe not possible) to recover some detail
    in the washed out white part.

    Contract looks good around the face (I guess that's a face!), clean
    line from color to white.

    Nice work, me personally I'd play with the colors some, but some don't
    like that and think it's not real photography, if that's your feeling
    then that's fine, I got no beef with that..

    Good Job!
     
    fj40rockcrawler, Jun 18, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. kombi45

    dadiOH Guest

    You are improving. I think they would have been better if the plane of
    focus were forward a bit (eyes vs wing.

    --
    dadiOH
    ____________________________

    dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
    ....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
    LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
    Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
     
    dadiOH, Jun 18, 2005
    #3
  4. kombi45

    Paul Furman Guest


    Agreed, or move around to the side & get some of the wing plus the face
    and maybe more legs in focus.

    I prefer the first one with a more even mix of the white background and
    some red behind the left side wing. The black background could just as
    well go to pure black & give it more punch, less washed out, otherwise
    the colors are spectacular. Maybe also get the curves to tone down the
    harsh white. Maybe crop to emphasize that left colorful wing & lose the
    other wing and maybe play with curves to bring out the contrast of that
    colorful wing. Your email looks valid, I'll send what I came up with.

    Cool shot!
     
    Paul Furman, Jun 19, 2005
    #4
  5. kombi45

    kombi45 Guest

    Well, the deal here is the dragonfly2.jpg is a conglomoration of the
    two. The face from dragonfly2 was OOF, but the wings offered far more
    detail. I put the face from the first one, which had a lot more
    detail, but the wings and legs have less focus, onto the body of the
    second one.

    I still have the RAW/TIFF files, so maybe I'll play around a little
    more - I really appreciate all of your input. And Paul, I did get your
    punched up version, but I haven't had time to look it over. I will and
    when I do I'll get back with you.

    Regards,

    Ben

    PS - Check out this Junebug from the golf course yesterday:

    http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/image/44985145
     
    kombi45, Jun 19, 2005
    #5
  6. kombi45

    EarlCox Guest


    I have been news group observer and not a participant for quite some time, but I am beginning to see why some members of the news group are very, very upset with digital "photographers" and want every one to return to film! (UC, as an example). Assembling an image from multiple photographs is not photography, it is an exercise in graphic art. It is a routine part of both film and digital photography to "clean up" a negative -- pushing the film, adjusting color, highlighting or darkening B&W images, etc. But the process of offering an image, such as dragonfly2.jpg, as a real photograph (hence, eliciting "cool shot" complements) when, it fact, it is a composite of multiple images, confuses one type of art with another.

    I have a Nikon D70, a Nikon F4, and an Olympus OM-4 and I enjoy the process of photography. Film and digital have their place, knowing what that place is, of course, depends on context, vision, opportunity, and intelligence. But it looks like we are slowly gravitating away from photography to an era when masses of poorly considered, poorly composed, poorly shot, and poorly executed photographs can be disassembled and then reassembled to produce one or two nice "photographs".

    Just a thought,
    E a r l

    --

    E a r l C o x
    Founder and President
    Scianta Intelligence, LLC
    Turn Knowledge Into Intelligence
    w w w dot scianta dot com

    1289 N. Fordham Blvd. Suite 312
    Chapel Hill, NC 27514

    AUTHOR:
    "The Fuzzy Systems Handbook" (1994)
    "Fuzzy Logic for Business and Industry" (1995)
    "Beyond Humanity: CyberEvolution and Future Minds"
    (1996, with Greg Paul, Paleontologist/Artist)
    "The Fuzzy Systems Handbook, 2nd Ed." (1998)
    "Fuzzy Modeling and Genetic Algorithms
    for Data Mining and Exploration" (2005)
     
    EarlCox, Jun 19, 2005
    #6
  7. [email protected], Jun 19, 2005
    #7
  8. kombi45

    Paul Furman Guest

    Heh, well the face is out of focus so it doesn't really help to have the
    wings in focus. I didn't even notice that because the face is the
    important part & I just looked at the background for composition.

    The Junebug looks good. Is that flash or sun reflecting on it? It's not
    severe, just curious.
     
    Paul Furman, Jun 19, 2005
    #8
  9. kombi45

    kombi45 Guest

    I agree on a certain level vis-a-vis photography vs. graphic art,
    however I wasn't trolling for "cool shot" compliments. If you read my
    post, I was looking for feedback on the RAW work. Sorry if that struck
    you the wrong way.

    Ben
     
    kombi45, Jun 19, 2005
    #9
  10. kombi45

    kombi45 Guest

    LOL! Now THAT would be cheating...
     
    kombi45, Jun 19, 2005
    #10
  11. kombi45

    EarlCox Guest

    time, but I am beginning to see why some members of the news group are very,
    very upset with digital "photographers" and want every one to return to
    film! (UC, as an example). Assembling an image from multiple photographs is
    not photography, it is an exercise in graphic art. It is a routine part of
    both film and digital photography to "clean up" a negative -- pushing the
    film, adjusting color, highlighting or darkening B&W images, etc. But the
    process of offering an image, such as dragonfly2.jpg, as a real photograph
    (hence, eliciting "cool shot" complements) when, it fact, it is a composite
    of multiple images, confuses one type of art with another.process of photography. Film and digital have their place, knowing what that
    place is, of course, depends on context, vision, opportunity, and
    intelligence. But it looks like we are slowly gravitating away from
    photography to an era when masses of poorly considered, poorly composed,
    poorly shot, and poorly executed photographs can be disassembled and then
    reassembled to produce one or two nice "photographs".


    Ben,

    Point well taken.

    However, my point was simply that a RAW image is akin to a negative.
    Working with a negative to get the best possible image is something we all
    do, starting from our first exposure to B&W darkroom techniques (for me that
    goes back to the late 1960's). But assembling a photo from multiple
    negatives (RAW data files) is a graphics art technique. Your thread started
    out with "Pics are from this morning w/ a D70S, Nikon 55M MF lens" and you
    wanted to know, essentially, how you were doing. Then, out of the blue, you
    announce that a final photo was actually not a photograph "from this
    morning" at all, not an image derived from a RAW file, but, instead, a
    composite from several images. This composite image is NOT derived from a
    single RAW image. Thus, you are not "looking for feedback on the RAW work".

    So.... Are you looking advice on how to CREATE nice pseudo-nature
    photography images from a collection of partially out of focus snap shots or
    are you asking how to manipulate a RAW file to deliver a final image that
    meets your artistic vision? The two are complete different questions.

    E a r l
     
    EarlCox, Jun 19, 2005
    #11
  12. kombi45

    kombi45 Guest

    They absolutely _were_ from that morning, and I literally only got two
    pictures before it flew away - I'm heavy-handed like that, I guess! So
    it wasn't quite the Frankenstein image you make it out to be, nor is it
    pure photography by any stretch.

    I am being completely honest when I say this - I wasn't looking to fool
    anyone, including myself. But I do feel like in digital photography if
    you can mix images to get a better result, why not do it? Otherwise I
    would shoot film exclusively. I'm not looking for a substitute for
    good, solid photographic technique - I would FAR rather the two shots
    have been in better focus. Unfortunately in this case two things were
    working against me:

    1 - I just figured out today how to get the D70S's built-in flash to
    fire in manual mode with the 55MM MF lens, so I can use higher
    apertures for better DOF

    2 - The bastard was on the leaf for literally two or three seconds
    I wasn't looking for advice, per se, as I KNOW how to manipulate the
    images, I was looking for feedback on my post-processing technique.
    As I am literally brand new to the process, I am extremely curious as
    to what I'm doing well and what I can use some work on. I value all
    input, including yours - and I completely understand what you are
    getting at, believe me.

    Regards,

    Ben
     
    kombi45, Jun 19, 2005
    #12
  13. kombi45

    kombi45 Guest

    I responded to this earlier, but it hasn't shown up - so I'll say it
    again. No, that was just sunlight. I was shooting north, and it was
    about 5:00 in the afternoon, so the light is coming from the west,
    about 8:00 in in relation to the bug.

    Ben
     
    kombi45, Jun 19, 2005
    #13
  14. kombi45

    EarlCox Guest

    Ben,

    I've been giving this some thought and I suppose you have a point. I
    continue to believe we need to make a clean separation between photography
    and graphics art ---- but I am not dogmatic nor pedantic enough to insist
    that those who blend the two are somehow corrupting the spiritual nature of
    photography <grin>. I do know that when I look at a John Shaw or Ken
    Rockwell photograph (and John has gone completely over to digital) I know
    am seeing the results of a single photograph, not a composite. And as a
    photographer, I value the combination of my skill, my vision, and my (let's
    face it) luck.

    But...... it is pointless to argue the matter. There's not a right and wrong
    here, only a preference from one photographer to another. For the same
    reason it is generally pointless to argue the merits of digital over film,
    Nikon versus Canon, a Nikkor lens versus Sigma, zoom versus fixed focal
    length, Kodak versus Fuji, and the list goes on. Each photographer settles
    into a combination of equipment and recording media that suits his or her
    personality, experience, and their highly subjective analysis of the results
    (not to mention budget!). In the end, it is (generally) not the media, the
    equipment, nor the camera that will make a difference, only the skill of the
    photographer. And the ability to blend digital images using PhotoShop,
    Elements, PhotoImpact, and so forth is, like all art forms, a skill that
    should be appreciated (there! I've completely capitulated!!! <big grin>)

    That's all I gotta say.
    E a r l
     
    EarlCox, Jun 19, 2005
    #14
  15. kombi45

    kombi45 Guest

    EarlCox wrote:

    Agreed - all things being equal, I would rather have a single
    photograph worked in RAW/TIFF/JPEG/Whatever than a composite such as
    the 2nd picture. You are absolutely correct. As I said, or at least
    alluded to, there is no substitute for photographic skill...and luck -
    couldn't have said it better!
    What else is there? Very well said. Though I wouldn't call it
    capitulating, as I think we were a little closer in thought than
    initially suspected!

    Regards,

    Ben
     
    kombi45, Jun 19, 2005
    #15
  16. kombi45

    Paul Furman Guest

    Paul Furman, Jun 20, 2005
    #16
  17. kombi45

    RSD99 Guest

    "Ryadia" posted:
    "... Sad but true... You gotta kill the sucker first then you can focus on
    it! ..."


    HeHeHeHeHe .....

    (A) Go to your local electronics parts store ... not a 'Best Buy' kind of
    store but the kind of place where an electronics engineer would go to get
    parts;

    (B) Get a can 'Circuit Cooler,' used to cool electronics parts for
    troubleshooting heat-related problems;

    (C) Spray bug/butterfly/whatever with 'Circuit Cooler.' Use a very short
    burst of 'Circuit Cooler' because a continuous spray will drop the
    temperature of your subject to something like 175 degrees F ... instantly
    freezing it.

    Any 'cold blooded' insect will slow way down ... may even completely stop
    moving.
     
    RSD99, Jun 20, 2005
    #17
  18. kombi45

    Alan Browne Guest

    Shots like insect need to be tack sharp in the area of primary interest
    (usually the head/eyes). It's hard to do, as the DOF is so shallow.
    You could try a tighter aperture and flash to help in this respect.

    Dragonflies are oftn best viewed from above as we see a lot of detail as
    well as the wing detail.

    A review of photos at www.photo.net in the top score categories has a
    lot of insect/spider photos that might inspire you.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 21, 2005
    #18
    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.