Hi I would like opinions on this photo taken with nikon D3200 lens 1.8. 50mm F8 1/80 ISO 160 in M
Concept good, I have cropped this to remove distractions, ass I see. Sharpened a bit and adjusted , again as I see. hope this pic appears, uploading via Photobucket!! Cheers Ed.
Given up on Photobucket, trying direct, already been told file too large, it is the same size I have always used, trying this one smaller. Click on this to see as intended.
This was my fourth attempt, got there but!! Not as it was. Personally, stress personally, A phone is a phone, If I want a Picture, use a Camera. Never tried phoning from my camera. Can we not go back to, as was. Ed.
I've pretty well given up posting photos now they have changed the platform. I know you can see a larger image by clicking on the thumbnail, but how many passers by do?
As for the update. It was started Jan 25th. New Forth Crossing will be finished sooner than this.
Well said John and Ed.
I particularly liked Eds comment about 'Phones being Phones', not cameras. If you want to 'take' a picture, then by all means, make a mess of it on your phone, but, please don't inflict it on everyone else on a PHOTOGRAPHIC forum. If you want to 'MAKE' a picture, use a good quality compact, P&S, Bridge or DSLR, 'CAMERA'. Then put the result up on a photographic forum, so that enthusiasts can appreciate the effort you put into MAKING the image.
As to MBS's image. Yes, this is what I was talking about, a very good effort, which I suspect you put considerable thought into, thus MAKING the picture. As usual, improvements via the wizardry of ED!!
Best Regards everyone.
Phil.
For my eye the background is just too busy, I would try a shallower depth of field, (F2.8/3.5 instead of F8) as this would focus the viewers attention on the flower.
If it were possible to re-take the shot, I would follow Craig's advice - better than trying to fix in PP. A slight change of shooting position could also have eliminated that bright patch of sky, top left.
An alternative approach, as it is a white flower, is to convert the image to mono.
Cheers.
Philip
(Jul 11, 2016, 03:24)IEdMak Wrote: [ -> ]Concept good, I have cropped this to remove distractions, ass I see. Sharpened a bit and adjusted , again as I see. hope this pic appears, uploading via Photobucket!! Cheers Ed.
Given up on Photobucket, trying direct, already been told file too large, it is the same size I have always used, trying this one smaller. Click on this to see as intended.
This was my fourth attempt, got there but!! Not as it was. Personally, stress personally, A phone is a phone, If I want a Picture, use a Camera. Never tried phoning from my camera. Can we not go back to, as was. Ed.
(Jul 11, 2016, 13:29)MrB Wrote: [ -> ]If it were possible to re-take the shot, I would follow Craig's advice - better than trying to fix in PP. A slight change of shooting position could also have eliminated that bright patch of sky, top left.
An alternative approach, as it is a white flower, is to convert the image to mono.
Cheers.
Philip
Thanks MrB the photo looks better to me in Mono brings out the white more
(Jul 11, 2016, 14:35)UMBS Wrote: [ -> ] (Jul 11, 2016, 03:24)IEdMak Wrote: [ -> ]Concept good, I have cropped this to remove distractions, ass I see. Sharpened a bit and adjusted , again as I see. hope this pic appears, uploading via Photobucket!! Cheers Ed.
Given up on Photobucket, trying direct, already been told file too large, it is the same size I have always used, trying this one smaller. Click on this to see as intended.
This was my fourth attempt, got there but!! Not as it was. Personally, stress personally, A phone is a phone, If I want a Picture, use a Camera. Never tried phoning from my camera. Can we not go back to, as was. Ed.
Hi EdMaK thanks for the input MBS
(Jul 11, 2016, 12:30)EnglishBob Wrote: [ -> ]For my eye the background is just too busy, I would try a shallower depth of field, (F2.8/3.5 instead of F8) as this would focus the viewers attention on the flower.
(Jul 11, 2016, 12:30)EnglishBob Wrote: [ -> ]For my eye the background is just too busy, I would try a shallower depth of field, (F2.8/3.5 instead of F8) as this would focus the viewers attention on the flower.
Hi EnglishBob Thanks for the input MBS
(Jul 11, 2016, 08:59)Phil J Wrote: [ -> ] Well said John and Ed.
I particularly liked Eds comment about 'Phones being Phones', not cameras. If you want to 'take' a picture, then by all means, make a mess of it on your phone, but, please don't inflict it on everyone else on a PHOTOGRAPHIC forum. If you want to 'MAKE' a picture, use a good quality compact, P&S, Bridge or DSLR, 'CAMERA'. Then put the result up on a photographic forum, so that enthusiasts can appreciate the effort you put into MAKING the image.
As to MBS's image. Yes, this is what I was talking about, a very good effort, which I suspect you put considerable thought into, thus MAKING the picture. As usual, improvements via the wizardry of ED!!
Best Regards everyone.
Phil.
Hi Phil Thanksfor the comments as regards to phones being phones that Ed put on but was has that got to do with the photo I put on ? Regards MBS
(Jul 11, 2016, 07:36)YhJocko Wrote: [ -> ]I've pretty well given up posting photos now they have changed the platform. I know you can see a larger image by clicking on the thumbnail, but how many passers by do?
As for the update. It was started Jan 25th. New Forth Crossing will be finished sooner than this.
Hi Jacko Hope you will carry on posting photos ,has I often look at yours,but would have liked some input from you as regards to the White Lilly photo I posted Regards MBS
I liked the original White Lilly with the exception of the white area of sky. Taking it again, I would try a slightly different viewpoint to avoid that. I like the fact ALL the petals are sharp, which may not have been the case with a very large aperture. f5.6 would have been worth a try. I didn't feel the background was intrusive. After all, it is a photograph of a flower in a garden.
If you had wanted the flower whiter, then a bit of post processing would have been the way to go. Monochrome flower, for me, only work if they are graphically standout. Even white ones.
Here is my take. Sky cloned out, mild cropping and sharpening and the white flowers a little more neutral.
Hi MBS
great idea for me as the others say the background detracts from the image, now if you are lucky enough to have this beauty in your garden, then I would suggest you put a dark background behind it, some cloth or board, and the possible use a reflector again white card will do, to punch some more light into it, good attempt.
Pete
(Jul 12, 2016, 12:27)Eddy Canon Wrote: [ -> ]Hi MBS
great idea for me as the others say the background detracts from the image, now if you are lucky enough to have this beauty in your garden, then I would suggest you put a dark background behind it, some cloth or board, and the possible use a reflector again white card will do, to punch some more light into it, good attempt.
Pete
Hi Pete Thanks for the input ,might give that a try. MBS ( Mick)
(Jul 12, 2016, 01:14)Jocko Wrote: [ -> ]I liked the original White Lilly with the exception of the white area of sky. Taking it again, I would try a slightly different viewpoint to avoid that. I like the fact ALL the petals are sharp, which may not have been the case with a very large aperture. f5.6 would have been worth a try. I didn't feel the background was intrusive. After all, it is a photograph of a flower in a garden.
If you had wanted the flower whiter, then a bit of post processing would have been the way to go. Monochrome flower, for me, only work if they are graphically standout. Even white ones.
Hi Jacko Thanks for the input MBS ( Mick)