Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Small Tortoise Butterfly C&C
Comments
-
I have decided you should all chip in to buy me this:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-105MM-F2-8D-Micro-Nikkor/dp/B000EOSHGQ
And I promise to take the bits of advice given in here, go off and re-shoot some butterflies and post up
You want to help? that's how!
0 -
Thecageyone wrote: »I hear ya
It was pretty much spur of the moment though, I didn't set out to photograph anything in particular .. just ... something to test the lens out really.
So basically, there was no real point to any of these photographs? Sorry, I really don't get why I or anyone else should expend time on providing you with any commentary on them since the photographs are basically meaningless. When I ask for C&C it is on photographs from which I hope to learn something - and I lay out why I need that support - and not from some technical test shots for just testing a lens.Thecageyone wrote: »The one with the bee ... well, I was simply trying to include both creatures, as they shared the flower. Nothing more. And because the bee only hung around for a few seconds, that is the best I got.
If the best you got is not good enough to your eyes, is there some reason why you have to include it?Thecageyone wrote: »One major issue, which I didn't mention, and you'd see in the exif if it was viewable, is that I had left the camera @ ISO 500 ... and the D200 doesn't really handle much above 400 very well. Especially in strong sunlight when it's not needed at all! That was a total n00b mistake.
So yeah, i had to process a lot of noise out, well spotted
One of the finest nature photographers I know never wasted much grief on digital noise for the simple reason that he attached more importance to the story the photograph told. For me, the noise is not necessarily an issue.Thecageyone wrote: »Personally I love the first one, the others were extra far as i was concerned. Looking at a mag earlier with butterfly shots, I was kinda proud, as mine are 'almost' as detailed without using a proper macro lens. And I am still getting to grips with this camera [have it less than a week, and I find it a big step up from the Sony A200] - no excuses, i need to learn as I go, but the high ISO in sunlight thing ... kicking myself tbh. They should have been sharper and not needed so much PP.
I have an overwhelming dose of self-praise here "almost" as detailed without using aproper macro lens "have the camera less than a week".
The issue for me is the photographs are not technically all that great. You'll see some comments below on why I think this.Thecageyone wrote: »By the way, I was hanging over a fence with lens on full 300mm shooting this little guy, if that makes any difference? And there was a lot of cropping down involved. Excuses, excuses I know ... but that is how it was. I think I will set out some fine day purposely to do this type of shot, and be better prepared [checking my settings before diving in would be a start]
No. Photographs have to stand on their own. No excuses. I'm a good photographer but the thought that doesn't go through my head when I look at someone's photographs is "oh, that was hard for him because he was hanging over a fence blah blah blah".Thecageyone wrote: »Not IMO ... more big upping with no help.
I remember why i don't ask for C&C in here now.
I've gotten very little advice far as I'm concerned, and now it's turned into a brown-nose ACD thread because I said I didn't find much help in his C&C, Jesus H Christ ... do any of you think for yourselves?
Has it ever occurred to you at all that the problem may might be the way you perceive things? At all? No one needs to brown-nose AnCatDubh. He listed out a bunch of features which could do with some improvement. He's not in the business - nor are too many people at this stage - of spoon feeding you.
You don't ask for C&C, it seems to me, because you cannot handle it.Thecageyone wrote: »Good criticism usually involves some helpful suggestion. I never stamped all over ACDs comments, I asked him to clarify - I didn't ask the whole forum .... I really don't get why people are rushing to his rescue on it, not that he needs rescuing from anything, you know what i mean? offer up some fresh adice/criticism instead of just whoring someone elses.
There is no fixed definition of good criticism and I note that several people have gone to the trouble of translating AnCatDubh's post for your benefit. The reason for this is that most people consider it constructive. In fact, thus far, I would venture to suggest you are the exception. I will put my advice and comments at the end, and they will be concise.Thecageyone wrote: »Believe it or not, I've moderated elsewhere before. And I've never seen such a rule.
Without wanting to step on ststc's toes I would care to point out that just because you've moderated differently elsewhere does not mean that the way you have seen things done is a) the way it is done everywhere else including here or b) even considered necessary.
There have been a lot of discussions on C&C in the past but the basic deal is in the charter which I will quote for your benefit:Photography Charter wrote:If you're posting your photographs up, please keep in mind that people are entitled to their opinions. If you feel you can't handle negative comments on your work, please don't post images for C&C. It should be a constructive process from which we can all learn.
Please note this for the future.Thecageyone wrote: »Oh right sorry about that, just gotten used to being attacked in this thread for simply asking for more light on bad critique
Oh well, I've gotten some tips and advice. Just to point out and clarify, i was not disagreeing with ACD, I was just asking for advice to back up his C&C, nothing malicious in it whatsoever. I'd respect his advice if he gives it for sure. I've not seen much of his work admittedly, but I did love his Guinness shots, nice and sharp with lovely DOF - some tips from those could work on these shots.
I just thought it was more pointing out the bad than suggesting where to improve.
Pointing out the bad is identifying exactly what needs to be improved. You have a curious understanding of criticism if you do not understand this. You did not get bad critique. You got comprehensive and thoughtful critique from one of the best. A simple thank you would have gone a long way towards recognising the effort he put into it given that your OP lacked somewhat in terms of us having a greater understanding of what you were aiming for.Thecageyone wrote: »I have decided you should all chip in to buy me this:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-105MM-F2-8D-Micro-Nikkor/dp/B000EOSHGQ
And I promise to take the bits of advice given in here, go off and re-shoot some butterflies and post up
You want to help? that's how!
No. Good photographers do not try to hide behind equipment lacunae. Some of the finest macro style photography which I have seen was shot with 50mm 1.8 and when I started looking at close up photography myself, that is the lens I started with. There are macro options on one of the Sigma zooms, the 70-300 but I've never actually used it.
___________________________________
Now, for the photographs.
They are not good enough. You may not like this - I understand you particularly like the first one and when you are on a journey, you have moments where you produce attempt shots that are good to you but which are still, not good enough.
On balance, they are all pretty much too soft.
Picture 1 - focus falls across too much of the story and the butterfly is not a strong enough element of the photograph. This is because of the angle at which you shot it - one of the wings blends into the scene in such away as to suck up half of the butter fly. The colours in the flowers are blown out.
Picture 2 - the detail of the butterfly wings is too soft and so the central focus of the photograph falls on some of the flowers.
Picture 3 - the flowers encompass too much of the photograph and basically drown out the butterfly. Again, this is linked to the angle of the butterfly. Your only control over this is to wait around for him to do something that suits a photography.
Picture 4 - butterfly is out of focus, the flowers are overwhelming and there isn't enough detail on the bee.
Picture 5 is about the best but is lopsided because the balance of sharpness falls on the flowers.
Overall I get the impression you are more pleased that you took the pictures of the butterfly without considering are they any good. This means you're unable to look at them with an unbiased eye.
If you want advice on how to deal with this, I offer only the following:
1) do not waste time trying to make photographs out of shots with excessively soft focus in key subject areas.
2) Be ruthless in how you handle photographs. One of the key pieces of advice I hand out to people is learn to be heartless about your own work.
I can't offer you advice on cropping and framing any of these photographs because to my eye, they are simply not just good enough.
Having looked at the EXIF data, I see that all of them were shot at 1/800. In my view, on a 300mm lens, this is probably too slow. Given that you've complained about the fact that you were shooting on ISO 500, I have to ask you this: if you reduced the ISO to 400 or 200 or whatever, and had a correspondingly slower shutter speed, do you think they would have been any better?
In terms of doing it better, all I can say to you is "get them in focus". I can't give you any tips for doing this; you are the one with the camera in your hand. However you'll need a bigger depth of field with the corresponding reduction in shutter speed. Put simply, there are not many conditions underwhich you can shoot those photographs better with that lens.
However, in general, if you are interested in improving insect/small life related photography I strongly recommend you examine the work of oshead and explore the relevant tags in flickr or pixie. Normally this should aid as far as composition and framing are concerned.
regards,
Calina0 -
-
-
-
Calina's post had more time spent on it than what Pull and Bangs dead Pigeon had in it's lifetime.
On a serious note I agree with most of it but if I had to pick one pic it would be #1 because of the angle of the Butterfly, I think your PP causes one of the wings to get 'lost'
Cagey you gotta let go mate, you had good C&C and you had good C&C of the C&C, hell you've even had C&C of the C&C of the original C&C!
The main problems I have with the pics is the most obvious and unforgiving, the softness, once I don't see that in Macro my interest drains away and secondly I do think you go to town on your PP, less is more would be my advice. 0 -
-
humberklog wrote: »I'm so let down as I thought I was getting a small tortoise, a butterfly and a Bee.
Maybe next time
Yes, AR, I'd let it go ... if other people stopped stirring it. They just know I'll respond.
And yeah I agree Magic, Cailina's comments were well off and insulting. I just didn't bother to nit-pick at them as I said ... I have my standards. No need to post them? No need for the images at all??? Um, I've seen very similar images of butterflies in many a magazine, taking up 2 pages! And it was a bit harsh und uncalled for to pick at my pride in the images [I am a he btw] - And yes, so what? I said I only have the camera a week?? Seriously, who has the issues here?
People on flickr seem to like them, and got some nice comments on Pix. On here I think people go out of their way to be mean at times. It's always the same ones funnily enough.0 -
Thecageyone wrote: »Maybe next time
QUOTE]
Now that's the more like "Lone Warrior" spirit! Get back on your horse and get that Tortoise!0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Thecageyone wrote: »Ah, at least you noticed I wasn't up on a high horse
yeah, end of the day, don't know why I even asked in here for comments. I know they're frikkin good!
Ah now...they're not really:).0 -
-
-
humberklog wrote: »Ah now...they're not really:).
We'll just have to agree they're as good as anything you'd do similar, IMO ...
Thing is, they're nothing personal to me, they're a few shots of a butterfly I thought looked interesting while he/she sipped juice from a flower. I was never planning to hang them in a gallery ... I wanted some feedback on how to better this type of shot, said about 5 times this kind of thing is newish to me.
Asking C&C in here is mostly a waste of time and effort. Because I'm starting to believe certain people will just come in to have a moan or pop at anything really.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I were only kidding, I'm sure anyone with a steady hand could do better
I would like to try a macro lens some time, too pricey for me to justify buying though, as I don't go out of my way to do close ups or macro shots.
I certainly do not see them as being pointless though.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
I'm in no way expert in macro (infact expert on very little so take these comments for whatever makes sense to you from them)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The opening disclaimer
If nothing makes sense then fair enough, ignore and just carry on.My immediate impression whether right or wrong is that i'm seeing a lack of appropriate sharpness
Appropriate sharpness - i feel you've missed the opportunity of having the subject falling within an appropriate depth of field. A suggestion is creating a wider depth of field to ensure appropriate sharpness (in this case - ensuring the head, the antenna, or other recognisable features would be in focus and sharp). Extend this to incorporate the entire body if suitable / appropriate to your shooting conditions.and in general not terribly pretty compositions (background, appropriate depth of field, distracting elements, poor framing).
I did elaborate somewhat on this but to reiterate;
in #1 - strive to eliminate the unwanted shadow under the bug (unless of course that is what you were seeking to do). Bud left hand side is not pleasing to my eye. IMHO it's awful as is the 45 degree stem bottom left hand side. To improve, you could potentially have moved your point of view and/or orientation such that it eliminated some of this distraction and perhaps even made your subject appear to be at a better angle for capture.
in #2 - sharpness is a major issue IMHO. at 300mm of a 300mm lens you are less likely to get sharp results. Although I don't particularly know the specific lens, i'd image that probably somewhere in the mid focal lengths is the best in terms of sharpness. The extremities of lens design on zoom (unless damn expensive ones) are generally not as good as the mid region. My sigma 70 - 300 is the very same. I know if I shoot at 70 or 300 I will get soft results. This I couldn't see last night as the exif was off. If the sharpness was sorted then #2 IMHO has some potential although i'd suggest adjusting the POV a little further to the right and a tad higher.
in #3 i've already referenced the appearance of the flower which i've said that you haven't control of. The point here is simply a piece of junk in the viewfinder will look like a piece of junk in a photograph, and while you aren't controlling nature - you are the photographer and hence see it as your responsibility - your very definite role to ensure that a piece of junk doesn't get into your image. Otherwise it is what it is. To combat this, alter your view, wait for the bug to move, use a utility knife if you must (different circumstance admittedly), change your perspective, go wide instead of zoom, use aperture wisely, over expose, underexpose, alter the depth of field to obfuscate the junk - do whatever the hell you need to do to produce the image that is in your vision of what it is that you are trying to capture. That i'm assuming is that you weren't trying to capture a beyond-its-best-of-bloom flower head. Sharpness here is better / more appropriate but still doesn't quite hit the mark IMHO.
in #4, the bee is a reasonable focus-(ish) - acceptable is the word i'm looking for but the bug doesn't work with its wings raised - i think i've addressed this already. Sharpness on bugs wings is just not good in terms of overall composition. Main thing you can do here when shooting is to be aware of how shallow that 300mm lens is going to leave your depth of field when used reasonably up close (within min focussing distance) and know what focal plane your subject(s)/surrounds will be.Have a vision of what you want to achieve and have the know how as to how to achieve it.
To me, this was the salient point in constructive terms which I think may have gone missing in translation somewhere. A photographers photography will not improve by simply snapping - they may get an occasional nice shot. This is luck and happens us all. But when you can plan and execute a shoot the way that you want, then you are really photographing (IMHO).The lack of sharpness in some instances may be destructive processing - did you postprocess/how?.
If it is caused by destructive processing rather than lens abberations then simply don't process as much. Sometimes we all need to realise that just maybe the image is a piece of junk and deserves to live in the recycle bin.
Photographers talk about their hit rate of good shots. When I thought I was good I had a great hit rate 7/8 out of 10 were sure keepers. My personal hit rate on my photography is going down the more I become self critical. Sometimes you have to look at an image for what it is rather than what you'd like it to be because it will never be anything other than what it is.Hmnn.... i'm not mad on them tbh but that's a subjective opinion.
You have complained that there is little positive about what I originally posted. The reason for this is contained above. I don't like them. Simple as that. If there were something positive to say (again all only IMHO but this is well covered in all my postings) I would be the first to say it. If you read back on any of my C&C which I give to any boards user, I tend to go to a lot of bother and consideration of anything that anyone presents for critique and anything I say is always intended in the spirit of the individual improving. If there are positives to be extolled then i'll certainly do it. You will see this in previous C&C peppered throughout the forum including some previous requests of yours. In this specific case I didn't find anything. They don't appeal to my visual senses. I'm disappointed in them as I think you have the capacity to do and could have done much better. I think that we've seen much better work from you. My expectations are thus that you will continue to improve. This attempt IMHO doesn't represent improvement on you. I've told you previously that I think you have great potential to be good at photography. That remains my honest belief. But, IMHO, you need to accept negative comments. They will only be opinion and I never present anything I contribute on C&C as anything other than opinion. My mother thinks i'm a great photographer. I need to listen to people other than my mother.
This perceived negativity maybe just me. You have a number of 'thanks' so some people like them and I for one am glad to see them thanking the post. Unfortunately given the way the thread has gone those people probably won't jump in and say what they do like about them. I wish they would. Their opinion is every bit as valid as those that don't see value to your efforts on this occasion.
I thought the following was a useful and constructive contribution. I'm sorry if it didn't resonate;If it were me (and I regularly have to do this) I'd ask myself what it is that I want to capture. The answer to this shouldn't simple be "a butterfly". If it is then you are what I would consider just doing the snapshot thing (perfectly ok in its own sense of the art) But as a photographer you should include things like what perspective, colour, implied action/motion if any, focal length with reference to compression and potential aberrations of the lens, brightness, scene, background and so forth. What is the overall aesthetic? How will it be processed? You need to get to what will separate your image of a butterfly from the millions of other butterfly images that are out there. Even if just copying something that you've seen which is a striking image of a butterfly, there is a range of parameters that you'd need to meet.My 2c and only 2c which means that i'm 98c short of a euro
Obviously, anything I say is only an opinion, which in the greater scheme of things isn't terribly important. Perhaps you'll be better to ignore. Refer to the opening disclaimer.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thanks for proving my point, as you are indeed one of those .. But after seeing your atrocious oxygen images taken with some heap of junk, I'm not surprised.
Oh it was just a mere suggestion.I'm happy on here most days as it happens, where do you get off telling me to go elsewhere/ own th place do you?
I'm happy on here most days as it happens, where do you get off telling me to go elsewhere/ own th place do you? [/quote]0 -
After 13k+ posts you'd think you could quote properly
yeah, yeah, I get it. Say you disagree with someone popular here and the firing squad are out. Then dady comes home and sees his children are upset and instead of telling them to shut it, he can deal with it, he joins them in the moanage.
Waste of time. As People had ruined the thread long before i said C&C was a waste of time.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
this kind of thread makes me sick. i hate it i hate it i hate it.
cagey - you come across as as some who hates this forum, whether you do or don't is no business of mine. but you come across as someone who, as fajitas said, has a problem with most aspects of here. c&c, people's opinions, the people themselves, heck you're even insulting the gear people use.
''Dr, Dr, it hurts when I bang my head against a wall.''
''Then don't bang your head against the wall''.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Thecageyone wrote: »
Are butterflies ugly to you? Do you prefer owls? or cats? I've seen worse hanging on walls or even in galleries, close ups of flower petals ... At least I know not to hang these! They is what they is, close ups of a butterfly, something the naked eye doesn't see very much. And the colours are pleasant at least. Sure they could be a million times better, but ... s**te?
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.Do you prefer owls? or cats? I've seen worse hanging on walls or even in galleries, close ups of flower petals
They should have listened to ACD I guess.I do listen, still here aren't I? could have simply ignored it. Still wanting to know why you think they're so bad ...
Well, have a read through these, and see what you can make out. They're pretty much all on the ball. You could just go back to the start of the thread too, if reading the quotes is a bit awkward for you;I'm in no way expert in macro (infact expert on very little so take these comments for whatever makes sense to you from them) - My immediate impression whether right or wrong is that i'm seeing a lack of appropriate sharpness and in general not terribly pretty compositions (background, appropriate depth of field, distracting elements, poor framing).
What i'm getting at probably include some things that aren't particularly in your control - for example; the flower head which the little guy landed upon is probably past its best for the year as is particularly stark in #3 (lot of stuff in our garden is that way at the moment and needs a refresh/visit to the garden centre) - but to me it doesn't make for a pleasant aesthetic. Nevertheless as a photographer you need to deal with it. Have a vision of what you want to achieve and have the know how as to how to achieve it.
The lack of sharpness in some instances may be destructive processing - did you postprocess/how?. I did try to exif peek but I think your pix.ie exif is off? (setting in your profile setup).
In terms of composition in #1, the bud left hand side isn't very aesthetically pleasing to me (might be just me) but also has a peculiar crop position in that it appears to be just hovering there.
The last one is kinda awkward, what is the subject? The bee? in which case the butterfly with closed wings distracts big time or is it the butterfly, in which case between your decisive moment and the actual physical click the butterfly decided not to co-operate.
Hmnn.... i'm not mad on them tbh but that's a subjective opinion.
If it were me (and I regularly have to do this) I'd ask myself what it is that I want to capture. The answer to this shouldn't simple be "a butterfly". If it is then you are what I would consider just doing the snapshot thing (perfectly ok in its own sense of the art) But as a photographer you should include things like what perspective, colour, implied action/motion if any, focal length with reference to compression and potential aberrations of the lens, brightness, scene, background and so forth. What is the overall aesthetic? How will it be processed? You need to get to what will separate your image of a butterfly from the millions of other butterfly images that are out there. Even if just copying something that you've seen which is a striking image of a butterfly, there is a range of parameters that you'd need to meet.
My 2c and only 2c which means that i'm 98c short of a euroI think the differences between what we are seeing and what the butterfly saw are (A) The butterfly saw nutrition and not beauty (B) The butterfly was selective about which flower head it fed from. Shooting things on flowers can be a killer, as it is not until you see the final shot that you realise that some of the flower was not at it's best. Your "focus" was to shoot the butterfly, so that's what you are looking at, when you ask for C&C people don't know (unless you tell them) what part of the shot you were going for and so will look at the entire image. I do think you ran into the problem that I have hit many times with macro/close up, a very shallow depth of field and loss of sharpness, I actually think that front of the wing furtherest from the front of the shot is sharper that the head.
As for framing, well for me, I find the bud on the left of the shot in the first pic distracts from the main subject, where you going for rule of thirds composition? I think the angle you shot Pic 2 & 3 from was much better, but the shallow depth of field (and possible PP) screwed you on shot Pic 2, Pic 3 you got nobbled by the green top of the flower, which to me is not attractive, perhaps cropping it out would help.Okay I see. Good, rereading the thing. That usually helps on forum. I read posts 2 or 3 times before replying (if a "heated" debate).
Here's ACD post again. In short in reads the following (highlighted in ACD's bit):
1) Lack of sharpness i.e. butterfly is sharp in the wrong places.
2) Background takes away from image and is distracting.
3) Composition is not ideal.
These issues are within your control to modify in-camera on a next photographing butterfly session, and some of them can be changed in PP by cropping, sharpening and cloning out some of the background.
Other issues took away the full potential of the image are OUT of your control but can be kept in mind for the future:
For instance, Flower not the best looking. So, next time, keep that in mind and see if you can get the butterfly perhaps somewhere else (patience is a virtue and all that jazz).
If you take of all that together, it's a perfectly valid comment from a C&C point of view.
Hope this helped a little bit in trying to show you what I meant by being delighted to get that reply from ACD?I hope ACD doesn't mind me quoting here but what I want to try and do is translate what you see as negative comments into what you would see as advice.
When you're shooting stuff like this it's easy to get all excited and not pay attention to the details. Your eyes and brain automatically work together to filter out the stuff you don't want to see, but when you present an image in 2d, that stuff gets equal attention to the main subject, and it can 'confuse' the viewer. That's why we use tricks like shallow depth of field - where the eye is drawn to the sharp bits, or saturation/colour/contrast - where the eye is drawn to an area that is more colourful or contrasty than the rest. So the flower that's looking a bit sad is getting more attention than it should, and it's up to you as the photographer to change that using one of those tricks to draw attention away, or wait until the butterfly is on a nicer flower!
Does this one need translating? The advice here would be: careful with processing because it can kill sharpness.
You've got two subjects in the frame - the butterfly, and the bud. And there's lots of space to the right of the butterfly, and none to the left of the bud, and you can't see the stem below the bud, so it's coming in to the side of the frame and looks like it's floating. The moral of the story here: be mindful of negative space, and balance in yoru composition, and the way that we visually respond to stuff on the edge of the frame particularly and consider including the whole thing or none at all, or crop at a more comfortable place. It's difficult to put that one in words without setting out 'rules' and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth
When you've got two subjects and seriously shallow depth of field, they either have to be on the same plane of focus and equally sharp or have a clear relationship defined through the use of selective focus, so we don't get confused when looking at them. Increase your depth of field to get them both, or change your angle to make one draw more attention than the other.
That's helpful advice if ever i saw it... I have no more to add to that.
I really hope you might see the actual advice in there rather than thinking of it as just pulling the pictures apart. And nobody said you had to agree, either.I really don't think you are being entirely fair here. I tried as best I could to point out what I thought could be done to improve the shots and I believe that ACD did the same but he took a lot more time and went into more detail, it should be appreciated that he took that amount of time. I genuinely do not think he was 100% negative and he did point out things that could be addressed (as sNarah highlighted) to improve things. Even to the extent of distinguishing what is in your control and what is not in your control.
Flowers, to me are inherently difficult to shot, I know you were shooting the butterfly but the flower was part of the image. I have several times been about to hit the shutter when I realised that when taken in isolation (in a photo) that the flower was just not going to look good.
Here is a shot of mine, which I like BUT I know because of flare (which I kinda hid by reducing brightness) and in particular damage to the petal (which I didn't notice at the time of the shoot), just does not cut the mustard. I have a friend who loves daffodils and asked for a print of it, I didn't want to do it for her as I knew the shot was not up to scratch but she wasn't looking at it in the way I was.
The thing is, when you offer something for C&C, you do need to remember that people will not always see things the way you do, a shot you love could be disliked by others and vice-versa. I recently posted a photo of a horse shaking it's head at me, the focus was not great but I liked it, technically it was a sh*te shot, I knew that but I liked it.
Try remember, people are not critiquing you, they are, as requested offering C&C on the image, the image not you.Helpful C&C:
I really like the general composition, the background works very well, there is a good balance between the purple and the green, and the hint of purple in the leaves ties the two halves together well. I particularly like the fact that the blooms bottom left are in focus. That's the good bit.
The fact that the butterfly's head/antennae is out of focus hurts my eyes. If I were looking at this in real life, I'd expect the head to be in focus, and unless there's an editorial or artistic reason to have it out of focus that I'm not aware of, I don't think it works. One or two stops down would probably give you enough DOF to get the buddleia and the whole butterfly in focus, whilst still throwing the background into that pleasant green blur.
My 2c, I hope you find it helpful.
Oh. I guess the bumblebee is kinda cute. Yeah, I like him. [/quote]0 -
-
-
Thecageyone wrote: »artyeva: Eh, that was joke ...
I don't hate the forum, I hate how some get a little uppity
i'm not merely talking about this thread though. i'm talking about i'd say 9 out of 10 threads that you either start or become involved in.
your attitude towards this forum, the mods of this forum, the people who also use this forum, the rules of this forum, forum attiquette in general, and heck even your use of the english language just stinks and is turning people off you, your images, your opinions and heck i suppose even your ***** butterfly shots.
i've read the original c&c you were given a number of times now and even though i have never photographed a butterfly on a flower in my life, i do have the capacity to comprehend the english language and i see no problem with it. i do however you getting a bee [butterfly] in your bonnet cause you either can't take any type of criticism, or else you sit at home enjoying coming across as obstinate. ha!!!!! :eek: i think that's it.
if we all ignore you will you go away? 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
i'm not merely talking about this thread though. i'm talking about i'd say 9 out of 10 threads that you either start or become involved in.
your attitude towards this forum, the mods of this forum, the people who also use this forum, the rules of this forum, forum attiquette in general, and heck even your use of the english language just stinks and is turning people off you, your images, your opinions and heck i suppose even your ***** butterfly shots.
i've read the original c&c you were given a number of times now and even though i have never photographed a butterfly on a flower in my life, i do have the capacity to comprehend the english language and i see no problem with it. i do however you getting a bee [butterfly] in your bonnet cause you either can't take any type of criticism, or else you sit at home enjoying coming across as obstinate. ha!!!!! :eek: i think that's it.
if we all ignore you will you go away?
Sorry, but who are you to speak for everyone? Speak for yourself alone. I think if you looked through my posts outside of this one i actually offer advice, comments, and am as general as anyone else. Why the hatred? Did I step on your cat at some stage? Sheesh ... you want to ignore me yet keep coming in to this very thread to have a pop at me? You are s**t stirring is all you are doing right now. And you haven't offered any C&C, that's what the thread is for, you could easily ignore the rest. Your post is blatant ignorance. You're posting like you are more special on here than I am.0 -
-
Advertisement
Advertisement