|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 3/4/2007
|
THank you very much, Andrew:-)
|
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 3/4/2007
|
Thank you, Deniz:-)
|
|
|
|
Andrew Herbst
{K:390} 3/4/2007
|
Very interesting shot, well done.
|
|
|
|
|
deniz cesmeci
{K:5726} 3/3/2007
|
nice shot
congrs.
best regards
waiting for comments
thanks
have a nice day
deniz cesmeci
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/3/2007
|
About the spots... let's take the story from the start once again. In my first comment I said something about a *fisheye-like* distortion of condensation drops - so the tiny spot-like drops are quite neglidgible. It's the bigger ones that magnify the background in a circular manner that play a role here, and about which I think I wrote in an obvious way already. The tiny ones are just... nice decoration.
The desription of a macro is widely available over the web. And eben better in serious books about photography. There is nothing to "wonder" about that if one bothers reading a bit.
Up to now, almost none of your "macros" is a macro but rather some naive wish to capture a macro without doing the necessary hard work prior to capturing. A macro, much like a tele, *defines* something in relation to its surroundings. But on your "macros" there is most of the time no definition, no distinction to the surroundings, just some kind of fuzzy sea of different details of fore- middle- and background. All of them on the same flat photo.
As about the photo session on the mounts, well, a photographer's life knows no strict rules of schedule. The light is not OK for the planed photo series today, and so it was better to postpone it, and take some other series first. So another junk food series will be on this evening. Fench fries and falafel in their most photogenic attitude ;-)
Oh, and not to forget: I didn't use any filters for food up to now since I was able to rely on settings chosen by conscious thinking, but if it has to be I'll use filters of course. It's only a matter of choise/skills/intention.
Best wishes,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 3/3/2007
|
BTW do you use filters when you photograph food?
|
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 3/3/2007
|
Hello un-sir, de-sir, re-sir, be-sir
The little spots are the white ones that don´t seem to cast any shadows.
A macro that denies being a macro? I´m sorry but I don´t follow you here, Nick.
I sometimes wonder what makes an image a macro, how close and detailed it has to be to be named a macro. Some of my macros should rather be called something else, but it can be difficult some times finding the right term for them.
I guess that a true macro is one where little details become visible to the eyes, something that we wouldn´t see at the first glance or maybe even can´t see. Thanks for the question that makes me re-think what macros are.
Yes, your crop I also did first, but then thought that I might was too harsh and made it a bit broader.
I thought you´re in the mountains today?
I get the replies after a day or so, so it was by accident that I found your comment today.
Take care
Annemette
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/3/2007
|
And I forgit the merciless crop too ;-)
|
Merciless crop |
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/3/2007
|
By the time it should have been clear that I am not a "sir" ;-) And what is the opposite of a "sir"? Perhaps an.. "unsir" which sounds like "answer"? ;-)
OK, now I have to ask what you mean when you refer to the "little" spots. I see many spots and so there are many that could be named "little" in comparison to the other ones, so could you somehow mark those that you meant?
The reflections... hard thing to avoid. Sometimes you can't do any different but use either filters or special settings. Very very special settings! Superposition of waves, you see... In general, flash light would rather make problems even worse, as any additional source of light would likely amplify those interference phenomena, except of course of you find some particular angle of view in which light inteferes identically to nothing, nada, nichts, 0. But this is a hard thing to find, really. And so the macros of food are really much more hard to be captured than we might think. It sounds so simple - reduce interference to 0 - but light is a very uncooperative companion in such cases.
Your crop is indeed much much better. It enhances the important - it puts a focus upon the main subject. In my attitude of complete enhancement of the important I would perhaps be even more merciless and crop much more off image. This way we have a clear (and also merciless ;-)) distiction of the important, but at the expense of a more general view that takes the surroundings into consideration too.
But the question still remains: A macro that denies to be a macro, the way you do macros most of the time.. is it able to possess any striking characteristic? A very old question of photography that still doesn't have any answer at all. Your attempts to answer this question remain fruitless. But no problem! The hardest the question, the more attempts we need to answer it, even if the answer is quite unorthodox. :-)
Best wishes,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 3/3/2007
|
Forgot the attachment:-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 3/3/2007
|
Thank you, sir, for your thorough comment! There was no flour used yet so the little spots has to be additional oil. The left part of the photo is problematic due to the lack of focus compared to the right and indeed the little specks seems irritating to the eye. One thing that bothered me though was the reflection of light. I moved it around with different light coming from the sides, from above, I used flash and no flash, but still I wasn´t content with the light. Maybe covering up the window would be good avoiding any reflection and then have two lamps standing on each side maybe? Anyway I tried cropping off the left side.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 3/3/2007
|
From the composition's point of view it does have something interesting, though the domain of deeper blue hues at the bottom left corner is too small for really being a part of the composition, and too big for just being ignored by the eye of the spectator. Its effect gets amplified since everything else is steely blue in the typical disorder of such a photo, and then suddenly something appears that doesn't have any optical relation to the overall "system". The uniformity gets interrupted by something that is too small to be considered as an element of contrast to the rest of the photo.
The rest of it, as already said, is also nice considering the uniform coloring. But macros can be very demanding in matters of focus. Here it is not clear what is the focus and what was intented to be fuzzy. I have the impression that some kind of glass cover was over the flour and that some water condensated on the other side of the glass. These condensation drops distort the drops (of oil?) on the flour the way a fisheye lens do, and so there is some tension of many small distorted regions of view. The problem is that they don't really "pop out" of that uniformity - they miss to put the points of accent on the photo.
So, as in every macro, it is of huge importance to put the sharp focus and the related DoF at some interesting range of depth, or to just fight for each and every tenth of a millimeter of DoF that we can get. This one is somewhere inbetween, not deciding what to enhance and what to ignore.
Relatively good idea though also a rather usual one, and herein lies the difficulty of such photos. Having seen many of them, it has to be something absolutely special that makes the spectator throw the hat in the air.
Best wishes,
Nick
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
{K:101119} 3/3/2007
|
Hmmmmmm . . . oil - flour - water. Is my cake ready??? :) Pure Annemette!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Pablo Dylan
{K:63918} 3/2/2007
|
This is one great shot.
Brava Anne.
Pablo
|
|
|
|
Ace Star
{K:21040} 3/2/2007
|
Magical work dear Annemette! beautiful blue colors, tones and light :)
fantastic work
good luck
|
|
|
|
Srna Stankovic
{K:172232} 3/2/2007
|
you are welcome Annemette as always, Srna
|
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 3/2/2007
|
THank you so much, Srna:-)
|
|
|
|
|
Srna Stankovic
{K:172232} 3/2/2007
|
Beautiful Annemette !!! So appealing for my eyes !!!
Warm regards, Srna
|
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 3/2/2007
|
You´re so kind to me, Tim. Thank you
|
|
|
|
Tim Schumm
{K:29196} 3/2/2007
|
beautiful composition as always with your images. The blue hue also adds to the power of this shot.
|
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 3/2/2007
|
Yes my highest wish is a built-in camera on my hand:-))
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Sutherland
{K:556} 3/2/2007
|
You are obviously ready for every photo opportunity. Do you carry your camera everywhere? makes an excellent abstract.
|
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 3/1/2007
|
Thank you, Joe:-)
|
|
|
|
Joe Brown
{K:23213} 3/1/2007
|
Very nice shot Annemette, attractive tones of blue and interesting pattern, well lit and exposed.
All the best,
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 3/1/2007
|
Hello and thank you for commenting:-)
|
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 3/1/2007
|
THanks a lot, Leo:-)
|
|
|
|
yasargun muslum
{K:6647} 3/1/2007
|
Hii, nice shot.
|
|
|
|
Leo Régnier Я£
{K:67696} 3/1/2007
|
SPLENDID!!!!
Great idea and very well executed!!!
Leo
|
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 3/1/2007
|
Glad you like it, Onie:-)I love finding motives in everydaylife that we usually don´t pay so much attention to.
Take care down under
Annemette
|
|
|
|
Leonie Fitzpatrick
{K:40551} 3/1/2007
|
Love the blue Annemette...:) Bubbles within bubbles... would hate to have to count how many... rings, light hits...:)
Love how the bubbles have magnified the lines of their own shadow... :)
Nice work Annemette...:)
Onie...
|
|
0 
