|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
3/8/2007 12:13:39 PM
Just out of interest I applied some high school physics to find out how much time was left before impact. The drop was released from 8 inches above the water surface and is about 2.5 mm in diameter. The gap to be closed is about 1% of the diameter of the droplet This means, if my sums are right, that contact will be made in about 1/100,000 of a second. Close call or what?
|
| Photo By: Martin Halley
(K:580)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
3/5/2007 11:29:07 PM
I've been copying your drip shots - well you've starting doing "my" panoramas so that's fair. I really do like your use of colour in these shots. You certainly have the edge on me in this field.
Regards
Martin.
|
| Photo By: Sally Morgan
(K:9219)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
3/5/2007 11:24:07 PM
Nice shot, Sally - have you thought about taking the black branch our of the image?
Regards
Martin.
|
| Photo By: Sally Morgan
(K:9219)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
3/5/2007 11:20:26 PM
Hi Sally,
You've been having lots of fun! This looks much like my son's bedroom after he's "tidied" it up.
HDR: For what it is worth, I always get everything done in the basic, single shots first as the stitching often requires a bit of "bending" and once that's done adding in the "extras" can be a nightmare. I've not used PhotoShop's HDR - where have they hidden it?
Kindest regards.
Martin.
|
| Photo By: Sally Morgan
(K:9219)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
12/7/2006 2:17:26 PM
Anna,
I think the lighting is changed to red when it is shut down for the night. This was 2 am.. At midnight it is still running and blue.
Pleased (and smug) that you enjoyed my humble effort.
Regards.
Martin
|
| Photo By: Martin Halley
(K:580)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
12/5/2006 9:51:45 PM
Andrew,
A superb shot that might beimproved by cropping off about 3/4 of the sky above the bird's head. I have tried it and it give the bird a much improved "presence". Makes him seem just a little more threatening and it then also becomes a better balanced image by losing that "dropped to the bottom of the frame" feeling that I get with it as it is.
Nevertheless a classic bird portrait.
|
| Photo By: Andrew Brown
(K:65)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
12/5/2006 9:33:21 PM
Anna,
You opted for Critiquer's Corner, so here goes...
It's a depserate shame that you have cut the top off the main subject, the Eye itself. It is essential to have it all in with long shots like this. If this were a close-up of the hub or a single gondola then no problem but here the main object is the entire Eye so it is a saerious error to cut its head off.
The other problem fault is the fact that the horizon is sloping down to the left. I suspect that you tilted the camera, concentrating on the Eye to get it upright and forgot about the river.
There is strange illusion associated with the Eye, although it is perfectly vertical, any shot taken from the side makes it look as though it is sloping away from the camera. This because it is circular and very tall and the normal converging verticals that are noramlly quite acceptable are lost in the cirularity. When photographed this can look very odd, but it is in fact how it looks, apparently sloping dramatically away from the camera.
Now to the good bits. Lovely, controlled exposure. Your camera did you proud. The only problem is the lost detail on the near side of the jetty in the immediate foreground. If you have image processing software it can be very useful in night-time scenes with lots of lights to take three additional shots, one as set by the camera and then two more, doubling the exposure each time and one with the exposure halved. Four shots in all.
Providing your tripod is rock steady you can then layer the four shots and paint in the detail where it is missing in the main frame (Jetty details) - just enough to add the missing detail but not enough to make it look artificial. And you can then use the shorter exposure to cut out some of the clipping around the lights. The result can be very dramatic and the it only takes a few minutes to accomplish.
Finally, the colour balance is about perfect.
Your camera deserves another chance to take this image as you were spot on with the composition and time of day.
|
| Photo By: Anna Schulz
(K:1186)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
11/3/2006 10:11:48 AM
Thank you for your kind comments. But take care Valery, you can become addicted to 3D!
I use ArcSoft's Panorama Maker3 for stitching large images. It works very well providing the individual frames are taken with 70mm or longer lenses. Shorted focal lengths introduce too much distortion. It will only tile 16 frames but is able to accommodate as many frames horizontally as you want use.
To create really big panos I use Panaroma Maker3 to stitch several horizontal layers and then I stitch the resultant layers manually.
If distortion does occur then I use Altostorm's Rectilinear Panorama Home to bring it all back into line.
|
| Photo By: Martin Halley
(K:580)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
11/1/2006 5:59:29 PM
Hi Sally, good to hear from you again. No, this really is the old lifeboat station now stranded as the shore has receded due to the build up of shingle. I'll post a black and white version later.
|
| Photo By: Martin Halley
(K:580)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
10/30/2006 4:44:31 PM
A beautiflly taken image.
Can you please share the technique with us.
|
| Photo By: Oguz Kiziltug
(K:421)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
10/30/2006 4:36:13 PM
Just superb!
A little Marpissa jumping spider. Those eyes are something else. Much better than my shot of a similar species. Excellent photo.
|
| Photo By: majed ali
(K:315)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
10/30/2006 4:33:04 PM
Sally,
Hi, good to see you have returned.
Up to your usual high standard I see !
I was going to suggest that f32 would have brought the whole of this little lady into focus but as it was hand-held I think that would have been impossible without flash. I use a diffuser made from anice cream carton, and this allows me to used flash yet avoid the the down side.
Nice to have you back.
Kindest.
Martin.
|
| Photo By: Sally Morgan
(K:9219)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
10/27/2006 1:28:11 AM
A superb photo of a beetle. Perhaps a little more room for the antenna in the top right hand corner would add that final touch.
|
Photo By: Joe Johnson
(K:8529)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
10/27/2006 1:22:48 AM
Thought I'd pay you a visit!
You have an excellent portfolio of excedingly good work with a terrific range of styles.
This insect by the way is an immature cricket. They don't sting but they sure can bite hard! Great photo, you must be talking very nicely to your camera to get such great shots.
|
| Photo By: Joe Johnson
(K:8529)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
10/26/2006 1:42:07 PM
Joe,
Thank you for your comments. Your revision comes up on my monitor as bright blue. I am about to calibrate as I have a brand new monitor which may be set too blue, hence an over-emphasis on yellow when my images are displayed on yours. It was early evening in October and sun was fairly low through low cloud so there was a pronounced yellow-orange cast to everything. All comments greatly appreciated.
|
| Photo By: Martin Halley
(K:580)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
10/24/2006 12:34:58 AM
Very nicely composed, it all works beautifully. The dynamic range is extremely well controlled. Perhaps a small crop (10% say) off the bottom to strengthen the sense of depth and viewer involvement.
|
| Photo By: Jacek M.
(K:2999)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
10/16/2006 1:21:55 AM
Hugo, many thanks for your comments and I agree the tree tops do seem to have lost it at the edges. I have adjusted them in the main image as shown by importing part of theorginal file. Your comment spurred me on, I was getting lazy!
|
| Photo By: Martin Halley
(K:580)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
10/8/2006 12:23:53 PM
Thanks for your comments. What I particularly like about this image is that in 2D it is a hopeless mess, but in 3D the layers and details all separate into their rightful places and it all becomes comprehensible.
|
| Photo By: Martin Halley
(K:580)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
3/25/2006 12:21:08 AM
Something you might like to try..... Set the camera for continuous shooting and focus on the critical part of the image (the eye I guess in this instance). Then take a series of images as you gradully move in closer.
The idea is to get two of three images that between them have the fly in sharp focus from front to back.
You can then spend several days in Photoshop trying to blend the sharp layers into one image.
|
| Photo By: Tjaart van Staden
(K:979)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
3/25/2006 12:12:36 AM
Lovely image. I would be interested to know how you achieved this effect.
|
| Photo By: Larry Donnelly
(K:644)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
3/25/2006 12:00:07 AM
Potentially a very good image. But it is essential that it is cropped right down to bare bones to give it the strength that is definitely there waiting to be released.
The sky to the right of the dog is adding nothing, in fact it is diluting the inherent strength of the dog's portrait and so it should be removed.
As you have already cut off the feet you need to cut off all the distracting remnanats of the legs and also that little bit of tail. I think these are all taking the eye away from the real purpose of the image.
Leave enough space in front of the dog so that he (she?) has something to look into. The light clouds should remain as they give an strong impression of the dog's breathe on a cold day. I feel that they give atmosphere without being contrived. Was that a happy accident or did you wait for exactly the right moment?
The result, in my opinion is a powerful portrait giving the dog lots of presence. A potential winner in any photo club competition.
You taken a great image that is crying out for a bit of extra work to bring it to full fruition.
Normally I don't ramble on like this but I think your image is potentially so good it would be a pity to not say something. Hopefully you take my comments in the spirit in which they are given.
|
| Photo By: serhat tigrel
(K:9)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
2/20/2006 12:23:43 AM
A lovely image.
Try cropping a good amount off the right hand side, say 25%, it is vacant space that adds nothing to the image. I think you will find that taking the main subject off centre like this will greatly enhance the dramatic feel of the image.
It will also have the effect of giving the bird somewhere to go, as the space will be mainly in front of the bird rather than behind.
|
| Photo By: nick henry
(K:206)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
11/24/2005 2:24:36 AM
Hi Sally,
I really love this one, it works in every department for me.
About 5 years ago I purchased an oil painting from a major London Gallery. It was the best one there at the time of a major selling exhibition. It was of boats and an almost a perfect pair to your photo.
So you joined the local camera club. Don't let the competition judges get you down, they can be complete idiots sometimes, but grat fun nevertheless.
Tahnks for your recent critique (with which I have to agree).
Kind regards.
|
| Photo By: Sally Morgan
(K:9219)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
9/21/2005 2:18:57 PM
Sally,
I followed your advice and cropped off the left margin. The resulting print scored a perfect "10".
Thanks for the input, greatly appreciated.
|
| Photo By: Martin Halley
(K:580)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
8/26/2005 3:35:08 AM
I see that you are having the same difficulty that I have. Digital cameras turn bumble bees into flying sultanans because the sensors cannot resolve the individual and extremely fine body hairs.
I found that using fill-in flash helped in that at least some of the hairs reflect the light strongly enough to be individually resolved. It also enabled a much reduced aperture so enhancing the depth of field. (This wasn't really f11 was it!?)
|
| Photo By: Timothy Tanguay
(K:1682)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
8/26/2005 2:50:48 AM
Terrific photo.
May I suggest that you have a bit of fun and take several shots with each on a different light balance setting. Some quite dramatic effects can be achieved with night shots in this way. I especially like the "flourescent" setting. (Did I spell that correctly?).
I agree with Janice and also my eye is telling me that there is a fractional horizontal narrowing towards the left, river titled up, bridge tilted down on this side (i.e. <).
|
| Photo By: Rob Graziano
(K:6678)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
8/25/2005 1:13:53 AM
Sally,
Thank you for your kind comments. Yes, maybe the sky should be improved. It was a very cold, bleak, grey day and I probably let my memory of that over-ride the need for a stronger image.
Must try harder!
|
| Photo By: Martin Halley
(K:580)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
8/18/2005 3:24:29 PM
Sally,
This is a spectacular image, I love it.
Now here's a challenge for you. Using only the D70, take a macro of a dandelion seed head with all the fronds (both front and back) in sharp focus.
Regards.
Martin.
|
| Photo By: Sally Morgan
(K:9219)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
8/17/2005 10:15:15 PM
Sally,
The rating you give is added to all the others and then averaged. If you rate 6 and there is already a 5 rating it will appear as 5.5.
Everyone who posts is looking for ratings, so please do unless rate they say "Critique only".
Regards.
Martin.
|
| Photo By: Martin Halley
(K:580)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Martin Halley (K:580)
8/17/2005 10:08:40 PM
Sally,
The trick to adding skies (in Photoshop) is to have a blank grey sky to start with. Then set the added sky layer to "multiply" and to convert it to a mask then rub-out the sky over the buildings and solid objects but to leave the trees alone. Let "multiply" deal with the branches and leaves. I usually find it necessary to run a 2 pixel 100% blur around the joins after flattening the image.
I take your point about the crop but this is a picture of the canal lock as much as the building. I did try cropping more off the left hand side but I couldn't decide if was an improvement, so I left it in. Now that you have commented I am obliged to get the scissors out.
The original image is as sharp as can be expected (hand-held, very low light, light rain, compact camera), down-sizing to an 800 pixel jpeg (from a 5,400 pixel psd original) hasn't helped. The other factor is that this little pocket camera does have noise problems in very low light. This does limit the sharpening options quite considerably. I used "sharpen edges" once. Twice produced too many artifacts to be acceptable.
Thanks for the critique, it is very welcome.
Kind regards.
Martin.
Thanks for the comments Now dig out those skies and try again!
|
| Photo By: Martin Halley
(K:580)
|
|
