No, I agree with George here. If you absolutely have to post a picture for comparison, on someone else's critique thread, in my view you should post it as a link. Then people are not forced to look at your picture when considering their feedback on the original poster's picture(s).

I must admit, George's slightly caustic approach, while often quite amusing when not directed at me, has made me think the same.

But this is uncalled for. Pete, if you want any kind of respect here, don't be rude.

I think this is over-harsh. The one of the girl by the tree looked relaxed enough, and she doesn't look uncomfortable in this, it's just possibly not her best expression. If anything, she looks slightly surprised, since her forehead is a little furrowed. She did look dreadfully uncomfortable in the sun-rays one, which I hated with a dreadful loathing, but I don't think that specifically is a general problem.

And here I disagree with you, Pete. The model in that series was the only thing about them that had any merit at all. She looked relaxed and natural in all those shots.

If there's one thing this thread proves, it's how subjective this lark is.

I get pilloried for shots that aren't quite sharp enough, Pete gets roasted for shots that are too sharp.

And meanwhile there's a special language, where you have to be "in the know" to have the slightest idea what people are on about. I'm supposed to ensure that there are shadows, so that there's more supposedly interesting contrast across the face... but apparently that's called "modelling", and if you have it, it's "good", but if you don't have it, that's "bad".

And now there's "skin tone". I, like Pete, imagined that skin tone was about the quality of the skin, but it seems that in this case, "bad skin tone" means that he's used a bit too much fill in flash, resulting in some over-shiny patches. But this is "appalling", where exactly the same thing can be found on a photo published here recently (albeit to a lesser extent), yet it was described as "technically excellent".

And then we have this thread, where images are described variously as "very nice", down to "very poor".

Don't get me wrong. I'm very grateful for the feedback (I'll be asking for more!), and I try to take it on board and figure out how to do things differently. But please, experienced people, use language that is clear enough for us relative newbies to understand, and separate out fact from opinion.

I quite liked Pete's shot. Apart from the overexposure, I think it's the least contrived of everything he's posted here. I didn't like the OP's shots, since although the model was very attractive and looked relaxed, the backgrounds were distracting, they were horribly back lit, and they were blurred.

Well the auction just ended, without a single bid.

Let's hope he re-lists it with a more sensible reserve.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Pentax-400mm-f5-6-prime-lens-PK-A-fit-SMC-coating_W0QQitem...

Is it really gonna go for that much?

The second one is excellent. Most impressed.

So how does the focusing work then? Do you use the AF? Is it quick enough to cope with the camera moving?

All my recent attempts at macro work have been hand held, and manually focused (with a 50mm SMC-A on the end of an extension tube). Turning the focusing ring is completely pointless while you're chasing the critter up and down the window frame, or whatever - so I focus by moving the camera.

It's not easy...

Nope. I deliberately put the unsharpened one (the one with the head tilt) in last of the three.

Hmm. Only the original three have the blue cast. The background was white, not blue - I thought I'd sorted that out in the later edits.

Indeed. I was conscious of this at the time. Thanks for the suggestion re the camera club, and the flash. I'll have another go at some point.

I agree. For that last one I was just seeing what I could do in response to Dan's comment about contrast, really.

Well that last one (which was very typical) was 1/20s at F4.5 at 130mm with the 75-300 FAJ.

I guess I need to get into flash a bit. I've no experience with it, other than for snaps.

Thanks for your comments, Dan. How's this for comparison?




Thanks too to George and John.

I'm exhausted now... this stuff is difficult !

Ok, thanks John. Could you elaborate a little on exactly what you mean with some of the specifics?

- what exactly is meant by "modelling"?
- "vitality" in the colour? Do you mean adjustments in the saturation, a background that contrasts more with both skin and hair, or what?

As it happens, I was using a large window as sole source of light to the left side as you look at the photo, together with a large piece of white card on the other side to reduce the shadows that were cast to the right as you look at it. It does make for more uniform (is that what you mean by "flat"?) lighting, but the results seemed better than without the card.

I take the point about eye sharpness. And I wasn't hoping for a Vogue cover just yet either...

What do you think now? The first one is as before, and the second one is the same shot, with the white balance fixed, slightly different levels, a little USM and a little attention to the eyes (too much?).