I would never sell my 55-300. I think it has better IQ than my Sigma 150-500, albeit the bokeh is not as good. For a lightweight walk-around lens with decent reach for not much money, how can you do better?

Regards
David

This has turned into another very interesting thread. Here's a couple of questions:

Is this image HDR?

If it is, does it look natural?




Does it pass or fail?

Regards
David

Ha Ha, your ironic humour has got me smiling Dr O! You clearly have good taste

Best wishes
David

For me it all comes down to having decent (not necessarily expensive) equipment, putting yourself in the right place at the right time and having the skill to execute the shots when you are in the right place at the right time.

Take landscapes for example. You have to get up before Dawn or stay up late (Dawn is best) if you want to capture the atmospheric images that make great photos. Plus, on top of that you have to go to what are often the most inaccessible places. This is why photos taken in these places at these times have so much impact - because we don't see them very often and very few people take them. Same is true for wildlife, you need to know where the animals and birds go, at what time of day and you need to be in the best position to photograph them.

In addition to what I've said above, having a good eye is also essential, this comes from a combination of innate ability and learned ability. Some people have it naturally whilst others have to learn harder.

I think it's good to post images for CC, as I do regularly and to take from the comments received the bits that are relevant to improving your photography. We are all on a learning curve, it's just that we're on different parts of it.

Regards
David

Thanks to everyone who has commented, I do appreciate all of the input. It's funny that the one that everyone seems to like (launch pad) is the one that is my least favourite; I don't like the harsh 'flash' effect. It's much harder (and more satisfying to me) to do the natural light images, but in this country the light has to be exceptionally good to get away with a narrow aperture and sufficient shutter speed. Yesterday was dull and not conducive to this.

In the spirit of recent forum posts, here's a bit more information on why the images were shot this way and what I'm trying to achieve:

I wanted to experiment with narrow DOF on macro subjects, but I've ended up with neither one thing nor the other. For the next set, I will use a narrower aperture (F11 to F16) as I think the biggest single issue with these shots is the narrow DOF, although it was intentional. As for sharpness, I've checked all of these images again and they are all sharp on the insects' eyes, apart from the last one of the Yellow Dung Fly. There is no lack of sharpness in any of them, but I think the lack of DOF is making it appear they are not sharp.

This contrasts with images posted by Nass for example, where focus stacking is used on inanimate subjects, but this is not a route I want to go down as I'm only interested in photographing living, moving things in their natural environment.

I don't do this for money or for a profession, it is and always will be a hobby and enjoyment for me, so I'm not trying to produce images that will sell or win awards, I just want to be proud of what I do.

I think I need to aim for the sort of quality that Charlotte used to produce, as she also worked only with critters in their natural environment and used to produce some stunning images of these.

All the best to everyone, thanks for some good interaction on this post.

Best wishes
David

Hi Lennybloke, I didn't remove them, I bought the TC with them already removed, so I don't know how this was done. It's not the AF one, just the one with the aperture contacts.

Regards
David

I agree with this Gary and I have certainly been inspired by your images. We do see a broad range and although I certainly don't feel qualified to give an informed opinion on all the images, I do try at least to give an opinion as often as I can, as do many others.

I think this particular thread has sparked more comment in other threads, which can only be a good thing for the Forum.

Regards
David

I knew that I didn't know what I was talking about!

This is why Forums like this work, we all have different views

Cheers
David

Don't worry Gareth, I have noticed, but your post came in as I was typing replies to the others! I'm not a speed typist!

Thanks for the comments, you are right about the DOF and flash, there are times when I try to avoid the artificial light but today was probably not bright enough. Also, I do think the shallow DOF can work on some images, e.g. direct head-on shots where the body is hidden. I remember seeing a head-on butterfly shot from Dorothea (where is she now?) which was done at F2.8 and only the eyes were in focus. It was superb.

Regards
David

I'm not sure I'm qualified to comment on these as I don't really understand this genre of photography, so what I will say is gut feel only.

I don't think the first one is competition standard, it's too straightforward and simple.

I'm drawn to the fourth and the last one, although I think the car in the fourth one should be sharp? I do like the odd angle in the fourth one, it adds to the abstract nature of the image.

Regards
David