All Forum Comments
Exposure looks OK, but what does the photo look like without the sharpening? There seems to be quite a bit of noise which the sharpening has brought out.
Comment by Father Ted posted on Another full moon at 05/04/2010 - 16:16
impotentspider wrote:
Second shot works best for me too, other than Kris's criticism about the leaves my only other gripe is the flower seems a little dissembodied (no visible stem), if we can see the leaves why cant we see that too?
It would be interesting to know how you got the background so black
The black background was by accident Second shot works best for me too, other than Kris's criticism about the leaves my only other gripe is the flower seems a little dissembodied (no visible stem), if we can see the leaves why cant we see that too?
It would be interesting to know how you got the background so black
I was shooting into the sun, with my reflector just behind me, and I was lying on my back on the floor. The flower must have been sillouted, but with enough light from the reflector to light up the petals.The missing stem is partially due to cloning out the out of focus flower behind this one.
I'd post the original, but unfortunately I've just cleared my memory card
Comment by Father Ted posted on Daffodills at 05/04/2010 - 15:52
I'm hoping to take some portraits of my (somewhat older children ) tomorrow. I hope I can come somewhere near to what you manage
Comment by Father Ted posted on My baby niece... at 04/04/2010 - 17:45
Well, I finally got some spring shots. Albeit, only from our back yard, haven't had a proper chance to get out recently.
Here are the two I'm most pleased with.
C&C welcome, as always.
[IMG]http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i296/Father_Ted/PHOTOS/Daffodilupload.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i296/Father_Ted/PHOTOS/Daffodil2upload.jpg[/IMG]
Here are the two I'm most pleased with.
C&C welcome, as always.
[IMG]http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i296/Father_Ted/PHOTOS/Daffodilupload.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i296/Father_Ted/PHOTOS/Daffodil2upload.jpg[/IMG]
Comment by Father Ted posted on Daffodills at 04/04/2010 - 17:39
Oggy wrote:
Sounds to me as if it should be filed under (at worst) "Oops".
I fully agree Sounds to me as if it should be filed under (at worst) "Oops".
Comment by Father Ted posted on Apology. at 04/04/2010 - 13:50
royd63uk wrote:
Apart from posting images and expecting comments but not commenting on other peoples
Roy
Although, there are some who are so new to photography that we don't feel we have the necessary skills / vocabulary to comment on other people's work. I know that's how I felt when I first came on here.Quote:
Nothing worse than someone throwing negative comments around on everyone else's work and not posting anything themselves
Nothing worse than someone throwing negative comments around on everyone else's work and not posting anything themselves
Apart from posting images and expecting comments but not commenting on other peoples
Roy
But getting feedback on our images allows us to improve an then gives us the knowledge to comment. ( Although I haven't contributed much lately myself, either in the way of comments, or for comment )
Comment by Father Ted posted on Apology. at 03/04/2010 - 21:06
Hardgravity wrote:
The proof will be in the images Ted.
Well, I took a few snapshots today with it.The proof will be in the images Ted.
Both straight off camera, no adjustments other than resizing.
This was taken in dull overcast lighting. Handheld, about 120mm. ISO 400. 1/1000sec. f3.5
[IMG]http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i296/Father_Ted/PHOTOS/LensTest.jpg[/IMG]
It was a little brighter this time. Again hand held at (I think ) 162mm.ISO 400. 1/2500 sec.
[IMG]http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i296/Father_Ted/PHOTOS/LensTest2.jpg[/IMG]
What do "The Experts" think on quality, not content as they are just for fun.
Comment by Father Ted posted on Prinzflex lenses at 01/04/2010 - 19:04
I hadn't realised there was such an array of "Prinz" products. Maybe because I'm so young
I'll have a play, let's face it, for £11 I can put up with any limitations...when I've learnt what they are.
I think I'd be safe with your binoculars, Matt; I don't have a brain to hurt
I'll have a play, let's face it, for £11 I can put up with any limitations...when I've learnt what they are.
I think I'd be safe with your binoculars, Matt; I don't have a brain to hurt
Comment by Father Ted posted on Prinzflex lenses at 31/03/2010 - 19:25
robbie_d wrote:
EUGH!
I knew someone would EUGH!
Comment by Father Ted posted on Prinzflex lenses at 31/03/2010 - 16:56
I had exactly the same problem. I have linear scratches down my negatives. I was told it was the camera, until I pointed out that I was using two different cameras and the scratches were exactly the same.
I gave up scanning negatives and bough a cheap second hand *istDL
I gave up scanning negatives and bough a cheap second hand *istDL
Comment by Father Ted posted on Scratches on negatives at 31/03/2010 - 16:52
