All Forum Comments
Comment by Glowingblue posted on Advice on lenses for sci-fi convention at 25/03/2014 - 16:22
It might help if you state what lenses you have available to swap
Comment by Glowingblue posted on tokina atx af 80-200 2.8 / tokina atx 80-400af at 24/03/2014 - 20:56
McGregNi wrote:
I'm sure gwing is right and strideys original composition was best - I only asked if he had tried some others as I thought the scene might have rewarded some experimentation.
For me the raised shadows are an improvement in terms of a natural dynamic range, which was what I felt the scene needed more of - but there has been a tradeoff with some poorer contrast coming in (a haziness), which I accept hasn't done the shot any favours. This is clearly a technical limitation, either of the image at capture or the software treatment. So its up to you Stridey to decide whats best, or indeed try something halfway in between.
It would be a loss I think if we stiffled all criticism or different ideas on people photos - to answer GlowingBlues points above ... just because an attempt to adjust the photo based on the critical suggestions is not a clear success first time, that does not mean the suggestions or critisicm is invalid, and certainly does not mean they are based on jelousy. In most cases it just means it was worth a try and consideration, & if it can't work on that particular image for some reason then it gets banked in memory for consideration on future images.
I'm sure gwing is right and strideys original composition was best - I only asked if he had tried some others as I thought the scene might have rewarded some experimentation.
For me the raised shadows are an improvement in terms of a natural dynamic range, which was what I felt the scene needed more of - but there has been a tradeoff with some poorer contrast coming in (a haziness), which I accept hasn't done the shot any favours. This is clearly a technical limitation, either of the image at capture or the software treatment. So its up to you Stridey to decide whats best, or indeed try something halfway in between.
It would be a loss I think if we stiffled all criticism or different ideas on people photos - to answer GlowingBlues points above ... just because an attempt to adjust the photo based on the critical suggestions is not a clear success first time, that does not mean the suggestions or critisicm is invalid, and certainly does not mean they are based on jelousy. In most cases it just means it was worth a try and consideration, & if it can't work on that particular image for some reason then it gets banked in memory for consideration on future images.
Comment by Glowingblue posted on Daffodils at Alderholt Church at 23/03/2014 - 17:25
MrB wrote:
One of the reasons people post images in the forum is that they are interested in the opinions of others - whether they comprise praise or constructive criticism or both.
Those replying are unlikely to have been at the scene when the photographer saw the shot, so they rely on their own prior knowledge and past experience of similar scenes when commenting.
In my opinion Nigel's second version is an improved photo, as he has skilfully made subtle changes only to the shadow areas, to reveal slightly more of the detail there, which our eyes would probably have seen in that lighting.
However, obviously, he is the only one who can really decide which is better, because he was there and, of course, only he really knows what he was trying to achieve and convey to the viewer.
Cheers.
Philip
Glowingblue wrote:
Your original was beautifully composed and captured.
You should have left well alone with the edit, so called critics don't have merit because they have an opinion!
You will probably realise that the highlighted comment applies equally to your own post.Your original was beautifully composed and captured.
You should have left well alone with the edit, so called critics don't have merit because they have an opinion!
Glowingblue wrote:
Your original composition shows the capture of light, both great and small. In real life situations that is all you can do, you can't and shouldn't be allowed to walk around changing what your eye see's because of it doesn't suit.
One of the reasons for processing images is that, because of their very different characteristics, what our eyes see and what the camera captures and reproduces are not the same. Your original composition shows the capture of light, both great and small. In real life situations that is all you can do, you can't and shouldn't be allowed to walk around changing what your eye see's because of it doesn't suit.
One of the reasons people post images in the forum is that they are interested in the opinions of others - whether they comprise praise or constructive criticism or both.
Those replying are unlikely to have been at the scene when the photographer saw the shot, so they rely on their own prior knowledge and past experience of similar scenes when commenting.
In my opinion Nigel's second version is an improved photo, as he has skilfully made subtle changes only to the shadow areas, to reveal slightly more of the detail there, which our eyes would probably have seen in that lighting.
However, obviously, he is the only one who can really decide which is better, because he was there and, of course, only he really knows what he was trying to achieve and convey to the viewer.
Cheers.
Philip
Comment by Glowingblue posted on Daffodils at Alderholt Church at 23/03/2014 - 12:31
Your original was beautifully composed and captured.
You should have left well alone with the edit, so called critics don't have merit because they have an opinion!
Your original composition shows the capture of light, both great and small. In real life situations that is all you can do, you can't and shouldn't be allowed to walk around changing what your eye see's because of it doesn't suit.
Sometimes criticism is unspoken jealousy, not all the time, but most
You should have left well alone with the edit, so called critics don't have merit because they have an opinion!
Your original composition shows the capture of light, both great and small. In real life situations that is all you can do, you can't and shouldn't be allowed to walk around changing what your eye see's because of it doesn't suit.
Sometimes criticism is unspoken jealousy, not all the time, but most
Comment by Glowingblue posted on Daffodils at Alderholt Church at 23/03/2014 - 10:53
Number three for me, BW good choice as well
Comment by Glowingblue posted on Cute Doggy (?) with 50-135 at 21/03/2014 - 10:35
PM sent.
samson51 wrote:
£60 including P&P
£60 including P&P
Comment by Glowingblue posted on 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 SMC P Pentax-F zoom lens MINT at 21/03/2014 - 10:01
Me too, I have the Chinon 28mm f/2.8 and is as sharp as a razor - good for close up work as well
Comment by Glowingblue posted on pentax smc m 28mm f2.8 at 19/03/2014 - 02:15
Possibly 30 days.
lxmike wrote:
60
60
Glowingblue wrote:
my settings>profile information>load image
thanks this option is not available to me do I have to be a member a certain amount of time before I can post an avatarmy settings>profile information>load image
lxmike wrote:
Off topic, apologies if posted in wrong place, could anyone help how do I add an avatar image to my profile. Many thanks Mike
Off topic, apologies if posted in wrong place, could anyone help how do I add an avatar image to my profile. Many thanks Mike
Comment by Glowingblue posted on avatar help at 18/03/2014 - 18:14
my settings>profile information>load image
lxmike wrote:
Off topic, apologies if posted in wrong place, could anyone help how do I add an avatar image to my profile. Many thanks Mike
Off topic, apologies if posted in wrong place, could anyone help how do I add an avatar image to my profile. Many thanks Mike
Comment by Glowingblue posted on avatar help at 18/03/2014 - 17:04
I think you're carrying too much there. If you kept it light, I'd go for a standard zoom plus a fast lens. I would try to get in close, not use a long telephoto zoom.
When I've been to Doctor Who exhibitions/conventions I've used the 16-45mm f/4 without much of a problem or a need to change lenses. Even in the dark the ISO on the K-5 can be upped quite a bit without quality suffering.