All Forum Comments
I hear you about the blown highlights on the wedding dress Will, but the series works for me. Especially bearing in mind that you were not 'the' cameraman, and that you did have to go with what you saw (as you've said).
Comment by i-Berg posted on 50mm f1.7 M: More Wedding Pics at 17/06/2010 - 07:06
No 4 for me also Iqbal, I think Tim has nailed it.
Comment by i-Berg posted on white butterfly and flowers at 17/06/2010 - 07:02
That's no shonky donkey then Andrew, nice price too.
Comment by i-Berg posted on A Bit of a Bargain at 17/06/2010 - 06:59
Hi Emma, my copy of the 18-55 (Mk I) renders soft images as well, even when it's stopped down. You may have been experiencing the effects of diffraction at f19 as well? But at 1600 ISO, you were going to get that, or fast shutter speeds, or both...
Hope you're better soon!
Hope you're better soon!
Comment by i-Berg posted on The Lakes at the weekend at 17/06/2010 - 06:56
Roger, It looks as if your shot may have lost a little contrast, perhaps because you were shooting almost into the sun? The light looks just a little flat, but that could be my monitor.
Comment by i-Berg posted on Village Church detail at 17/06/2010 - 06:46
Jeff, I too like the context of the second, but the shadowed weedy bit in the top LH part detracts from the overall image. Perhaps another blpom with a different background, or a wider aperture to throw the background right out of focus? The colour is astounding!
Comment by i-Berg posted on Artichoke in flower at 17/06/2010 - 06:43
That fits in well with the 'slate' series Andrew. I believe it may even benefit from a crop of the LHS - my eye is distracted just a bit, by the wheel in the background, and the green shoots in front of it.
Need I ask - what does it look like as a BW?
Need I ask - what does it look like as a BW?
Comment by i-Berg posted on Slate Truck at 16/06/2010 - 07:58
Same again - good lens, and yes the front (inner) section of mine 'wobbles' too.
Comment by i-Berg posted on 16-45 wobble at 16/06/2010 - 07:52
Thanks for the kind comments all. The house at No. 72 was still inhabited, BTW.
Comment by i-Berg posted on Goldfields at 15/06/2010 - 10:42
And now I've seen both, may I change my mind? Your original choice was the right one IMO James.
Comment by i-Berg posted on Daddy's Little girl at 15/06/2010 - 10:40
