Oak Leaf
Jan 27, 2012 14:51:34 #
I know there is a curent thread about HDR pictures and I post this picture as a reply. This picture was taken with a 100mm Macro lens and the camera set on "auto HDR".
My point is HDR may have a place (especaily if the camera does the work). This is also the first picture that I like taken using auto HDR.
C&C welcomed. Thank you.
My point is HDR may have a place (especaily if the camera does the work). This is also the first picture that I like taken using auto HDR.
C&C welcomed. Thank you.
ISO 200; f2.8; 1/320 expsoure
Jan 27, 2012 14:54:18 #
If that's HDR'd i can't tell... :)
My only critique is that the DOF is very shallow and detracts from an otherwise nice shot. Seeing the leaf and background in sharp focus would improve it (I think)
In my very limited knowledge Macro is usually taken with very small apertures to maximize the DOF.
My only critique is that the DOF is very shallow and detracts from an otherwise nice shot. Seeing the leaf and background in sharp focus would improve it (I think)
In my very limited knowledge Macro is usually taken with very small apertures to maximize the DOF.
Jan 28, 2012 14:29:54 #
Which camera has the built in HDR?? If it's the Nikon D5100 I can see why people critize it. Photo does nothing for me, no offense but nothing but a leaf lying on something, not even sure what.........
Jan 28, 2012 19:49:56 #
Sony A500 has the HDR function in the camera. I wanted the shallow DoF. I would suggest that good HDR pictures should not be over-cooked so you can tell that something was modified.
Jan 29, 2012 13:06:10 #
chapjohn wrote:
Agree 100%. Now what's the story that your photo conveys and how would have it been any different if you hadn't used the HDR??Sony A500 has the HDR function in the camera. I wanted the shallow DoF. I would suggest that good HDR pictures should not be over-cooked so you can tell that something was modified.
Jan 29, 2012 13:43:31 #
coco1964 wrote:
chapjohn wrote:
Agree 100%. Now what's the story that your photo conveys and how would have it been any different if you hadn't used the HDR??Sony A500 has the HDR function in the camera. I wanted the shallow DoF. I would suggest that good HDR pictures should not be over-cooked so you can tell that something was modified.
Looks like this leaf is on some granite? (or some rough concrete). Not bad, maybe a bit more DOF.
To me, this image tells at least as much of a story as say........a photo of just a stump in a field. OR, what about some of those pics people post of the moon all blown out.
Not all images appeal to everybody. And if you don't "get" the story, why feel the need diss it. I believe this shot was about a technique, not just subject or composition.
I was drawn to this shot because I recently took my own oak leaf image. I was actually shooting the nearby stream and was waiting for some shadows to change position. I turned around and saw this leaf on the lava and I grabbed my lensbaby and made this shot. I have only tried my lensbaby a few times and need to work with it more to improve a few things. I don't mean to hijack your thread, but I wanted to show that others share your point of view.
Oak Leaf on Lava
Jan 29, 2012 13:50:31 #
HDR does not work well, if the source of light has no dynamic range. The lighting here is virtually flat, and there is no depth to the subject.
Next time try something in sunlight, with plenty highlight and shadows. Get off the auto HDR, and separate your shots by at least 2 ± stops.
Next time try something in sunlight, with plenty highlight and shadows. Get off the auto HDR, and separate your shots by at least 2 ± stops.
Jan 29, 2012 14:02:17 #
jkaye65 wrote:
His shot and your shot are night and day. I don't see where I dissed anyone by giving an opinion. The color in his photo is flat and there is no DOF---if that's dissing someone then it happens 100 times a day here---just like the stump photo you remember so well........ quote=coco1964 quote=chapjohn Sony A500 has the ... (show quote)
Jan 29, 2012 14:31:51 #
coco1964 wrote:
..... Photo does nothing for me, no offense but nothing but a leaf lying on something, not even sure what.........
I read this quote as a wee bit condescending. That may be my issure, not yours.
I'm sure you'll agree with me that an overwhelming majority of images posted on UHH are nothing more than snapshots. Blurry images of a pet on a couch. Crooked landscapes. Over exposures.....under exposures. Poor attempts of photoshop work. Images full of dust specks.
At least this shot has some artistic asperations. Not just a quick "grab shot".
Jan 29, 2012 14:35:37 #
jkaye65 wrote:
quote=coco1964 ..... Photo does nothing for me, n... (show quote)
While I agree with you 100%... :) That doesn't mean that anything even slightly better is not supposed be evaluated...
We are here to improve....and so part of that process is critique and comments...sometimes not positive...
No sweat...
Jan 29, 2012 14:58:58 #
rpavich wrote:
quote=jkaye65 quote=coco1964 ..... Photo does no... (show quote)
True......
While I see many......many images here that I "don't get", I do not feel the need to question every photo as to why it was taken or what is it supposed to "say". Commenting on the technical merits is understandable. But everybody has a different taste of what "art" is. That is why they make chocolate and vanilla. I am sure that there was a reason each photo was taken......and posted on UHH.
If we all questioned every photo subject that did not suit our taste, then this forum would be full of threads by people trying to explain why they made the shot.
Jan 29, 2012 15:10:32 #
jkaye65 wrote:
quote=rpavich quote=jkaye65 quote=coco1964 ....... (show quote)
But that's the point...it's not just "taste."
Some people DO like "dogs playing poker" but the idea that that's what we strive for because a segment of the population likes it is ludicrous!
A good critique IS that a photo has no reason to be taken...that it's ho hum and that there is not stopping power...that's a VALID critique.
If we all culled our shots and only showed the 1% that were THE SHOTS then we'd all get better as photogs...getting rid of the chaff is part of the process...at least it should be.
Jan 29, 2012 15:43:04 #
rpavich wrote:
br br But that's the point...it's not just "... (show quote)
Well then, maybe you just opened my eyes to the fact that I am here to look at...and judge...each image on its technical factors (lighting, composition, focus etc.). An image doesn't have to "move" me to be satisfactory.
I just don't see where "...nothing but a leaf lying on something, not even sure what........" is constructive criticism. Then again, if I had a last name like Adams, Weston or Lange and I said that, maybe it would have merit.
Jan 29, 2012 16:07:24 #
jkaye65 wrote:
quote=rpavich br br But that's the point...it's... (show quote)
Because it doesn't have that "aha!" moment that we all strive for...that moment caught in time...human emotion...something that's striking...something that's so different that we HAVE to stop and take a second look.
It COULD be a leaf on a rock but it should be done very creatively...it should be lit to where it's different enough that we do a double take...
I've seen shots like that...asparagus on a cutting board...boring? Not hardly....lit so beautifully that I was in awe....
So that IS constructive...
Jan 29, 2012 16:13:21 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.