It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
From a composition point of view, if you increase the depth of field you might want to recompose the shot so the plastic pot is less prominent - with an increased depth of field more of the pot will also be in focus and become a distraction. That in itself might be a good feature if the pot was an old terracotta jobby with some interesting texture, but not the plastic!
Cheers Reg. Though there was no artistic intent in that photo at all. I was just trying to get a little sharpness going and it just so happened that plant was on my window-sill. It's a decent Venus Fly Trap specimen save for the fact the bright sunlight has caused a little burning of leaves, but were I to be taking a 'proper' photo of it I'd definitely take your advice find a better pot.
love that shot!
but a good photo image takes me to somewhere else, away from my normal surroundings, and let's me look through someone else's eyes as it were. It's refreshing and good stuff
I agree. It's like books and music! I've actually started looking at photos in a different way following all this focus (excuse the pun) and I'm amazed at how much is in them that I've never noticed before - not only content, but technique, skill, vision, etc etc. It's not until you try and do something that you can really appreciate those that do it well.
That said, I'm also surprised at how many photos in books and magazines I don't like, or rather, that simply don't do anything for me. Abstract photos, a lot of the time, fall into that category. And I'm not keep on arty photoshopped photos where cats are floating in the air with wings and stuff. But usually it's something intangible that makes me really like one and not another. Same with music, I guess.
Bry, love that shot!
Ta, I wish I could remember how I did it, even in bright sunlight it's taking 8-10 second exposures to get anything visible on camera today.
Maybe the built in IR filter is better on this camera?
Just done an experiment. 2nd pic is the same flower with IR filter on a D70. 3rd pic is the same shot, same settings and same IR filter on D90 (+3 exp with Photoshop).
I had planned to have the D70 converted to IR once I got the D90 but the price quoted was more than I paid for the camera when new.
This working in RAW is amazing. What a lot better and more subtle control you have over the finished image. It is possible to do almost everything I need to do using Camera RAW 3.7 and next to nothing in Photoshop. I shot off some more photos today, to give me something to experiment on, and here are a couple of examples I have just processed.
These would have been difficult to get right working with JPG's.
I'm wondering if it's a subject matter issue. IR is basically registering wavelengths associated with heat emission. Your pics above are a flower with a foliage background. Maybe there's not a great heat differential between them hence the poor contrast. Whereas the previous shot of the church had different materials providing lots of heat differentials. That, and you could well be right that IR filters have improved.
This working in RAW is amazing.
They look good Jocko. Have a look at your file sizes. With my Cannon D60 the highest res RAWs come out between 20 and 22mb, whereas high res JPEGS only 7 or 8 mb. Therefore with the RAW there's a lot more information to work with and far higher granularity. I've not 100% got my head round it but my understanding is there's far more levels of information per pixel available for processing in raw, not just the colour palette, but also the intensity and other stuff.
My camera produces RAW images 3872 by 2592 which works out at 10Mb or there about. I convert them to JPEG's after I am done with them and they are about 5Mb. I have started to save both but use the JPEG's for showing and printing.
The book I got, "Camera RAW for Dummies", explains all you can do with the RAW image. With that knowledge I have worked out my own means of doing things.
Thanks 23rdman for getting me started down that road.
This is a dangerous thread!I went to see a guitar-picking buddy last night and he lives up on the Cotswold escarpment in a lovely little village. So I'm driving along these little country lanes and the sun is getting nicely low and the fields are stretching out with lovely leading lines where tractors have driven through acres of corn and there's hills in the distance and beautiful Cotswold stone walls in the foreground and there's a buzzard just perched on the wall bathed in golden sunshine and I'm thinking that would make an awesome photograph and now the road drops away and you can see clear to the Malvern Hills forty miles away and - Bloody 'ell! There's a car coming!!! Concentrate Derek. Concentrate.
Ditch the car and walk! Get out on the RIdgeway.
Alas, I'd have still been wending my way home if I'd have walked last night. Would have been a nice wend though.
You're right but I was only testing the exposure times. I could use the D70 hand held but to recreate the same shot with the D90 takes 10 second exposures.
I found a "can your camera do IR" test online and both failed miserably.
That's why I used to love the motor bike. I could just pull onto the verge and take my photo.
Unfortunately my single pot Honda eventually shook my Nikon EM to pieces. Just as well digital came along.
How well can you pilot your camera then?
...and would you do this with your camera?
As there's a 300mm zoom lens with this DSLR I've borrowed I thought I'd try that malarkey where by you zoom in to something close with a wide aperture and thereby blur the background. There was a stone wall about two feet behind this flower. The technique clearly works! Shame there wasn't a really rare insect crawling up this flower at the moment of capture.
Now that is stunning.
I'd be more worried about losing the drone!
Tried a few more close ups this morning. On the majority of them I found I was getting the flower in (reasonable) focus but the bee was not. Maybe I had the aperture set too low and thus the depth of field was too narrow? It all looked fine through the viewfinder... next time I'll try increasing the F numbers. Anyway, these three weren't too bad - luck rather than judgement.
I think the secret is to use the smallest aperture that keeps the background out of focus, consistent with sufficient light to allow the shutter speed necessary to capture any movement. Nice photos and nicely timed, particularly No 3.
Still playing with images captured in RAW. Think I have got to grips with landscapes and the like but still not comfortable getting the most out of portraits.
As they say on Blue Peter, "here's one I did earlier".
Cheers 23rd. I will try again and up my F's...
I spotted this mill on this morning's ride. It was a grey rainy morning and the sky was pretty flat, but I thought it worth a snap.
Nicely taken photograph. Do you take your pictures in RAW?
EDIT: Just read back through the thread and I see that you do.
Just playing with the Hue and Saturation controls.
Which reminds me of one I did years ago.
How do you do that? Is it a Photoshop mask - not that I know what one of those is! I've just heard the phrase
A couple from the weekend.
I'm still trying to find that elusive sharpness. This is another close up with the 70-300mm lens but this time with the aperture stopped down (or possible up) as far as it would go: f40 according to the EXIF info. I didn't even know lenses went that far. See, I'm learning all the time.
Excellent. Especially like the second one.
Sigh... perhaps learning to play like Jerry Reed is going to be the easiest of my current projects after all!
At f40 you're going to lose sharpness due to diffraction. The sweetspot on a cropped body is about f8 on most lenses. It's always a tradeoff between DOF and diffraction.
Thanks. They're just snaps.