|
|
Emgy Massidda
{K:60358} 5/6/2004
|
Hi Hugo
After all that has been said and suggested about the tecnical details concerning your floral shots, I haven't anything new or more constructive to add without falling into repetition What I'd like you to know is that I really value the fact that you did a first attempt at photographing something that is not your usual work. To me, flowers are one of the most amazing subjects and floral shots are hardly ever bad, whatever the quality. Flower shots always have something that is appealing especially when related to the person who takes them.There are so many varieties and so many colours; there's so much to choose from
and when you do, that's when you begin to express yourself.Then the expression of yourself goes on when you select the angle, the light, the part of the flower you decide to focus on or the way you want it to appear in your photo, whether on its own or with other flowers. Particularly in your case, Hugo, the choice already says a lot, especially knowing that this is one of the rare occasions you took a shot of a flower. You could have photographed a tulip or a rose or whatever other common flower with more or less vivid colours, easy to find, not to hard to photograph. Yet, you preferred this tiny and delicate white one, probably a wild flower (I'm not sure) which isn't exactly the easiest to capture. Quite a challenge! Moreover, you decided to post these shots, regardless their technical quality and franckly, in this case, I don't give a damn about technicalities cause I feel that you must have felt proud of yourself for taking the challenge and seeing it translated into images.
I'm pretty sure you see beauty in this shot, like I do and like many others do. So, I really hope you will try to capture flowers again, whenever and when you really feel like doing so.
I'm sure the quality will gradually improve after the many tips and suggestions from users. We're all here to learn and we generally do.
One last thing I'd like to remark is that I quite agree with you about the use of a macro convertor. It's pretty difficult and it takes time and a lot of patience and experience to get the right focus and good results with it. Therefore, you didn't do too bad afterall.
After this long story, I deserve a cup of coffee, something that we Dutch can hardly do without (grin!)
Emgy
|
|
|
|
tom rumland
{K:14874} 5/4/2004
|
pat yourself on the back, doug. i'm taking the bait (even though you set it on a hook meant for hugo). i never "accused" you of being an anonymous rater. i merely said that i wouldn't put it past you to retaliate in such a manner.
you have a nice day,
tom
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Cotgreave
{K:15892} 5/4/2004
|
wonderful Hugo I think I like this one the best but they all look good..some lovely things happening with colour and movement...rog
|
|
|
|
Saeed Al Shamsi
{K:47735} 5/4/2004
|
Hi,Hugo
I`ve seen the 3 series images, and my concern if the purpose is for exchanging info,or edu,that`s of great job,but to me,I know that you can do more than those macros, ,,Saeed
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff Cartwright
{K:52046} 5/3/2004
|
Hi!,,,Hugo: I will only Comment That Florals, at this Stage of your Photographic Growth, Aint your Forte! Ha,ha,aha!!!
Regards:
Jeff.
Thank you for your Recent Comments!...Your Friend, Jeff!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Faride Valigholizadeh
{K:496} 5/3/2004
|
Hi Hugo,
I should apologize you Hugo to use your page to respond Douglas and not even say hello to you:-) sorry...
|
|
|
|
Mauro
{K:5884} 5/3/2004
|
Thanks for yours suggestions about the best way photo. Shure, the second elaboration is better. Congratulations for yours macros, they are beatiful compositions. Bye.
|
|
|
|
|
Faride Valigholizadeh
{K:496} 5/3/2004
|
Hi Douglas,
This is really getting ridicules
What is the value of comment any way Douglas? To make new inspirations or just taking kind of revenge? We gather here every day to see and read some really valuable and of course true thing. Is this the way the artists go long with each other for god sake? Please if you can?t criticize Hugo or the others in the respectful way, then don?t! Mentioning ?respectful way? doesn?t mean not having honesty?NO, on the contrary have respect with being honest and truthful. Don?t take this personally, it?s just so childish and tiring?.
regards,
Faride
|
|
|
|
|
Amna Al Shamsi
{K:21795} 5/3/2004
|
I had a look at your three flowers pics (am a flower fan), I think it is just like what Dan said , a problem with the DOF . I take lots of flower pics especially macro and here what I do :
1. I pick up an interesting flower and I always avoid white flowers cuz am not good at photographing them
2. I choose a place that has a good lighting conditions to avoid using flash.
3. I set my camera to the macro mood and I always use the manual focus, Dan also wrote very good things about aperture. Try different focus and from different angle . it is hard at the start but then you will love it!
Never give, keep trying???have a great day ;-)
|
|
|
|
Hugo de Wolf
{K:185110} 5/2/2004
|
Ouch! The master speaks again... Here am I thinking I was only a bit adept at photography. I'll better reconsider. But since you ask me a question, I'll reply.
1. I know they are not good. That's why I posted them: To Learn, get advice and suggestions on how to improve them by people who are willing to give some constructive comments.
2. Think again. Read my description.
3. That's what I call "a discussion".
4. And what am I supposed to do about that?
5. Apparently not only good photos get exposure. And that's what I guess is the result of leaving so many comments....
I appreciate your honesty. Rather I have some advice on how to improve them instead of telling me they are below quality, which I already know.
Cheers,
Hugo
|
|
|
|
神 風
{K:10665} 5/2/2004
|
Dear Hugo,
The first I rated a '3', the second I rated a '2', and this one I rated a '3', so ... what does that all mean instead of just leaving anonymous ratings that I have been accused of by Tom Rumland and others? ... Well here is a summary of my opinion logistically and otherwise:
1. Each image is at the very most average but moreso below quality;
2. I would expect that someone who critiques so many other peoples' images would know what he is doing;
3. Out of 90 comments on all three total ... 29 are yours = 1/3;
4. Your ratings on all three combined was 14.9 which is an average of 5.0 which means ratings abuse by someone(s) for sure especially when you consider ALL the negative DOF comments.
5. Now it seems to me that if three images average out to about 83 views each ... they had better be pretty darn good ... what do you say?
Best of Regards!
|
|
|
|
|
Ali Hachem
{K:772} 5/2/2004
|
Hi Hugo, It's very nice, Good job.
|
|
|
|
|
John Hatziemmanouil
{K:40580} 5/2/2004
|
This is much better! As I see from the original scanned photo, you make the photo looks better! Well done here, this is pretty good. (little bit more my friend and you have the very good!) Don't stop! I AM SURE ABOUT THAT YOU CAN DO GREAT JOBS ON MACROS! I'm wating! ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
jon parsons
{K:13639} 5/2/2004
|
Dear hugo, to me this seems to have somehow have gotten out of focus pretty badly.. maybe you did it on purpose, still it is interesting to look at, good job...jon
|
|
|
|
|
Hugo de Wolf
{K:185110} 5/1/2004
|
Hi Dan, Thank you very much. This is very helpful indeed! The rocking back and forth sounds quite familiar, but I'll have to try it with a wider DOF... I appreciate your help,
Cheers,
Hugo
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Lightner
{K:12684} 5/1/2004
|
I think the main problem with the shot Hugo is the lack of DOF.Though you can pull off an excellent flower picture . With a Aperture setting of 2.8 you had better be focasing on the stamen ,like the eye in a portrait its the center of interest.Here the picture is not out of focus just very shallow DOF and the focus is on the pedal.I try to set my focus on manual the rock back and forth with the camera until I can see the main part I want in focus clear and sharp before pressing the shutter.Generally I try to use as small an aperture as light will permit.Around F8 to F16 are really good because they are the optimum for sharpness when you get around f22 the sharpness suffers somewhat but you do get more DOF. Hope this helps.
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
Carlheinz Bayer
{K:14220} 5/1/2004
|
Good one, Hugo. I'm really not into flower, but I love the comp, color, details and the DOF on this image. Very good! Carlheinz
|
|
|
|
|
tom rumland
{K:14874} 5/1/2004
|
hugo, even though the scan is worse, the result is much cleaner than the first two. specially in the black parts. less streaks. now, i have a question: one of the things you're always pointing out to me is centered compositions. isn't this a bit centered? is it considered to be off-center because the focal plane is off-center? even if the the main mass of the flower is centered? i'm most definitely "not" being fastidious here, merely curious. i seem center subjects subconciously and am trying to shake off the bad habit. ;^)
take care,
tom
|
|
|
|
|
Regina Rianelli
{K:24147} 5/1/2004
|
Wow... what an amazing picture, Hugo.
It's such a fine form and detailed pic. Beautiful and delicate at same time. Great capture.
Best regards,
Regina
|
|
|
|
|
Lori Stitt
{K:75282} 5/1/2004
|
HUGO...you sound like you are tired of these flowers! And now look at those thumbnails, three of them, why, you have a regular garden growing!!
By the way, what KIND of flower is this??? :)
Nice work anyway my friend!
Lori :)
|
|
|
|
|
Kees and Carolyn
{K:15193} 5/1/2004
|
You're very brave to try something new! Someone told me I should try something different, but I haven't had the courage yet. We get into our own comfort zones, I guess! Congratulations on your florals!
Carolyn
|
|
|
|
|
Raamses Ortiz
{K:4408} 5/1/2004
|
Hi Hugo, I'm Back!!
I know you are not into taking florals. That's Ok. The composition is ver good and I can only say that the DOF is too shallow. Do you remember my Breitling photo?? I use f27 to get a wider DOF. Next time close the lens to the maximun and snap one or two shots.
Congrats,
Be seeing you...
Raamses.
|
|
|
|
Nuno Murias
{K:5323} 4/30/2004
|
I am a digital men. I work with computer and i have a digital camera. So what if the top petal is completely overexposed...ins't more important how a picture looks and emotions can create to who sees it? I like it overexposed and all. The idea, i believe is nto to take another floral shot but to be diferent...and you made it. Congrats!
|
|
|
|
|
Hugo de Wolf
{K:185110} 4/30/2004
|
Hi Chris, I appreciate your honesty. No need to feel sorry. Tomorrow I'll go back to my "usual stuff"... I'm much more comfortable in that area. Florals are not my "usual" subject, but that's what UF is for: to learn.... And this has been a very valuable excercise for that matter....;o) The poor quality of the shot is partially due to the extremely poor scan (see the image below the original photo)
I used a macro converter between the camera and the 50mm f1.7 lens; very difficult focussing, (another reason for the poor quality) It is very light strong, though, and handled properly a very useful tool, but quite elaborate to work with, though.
Cheers,
Hugo
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Spracklen
{K:32552} 4/30/2004
|
To be really honest, this all looks a bit muddled and blurred to me Hugo! Not like you other shots at all. What's the macro like on the ME Super ~ I've quite forgotten.
You could do with 602 for this kind of shot, and a slightly different angle so that the flower doesn't look quite so muddled.
Sorry to be a little negative, but you did ask!
Kind regards, Chris
|
|
|
|
|
Hugo de Wolf
{K:185110} 4/30/2004
|
Hi Stephen, you are right, the top petal is completely overexposed. I even applied a slight local burn there....;o)
Cheers,
Hugo
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Bowden
{K:64141} 4/30/2004
|
Splendid photo Hugo, maybe a little too much light from above ? not sure - what do you think ?
|
|
|
|
Roberto Arcari Farinetti
{K:209486} 4/30/2004
|
superb close-up.. nice one again my friend!
to soon
have agoodnight!
roby
|
|
|
|
|
M. Tigrek
{K:2298} 4/30/2004
|
Dear Hugo,
Another beautiful and original composition.
My best regards.
|
|
|
|
Burak Tanriover
{K:16610} 4/30/2004
|
the backgroud colors goes very well with the flower and the drops on it.
regards,Burak
|
|
|
|
Teunis Haveman
{K:53426} 4/30/2004
|
Hugo, je hebt je best gedaan, het resultaat van de drie foto.s mag er toch zijn . Deze heeft weer bijzonder mooie meeldraden. Ja ik houd van realiteit. Succes met de foto,s die je beter liggen. Groet Teunis
|
|
|
|
|
Hugo de Wolf
{K:185110} 4/30/2004
|
This is the original scan.... (
|
Original Scan |
|
0 
