skooter

Does the short depth of field help or hurt? This is one of the most perfect

leaves I've ever found, but I'm not sure it's a perfect picture. I think an extra

half stop (maybe full stop) would have made it better...

This is an antique macro shot, and I have no idea what the

insect is, although I like the shot. (The scan's a bit dusty, but I

thought it was sufficient for now.)

Not quite enough depth of field...no flash, no tripod, no depth! I've

since changed my ways anytime I can.

Any help identifying, or comments on the shot are welcome.

This is actually a negative scan, so probably represents the shot 'as is.'

My recollection - and the mud still on my Jeep - is that it was a gloomy day, and I more or less agree on the lack of contrast. I may see if can get it again, although Vancouver's entering it's rainy season so I may not have much luck!

I resist Photoshop whenever possible, but it does help this image for sure...

Waterfalls are horribly overshot, but I thought this was was a little

different. Thoughts?

which I know might be hard, but they're not always delivering.

i might prefer the runner leaving the pphoto rather than entering, but i don't think this would have a substantial impact...

A good photo of what could have been a very mundane subject..I mean, seagulls in a parking lot? Who would've thought.

Nice shot. (There's now a flock of seagulls descending on my home seeking revenge...must run...now!)

but I love this photo. It very nicely captures the two at work.

Slightly faster maybe, but I certainly wouldn't want to lose the motion in the hands and dough. If this was 30, I'd maybe go 60 but not 125.

beautiful shot, from an interesting angle.

i'm curious as to whether you used flash (maybe a ring flash). I struggle with depth of field constantly in macro work...

and mabye should have rated an 8/7, but i'm still figuring out what constitutes an 8

This is a beautiful shot, which would make an amazing large wall piece.

It's a nice shot, although the composition makes it fairly ordinary.

I always find this is the hardest part of shooting at races - something I used to do a lot of. Everything's moving so fast, and unless you've got a full access pass your composition choices are fairly limited. This is above average for sure.

When I metered this, I exposed for 8 seconds to perfectly

balance the clown's face. This, of course, washed out the text

above (Kid's Market, for those not lucky enough to live in

Vancouver :)

Thoughts?

(Cropped down to just the eyes, I suddenly understand why

some kids are afraid of clowns...)

The subject was dark and foggy (quite heavily) and I was trying to capture this. With this picture bigger is definitely better, and I think the 8x10 print presents it better than the modestly sized scan.

On the topic of the sky: less sky meant more lake,and I was trying to balance out the two. I'd be interested in other's thoughts on this.

I like the image, it's an interesting composition that many would have overlooked.

The car strikes me as odd, though. I don't think it adds to the photo, and I probably would have taken it again without (I *know* I would have gotten it in there on my first exposure!)

A foggy hike to test a new/old camera body led me to this, and

I'm not sure if it's too cliche. I thought there were just enough

white trunks to make for an interesting scene.