nathanielpaust

One of the hardest parts of macro photography is getting enough depth of field, when you start getting into big reproduction ratios, you have to stop way way down to get things in focus.

 

The phole point of saying that is to congratulate you for getting it pretty right here.

I wonder what would have happened if you'd used a polarizer. It might have cut some of the relfection from the bugs' shells.

I have a hard time believing that no one knows what these pictures are of. With that said though, they are quite interesting.

 

I like #2 the best.

Correct, this is in Petersburg, AK, about 3 or 4 blocks from downtown towards the ferry terminal.

 

For that matter, all of the photos in this folder were taken around Petersburg.

The blue comes from two main sources. First, the sun was largely behind a cloud and most of the light was blue skylight. Second, it was fairly humid so that's where a lot of the blue haze in the far away mountains came from.

On the contrary, I really don't mind the ratings. I rate things fairly harshly and I'd give this image 5's.

 

I should mention why I liked this photo enough to upload... it's just the pastel colors. I had my bed shoved in the corner of my New Mexico apartment. The whole room had just amazing light and some of the best photos that I've taken were right there in front of the bed. Every time I look at this photo, I think pleasently of my time in NM and some of the photos that I took there.

I appreciate ratings and comments on all of my photos. There are some

really nice photos in my portfolio. Check them out and see if you

think they're nice too.

I'm posting small images specifically to prevent my pictures from walking away. (as they have in the past) Thus, 400 pixels is the largest that I'm willing to post.

 

As to the question about forground detail, there really isn't any. The forground is composed of dark pine trees which weren't resolved anyway, and it was further darken by the filter.

 

I should mention that the mountain was about 40-70 miles from my position. The mountain itself is 9077 feet tall and is known as an extremely difficult and dangerous mountain to climb. It's also fairly light-coloured rock which makes it blend into the sky in most photos. That's one of the other reasons why the foreground is so dark, I had to expose to make the mountain more of a middle gray.

This comment really addresses both of the images that you currently having in your folder. They seem to almost be some horrible sculpture of someone being tortured. While that may sound like a bad thing, it isn't. The photos show the human body in a way other than a normal smooth figure study.

 

In short, I like them.

 

(As a side issue, I don't necessarily think it's too small. I recently removed all my photo.net images after finding them in different places on the web... where they shouldn't have been. I'm currently in the process of re-uploading smaller images.)

This is one of my favorite Alaska images. It also happens to be the

view of of my childhood bedroom window. I'm curious what people think

of the image.

 

Feel free to review, both in ratings and comments, any of my other images.

Kodak EIR is very interesting film. The red areas are grasses and

light colored trees that reflect IR very well. The darker pine trees

on the mountains reflect less and show up as a duller red.

 

I'd love to hear what people think of this photo, and I'd much rather

have comments than just ratings.

I really like this picture. It seems kind of odd though, like the scale is wrong. I almost feel that the landscape could have been part of a model train setup that you photographed. I wouldn't change a thing... at least it makes me think.

I do astronomy, just not in the Southern Hemisphere, and I'm pretty sure that there are no clouds in this picture. The two fuzzy spots are our closest galaxies, the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds.

 

Cool Picture.

It's a shame that you couldn't find a more photogenic apple. The dimples draw more attention than I'd like.

 

It's a shame that alar isn't used anymore. Strong chemicals made for good looking apples. (even if there was a chance that they could cause cancer)

This is a great idea... it would be nice if the alignment of the individual exposures was better. The edge of the white (paper) takes a little jog where it goes behind the apple.

I have two things against this picture:

The main one is that the horizon isn't straight. This really bothers me.

 

The other (minor) problem is that it seems a tiny bit overexposed. I would have made the dark areas a little bit darker so that the lights of Luna Park don't completely blow themselves out. It would be nice if there was a little bit more color there.

 

Rotate the picture a few degrees and I will proclaim this an excellent picture.

Since I shoot 35mm and 4x5, I would be very hard pressed to shoot a photo as nice as this one. The longer focal length lenses just don't give you the depth of field.

 

At first look, the acorn looked giant because there wasn't the signature lack of dof that you normally see.

 

A very impressive picture

Unfortunately, this isn't a particularly original photos. I think that every photographer who has ever been been to Seattle has shot this picture. Look at my portfolio to see several of them (they're all unoriginal too).

 

The other problem is that the picture is just too dark. A graduated neutral density filter would probably have done wonders.