cedarc

Wow. I like it. I quickly noticed the "teeth" on the grass. Nice bit of detail. I assume this was shot at not such a high magnification? There seems to be a lot of DOF (relative that is).

It was just eaten.

 

Just wanted to say that the use of diopters is noticable, at least to me. Anyone that wants to do these kind of macro shots should probably go strait for the reversed 50mm. Comment, Mark?

 

---

This is photo.net not political.net

These comments have nothing to do with the immediate subject. Any further posts like these will be reported.

Very interesting. I can't say if I like it or not. I guess there's part of me that does like it... ;&nbsp)

I must say, if this is from negative film and this was scanned using a film scanner, then you need to get the scanner cleaned. There's an interesting thread or two about dirty film scanners here on photo.net.

Great, I love it. High contrast works very well. Reminds me of paintings I've seen of JRR Tolkien's world.

What b+w film(s) would you recommend. I was tempted today to try this stuff, but now I may quietly back away...

Here's a few detail clips at full 4000dpi pixel for pixel, without any USM applied.

I originally shot this as color, but in the end I didn't like the

colors I used. I think it works well in b+w so I kept it. I set this

up with a black cloth background, bright blue cloth on the left,

bright orange cloth on the right. The afternoon sun hit the blue side

as well as a mirror which was set so to illuminate the orange side.

The eggs were hiding from direct sunlight in the shadow of the orange

reflector while at the same time being "lit up" by it (it's really

bright orange). As I write this I just realized that there's a bright

"spot" light from the front left (therefore the shadow on the right

front egg, and others). This "spot" could only have been the sun

reflected off the mirror and was only meant to hit the orange cloth,

but it must have slipped. It was a quick shoot so I guess I missed

that..

I'm interested to hear comments from others who have done an

egg shoot or something similar.

• What sort of setup did you

  use?

• What's the ideal background material (for black)? I certainly

  did not have it (the cloth was a bit shiny..), so I had to bump up the

  black level to mask the shiny spots.

• What could I/should I have

  done differently?

I can post a photo of my setup if anyone is interested (or confused)..

Thanks,

Hey, it's a guy in a clean room suit! Oh, um.. well, not really. Just look at it small!... :P

Seriously, nice colors, of course. Seems like a tight crop though, and perhaps too much of the shadow side.

Hey, I do like it. Not quite sure why. Not sure if it could stand alone, but would work well with something, eg. advertisement, or something ... The cut off head does bother me though.. I think. ;)

Requesting comments on lighting and the "glow" effect (general

comments welcome too :). Note, this is not a PS alteration.

"Why don't you take photos from the Palestinian side the day after a Jewish attac?"

Simply because it's too dangerous for me to go there.

"You know, their houses destroyed by tanks and so..."

Yes, as a response to a mass homicide, the home of the murderer is destroyed. According to Fox News, 19 people were killed in this attack, and 7 more in another attack the next day.

Photo.net is not the place for a discussion on this topic. If you want to talk about it, email me.

Good job on the background. Great attention to detail.

Wonderful. Often the color within b+w is overdone, but I feel this one works well. I would personally like to see a bit more detail and a bit lighter shadows.. the man's face is lost, although perhaps you wanted this. (Also, next time use a higher jpeg quality, if you can.)

Wow. This photo is straight out of a dream I had sometime this year (not kidding..). The location in my dream was actually about 50 miles north of Denver, just outside of Fort Collins, along the Poudre river. Really. I'm not kidding. I was shocked when I saw this : )p.s. In my dream I was fumbling with my gear and for some reason I didn't get the shot.. or I woke up first... I must be taking too many pictures.

Nice. Too bad it isn't sharper. Crop this.. please. The (bottom) "horizon" is too close to the center. I think a panoramic format would work well.

Nice concept. The top bit is fairly distracting, but a simple crop may fix that. I would leave some of it however, to help add another dimension, (as well as the fact the eyes are so close). Try it..

Subject is too far to the left. Time may have been very short. I would shoot wider and then crop it later however you want.

Perhaps a slightly faster shutter speed would be better. The sense of speed is nice and IMO the perfect thing to portray in this scene.

I've had a number of people tell me they like this, as do I, but I'm

not quite sure why I like it. I'd like some more thoughts/opinions

from others to see if I should do something more with this photo.

What's your first thought and/or the thought that sticks with

you?

Thanks,

This wasn't exactly a planned photo event, and the light wasn't much

but nevertheless I had my fast 50mm so I tried to pull it off. I had

to squeeze the information out of the film during the scan, but it did

work.

Comments, suggestions? I really like how this came out and

I'd like to try it again in a more controlled environment. Anything I

can do to make this better, apart from exposing properly? (For one,

I'd probably dim the ambient background light..)

Compositionally, (is that a word?), there's only so much one can do. It's fine, but more space on top would be better. Also, you really need more depth of field. I don't think this shot works if the grass is not completely in focus. You probably could have taken a different angle, or a different piece of grass, to get it parallel to the film plane. Colors are nice.

Also, it looks like you have a scratch on the slide, or something. You should learn how to clean these up in a Photoshop like program ("The GIMP", for example, which is free).

The high resolution is needed, your first try suffered because of this. As far as PS technique, I think I like the other one better. It's a touchy thing though and I'm sure the exact values you use will differ from shot to shot. I think I would say there's probably too much gray value in this one.

Very different. Perhaps it works so well because of the photo.net white background. I really like this and it works well with this shot. The only thing I notice bad is the pixelation (?), which may be due to the original not being hi-res. You other (second) shot seems to have fixed this.

I may have wondered if IR photography is possible with digital cameras, but to see it.. Very neat. No need to by IR film just to try things out. What sort of shutter speed is required with that 8X ND? Can you still compose a shot will the filter(s) on?

I once did something similar to this when I was learning photography

in school, but I used a flashlight. This time I used my flash that I

had rigged for "light painting". Note, this is a single exposure,

about 8 seconds, in a dark room. Thoughts?