isaac sibson

I much prefer the original to the suggested edited version...the edit looses the wonderful vibrancy of the dragonfly. Beautifully sharp. I have to ask though...is it cropped, or did you use a teleconverter or extension tube? I know that the 70-200 F2.8L can't focus close enough for this natively (even the F4L can't, and that can focus a foot closer). I only ask in order to emulate (wishing my insect photography was this good!!).

Very nice! I have a couple of similar shots in my folders, and I like this one a lot. Perfect timing!

The shot, yes. The scan, no. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a film scanner at the moment, so the scan is not as good as it might be.

Any ratings or comments?

This isn't actually as sharp as it should be, which I think is to do with the scanner (a UMAX 2200SU). I'll do a neg-scan when I have access to the Coolscan III.

Another posing squirrel (see my america 2000 folder for the other

one). Ratings or comments?

Ratings or Comments?

I like this image, but I can't help feeling that the leaves aren't as sharp as they should be...Perhaps it would have worked better at F8 or F11 rather than F22, where performance falls off a little...or perhaps the camera shook on the tripod a little?

 

However, that aside, it's wonderful. The light is soft, and well captured in the water, and the colours of the leaves are good. I like the composition also.

Wow. This is tremendously good work! Excellent!!!

Comments? Ratings?

Comments? Ratings?

Ratings? Comments?

Ratings? Comments?

The redwoods and mist are very indicative of the northern california coast. I have a shot taken a little later, with the sun higher in the sky in a similar location. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=344811

Ratings? Comments?

I got up early to take pictures of Mt.Hood. The best pic of the lot

was this one of Mt. Adams. Mt. St. Helens can also be seen in the

background, to the left.

Mmmm...nice. Good work.

Wow.

Brilliant. Lovely shot of an animal that is notoriously difficult to photograph (I should know...). I don't usually care for Black and White, but I think it works here (portraiture is one of the few areas I think it does (my opinion only...no flames please). Nice one!

Sorry to spoil the party, but one unfortunate technical detail slightly spoils this otherwise fine shot, and that is camerashake. Ok, it's to be expected at this kind of focal length. Otherwise, very nice timing and a nice pic. I wouldn't worry about the polariser at all.

Wow....great work! Nicely sharp in the right place, and the depth of field is well chosen. Nice!

Agreed, this looks like a composite job. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course, but it doesn't feel right with the lighting on the foreground aircraft...What are the exposure details that would bring out such detail in the foreground aircraft, while not burning the sky out to a lighter colour?

In fact, I hadn't actually considered the vertical format...I think mainly because the redwoods are so huge that even vertically, you will never get the height in that you want. As for the darkness of the edges, that's due to my laziness, in not readjusting the colour for monitor viewing :-(. When printed on both an Epson Stylus 1520 and an HP 930, the details in the shadows come up. Thanks for your comments!

I like this picture a lot. The colours work nicely, and the image could almost be used to display a utopia future-view (or possibly even a distopia...it's a wonderfully versatile image). I think the darkness of the EMP works well, so that ideas on its shape are left up to the viewer, in an abstract manner. As this picture is, I like it a lot.

 

There seems to be some kind of dark line down the right-hand edge. That's the only technical fault I can see.

Converging verticals...but I guess you knew that! Not a negative point, because you've used that as a composition aspect. The lamp post being dead centre does the image no favours. The board at the right hand side of the image has nice colours that work well with the blue sky, so it would have been nice to see more of it, and more of the foreground. In other words, if possible, it would have been better to be further back from the subject.