dem_photos

Comments always welcome.

Amar: Both your veil photos are lovely. The not-quite-vertical angle of the veil works perfectly. Usually, I feel that if something is not exact (not exactly vertical, not exactly centered, etc.), it ought to be off by more than just a little, so I can't explain why this works so well for me. Just more proof that my simplistic ideas about composition don't always apply, I guess. Well done!

There are something along the lines of 30,000 species of beetles in North America, and I can only recognize a handful, so normally I wouldn't hazard a guess. But this one actually looks familiar (what are the odds?). If that's a dogbane leaf it's crawling on, chances are pretty good this is a dogbane beetle (Chrysochus sp.). Nice shot!

The interaction between the lines on the leaf and the lines of the wings make for a composition that is very nearly perfect, in my opinion. Too bad the background isn't cleaner--that would have clinched it. This is a wonderful photo nonetheless.

This effect works wonderfully on this photo. My only concern is that my eye isn't quite sure how to fill in the space between the dancer's upper and lower garments on her right (our left) side. Some small hint of where her body goes there would be helpful. If your dancers ever advertise or send out announcements for their performances, it would be hard to imagine a better image than this one.

Srinivas: This is a lovely composition, and a good example of how a title can enhance a photo. I don't see much room for improvement technically; if the glare on a few of the needles is due to direct sunlight, a polarizing filter might help. As someone who is inclined to look for beauty in the simplest things, I think I can understand why you took this photo--but even a well-composed and well-executed photo of this particular subject falls short of being truly engaging for me. My advice is to keep looking and shooting. When you find more interesting subjects, I'm sure you will take top-rate photos of them.

Hung: You've captured some good detail in this reptile interaction, but overall it feels a little dark to me. It looks like you had some nice, soft light to work with, so it might have been worth trying slower shutter speeds and/or a wider apeture to see if you could brighten up the face of the left-hand lizard without blowing out the background. I also think the composition could benefit from a slightly tighter crop. Here's a cropped and artificially brightened version to show my own preference for this photo.

Sorry--my link apparently didn't work. If you would like to see the snake that shed this skin, you can go to my gallery; for the time being, the snake is still one of the three photos on my bio page.

It would seem that the snake I photographed in my garden a couple of

weeks ago was indeed preparing to molt--it left this perfect

inside-out version of itself near the same spot recently. For a

right-side out photo of what I believe is the same snake, see

 

href="www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00CNiw&photo_id=3412648&photo_sel_index=0">Garter

in the Garden

Amar: Your critique is insightful, as always. I like the creamier color of the stamens and the deeper purple/magenta in your version, but I'm a little sorry to lose the detail in the background petals. Part of the challenge I set for myself in taking this photo was to try to preserve as much detail there as possible (pushing my camera to its dynamic-range limits), so the lost detail may mean more to me than it does to someone considering the photo from a strictly aesthetic viewpoint. As always, I have my eye set on the next step up in camera equipment (one of the low-end dSLRs), and I'm wondering just how much difference that might make in a photo such as this--might I be able to get both the colors from your version and the background detail from mine?

Amar: Your photos beautifully portray the practice, skill, and devotion that classical Indian dancers and musicians bring to their art. It's no surprise that your approach to photography seems to share this intensity.

Amar: I'd like to go on record to say that I like all the black space in this photo. I don't think it would work quite as well with significantly less or more. I'm not sure why this is, but perhaps it's because I like the overall shape of the rectangle--if I try to make it shorter, it becomes too square (for this photo--I have nothing against square photos in general), but longer would probably just be too wide. As it is, I think it would look great on a calendar.

 

The way your model's arms frame her head (in perfect profile) is wonderful. I do agree with the person who feels that the contrast is a litte too high, though--it would be good to have just a little more detail in the white areas--and this is a case where a little sharper might be preferable, in my opinion. This might be a good shot to revisit with your 20D.

Paulo: This gets my vote for the most underrated photo I've seen this week. I don't think the people who gave it low ratings realized what they were looking at. I love the texture on those wings. The DOF is amazing given the magnification. Is this uncropped?

 

You're right, the lighting isn't quite there yet. If you're not already using a diffuser, I'd recommend trying one. I use one I made myself out of an old plastic gallon oil jug--I cut the top off and cut a couple straps (hard to describe) in the sides. I use a rubber band to hold the straps to the flash. The base of the jug is about 6 inches by 8 inches, nice and large relative to most macro subjects.

 

If you ARE already using a diffuser (and this photo doesn't have the really harsh shadows I associate with undiffused flash), you might try using a reflector opposite the flash. The usual rationale for using diffuser and reflector (to soften and fill in shadows) doesn't seem to be a problem here, but I have also had some luck using them to reduce blown-out highlights.

 

I'm considering upgrading to a 7D myself, so I hope you will continue to post and show just what it can do with macro shots.

Here's the less-conservative crop.

Mike: Here are a couple possibilities, one conservative, one less conservative. I generally like to see animals facing or moving into a frame rather than out of it, so in the less-conservative cropping, I flipped the photo--it's somehow easier for me to imagine this butterfly (when it's done with the flower) taking off left-to-right rather than right-to-left. In both cases I tried fiddling with the brightness and contrast a bit, but I'm not entirely satisfied with the results of either. Perhaps in PhotoShop (if you have it) you can separate the butterfly from the background more clearly without altering the flowers too much.

 

Here's a more concrete piece of advice: I recommend posting images small enough that they do not need resizing. Whatever program PN uses to resize images sometimes leaves them looking seriously degraded (as in this case).

Amar--I'd like to answer in Hindi, but it would probably take me all day! I am mostly self-taught in Hindi, and still very slow, particularly since I practice much less now that I've taken up photography. Why Hindi? I think we in the U.S. have a lot to learn from the world's largest democracy. It fascinates me that two countries can at once be so similar and so different. Plus, I have developed a fondness for Bollywood movies. Phir milenge aur shubh din--I like that (I had to look up shubh).

I like the subtle colors in this photo. Perfect use of the limited depth of field.

Majid: Am I correct in guessing from the angle of the shadows in this photo that you use the on-camera flash? If so, I think you can benefit a lot by getting the flash off the camera somehow and adding a diffuser (I use a diffuser I made myself from a plastic oil jug). A diffuser can make a big difference in macro photography because the size of the diffuser is usually large relative to the subject. This would give you softer shadows and generally a more natural-looking light. I do like the way the blade of grass cuts across the frame in this photo, and you obviously captured a very "special" moment in the lives of these flies.

Beautiful composition, and it's good to see someone dare to use soft focus appropriately. Aapke sare photo mujhe pasand hain. Aapke critique ke lie shukriya.

It's not often I find a wild animal willing to hold still while I

fumble with my camera, so when I do I have to wonder if something's

up. My wife came across two garter snakes basking in our flower garden

this weekend. Naturally, I went to grab my camera. As I moved in to

get this shot, the more brightly colored of the two slithered off, but

the duller one stayed behind. While I worked on angle and zoom and

focus (manual) and exposure adjustments (-7EV in an effort to cut the

glare) down on my elbows, the brighter snake came back and crawled

right on top of its companion. This photo mostly shows the duller

snake (head and lower coils) but the body behind the head belongs to

the brighter snake. My wife suspects the duller snake may be preparing

to molt (note the film over the eye), and I wonder if this could

account for the more sedentary behavior as well as the duller

coloration. Any thoughts on this and/or any critiques are welcome.

I believe this is actually a male house sparrow helping out with the housework--not as unusual among birds as it is among humans. Nice color in those trees!

Very beautiful indeed. Great detail and subtlety in the white areas. It might be worth playing around with different compositions, though this arch across the middle is very nice. Perhaps a less central location for the subject, or a different angle?

Great detail, color, and composition. This is a marvelous portrait.

Very elegant. Gotta love that blurred water.

Wonderful light on this photo. The lines all converging at the base of the leaf make for a lovely composition. I might not have cropped it quite as close at the bottom, but that's a personal preference.