Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 1, 2005, 11:34 AM   #1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well, at least most of the time. Using shallow depth of field to create artistic macro images is challenging, but very rewarding. I made all of these images yesterday.







  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 1, 2005, 1:23 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

Chris Kayler wrote:
Quote:
Well, at least most of the time. Using shallow depth of field to create artistic macro images is challenging, but very rewarding. I made all of these images yesterday.
Let's all go out, take some blurry pictures and call it art! LOL

Simply beautiful!
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2005, 1:50 PM   #3
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Chris:

I wanted to point out that we have forum guidelines specific to this forum, including one for limiting images to one per thread (you'll see the post containing these guidelinesat the top of the threads list).

Quote:
4. Be Concise
Please post only one image per thread...this will allow each image to be judged on it's own merits and keeps the thread on topic. A critique which picks apart every detail of the image posted had better be worth the time reading it.
We don't mind more than one image in response to critique (for example, here it is cropped differently, etc.). But, for future threads, please take the guidelines into consideration.

Thanks!

Now that I've got that out of the way...

Interesting images... Most of the time, we're trying to get more depth of field (or at least have a more clearly defined point of focus), and you decided on less DOF, with the point of focus not as clearly defined (although therearesome parts of each image thatare sharper,they don't seem to stand out quite as much as we're used to seeing in macros). Or, perhaps I should say that we're used to seeing more of the flowers parts stand out and your DOF is very shallow.

I'll give them some thought and post my "two cents" worth after letting the technique you chosesink in a while. ;-) Is this a new thing you're trying? It is a very dreamy look (and yes, artistic would be the term I'd use for it).

Explain your second image for me... I'm still trying to grasp exactly what you were able to capture there. It looks like flowers surrounded ina water droplet, versus reflections. Very interesting capture.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2005, 2:07 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Pierre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 335
Default

Hello Chris,

I made alot of macro shoots and im sorry to say that , your pictures are not very very good.They are all blurry.

What lens did you use to take those pictures?

Edited by Moderator (image removed)...

Please refrain from posting your own images into someone elses thread in this forum (see the forum guidelines). Although I think Pierre was just trying to demonstrate what he felt was a good macro, let's try to stick with discussion about the original poster's images without going to the step of posting others for comparison.


Thanks for understanding.

Jim C.
Pierre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2005, 2:28 PM   #5
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sorry Jim!! Will follow the rules in the future. The 2d shot is a water droplet sitting on a daffodil blade, with azaleas in the background.

Pierre - Gee, thank you! My macro's will now change completely since these are "not very very good" :roll:. Doh! Why don't you stop and think for a moment and realize that there are many styles and ways to do things. I wish I could have seen your picture before Jim deleted it. If it's ok with the mods, I'm fine with you posting it.

Rodney, hahahha :-). Atleast I'm not using motion blur, b/w film, spooky lighting, and a naked model who's smoking a cigarette and calling it art. Now that stuff I can do without. :-)



  Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2005, 2:42 PM   #6
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Chris Kayler wrote:
Quote:
If it's ok with the mods, I'm fine with you posting it.
Since it's OK with the original poster, I'll allow it this one time if Pierre want so repost it here.

But, for future reference, it's not a good practice to post images in someone else thread, since it tends todistract from the discussion ofthe image originally posted.

Pierre's image was different enough in style (i.e., the type of flower macro you see more often), that I felt it would not lend itself to discussing your image as much. It was very obvious to me that you chose this style (very shallow DOF) deliberately. So, I wanted to keep the discussion on that, versus how you see it done more often.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2005, 2:55 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Pierre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 335
Default

No thanks Jim

I wont add anything else on that post like he said :
Quote:
that there are many styles and ways to do things
theres LADA and theresFERRARI.
Pierre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2005, 3:01 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

You not driving a Ferrari, Jim? :blah:
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2005, 3:05 PM   #9
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Pierre, no problem.. I didn't mean to start a dispute over styles, and I can understand why you wanted to post it.

But, in fairness to the Original Poster, we should probably try to comment on what we like or don't likeabout the images posted (and why), based on their own merits, versus comparisons to other images.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2005, 3:48 PM   #10
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Chris:

OK -- my thoughts after looking at the images for a little while.

Although they are different, I don't see a lot of elements that I personally find to be pleasing in these images. I guess that's because I tend to look at flowers for their bright colors, contrast, or even the texture of their petals. These do have a "dreamy" look to them (and that'sprobably what you intended).

But, I never claimed to have an eye for art, either, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. LOL

Now, looking at your first image, I do see that the primary point of focus has a lot of contrast with the color of the rest of the image. I personally like that. But, again, it just doesn't strike me as the type of image I'd personally find to be interesting enough to take pleasure in viewing it for long.

If there was just a tad more depth of field, with just a little more of the portions you're interested in focused, I think I'd like it a little better.

The second image is the most interesing to me. If you could get the the light and camera angle just right so that the water droplet ismore prominent without the foreground being a distraction, I think that kind of approach could make a really neat image.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:45 AM.