Botany Photo of the Day
mmyvusenet
Today I had the opportunity to do this update of this photo, I think now It
is much better:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/4103849919/
Thanks for your comments.
--
MMYV
http://www.mmyv.com
Charles E Hardwidge
news:7mldseF...@mid.individual.net...
> Hello:
>
> Today I had the opportunity to do this update of this photo, I think now
> It is much better:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/4103849919/
I like to imagine what horror lies on the other side of the link. More often
than not expectations are exceeded.
It's an overstaturated drunk butterfly humping a lollipop!
Dang.
It was a *pair* of oversaturated drunk butterflies humping a lollipop.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Cat(h)
wrote:
> "mmyvusenet" <mmyvuse...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
You're awfully cruel in the face of earnest endeavour....
Caít()
Charles E Hardwidge
news:5a802208-9f67-4a31...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> You're awfully cruel in the face of earnest endeavour....
Perhaps but the OP would get further reading a good book and investing some
capital on social grease. As they stand things are too low ball and a drain.
My own shoot the other day was a near complete disaster but I'm taking the
time to improve on my own tab not inflicting it on everyone else.
Reality is not a democracy.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Cat(h)
wrote:
> "Cat(h)" <cathy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I was being tongue-in-cheeky.
Some of those photos are pretty dire alright.
I find it very comforting to hear that some folks have disastrous
shoots - so it's not just me, then.
I had one recently that I am really pleased about, with maybe five
shots in it that I am downright proud of but I would be petrified of
putting any of these up for critique.
So, somewhere deep inside me there is a really, really small iota of
sympathy for the OP. Then I see his pics.....
Caít()
Charles E Hardwidge
> On Nov 20, 1:46 pm, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>> "Cat(h)" <cathy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5a802208-9f67-4a31...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > You're awfully cruel in the face of earnest endeavour....
>>
>> Perhaps but the OP would get further reading a good book and investing
>> some capital on social grease. As they stand things are too low ball and
>> a drain.
>>
>> My own shoot the other day was a near complete disaster but I'm taking
>> the time to improve on my own tab not inflicting it on everyone else.
>>
>> Reality is not a democracy.
>
> Some of those photos are pretty dire alright.
> I find it very comforting to hear that some folks have disastrous
> shoots - so it's not just me, then.
> I had one recently that I am really pleased about, with maybe five
> shots in it that I am downright proud of but I would be petrified of
> putting any of these up for critique.
> So, somewhere deep inside me there is a really, really small iota of
> sympathy for the OP. Then I see his pics.....
Ballpark.
I've got the whole shoot in Lightroom and have been going over it. I'm
getting a better idea of the composition and light, the mistakes I made, and
how I felt at the time. There's something in there that can be brought out
by cropping, stuff I captured that missed me at the time, and so forth.
Basic professionalism, and Zen stuff like "continuous self-improvement",
"you can't travel the same path twice", and "this cannot be taught" are part
of that. I've even dived into Flickr and browsed some of the location shots
other people have done for insights and to see how they compare.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nialloswald/2874128726/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vemsteroo/3806570165/
Colston Tower is difficult. There's some obvious landscape and perspective
shots but you don't see the lie of the land and clutter in most of those.
The Colston Hall suffers from urban litter and a road running over the best
place to shoot. But they're not going anywhere and there's always next time.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
dadiOH
> I had one recently that I am really pleased about, with maybe five
> shots in it that I am downright proud of but I would be petrified of
> putting any of these up for critique.
Why? The worst that can happen is that some stranger will tell you they are
awful. OTOH, you might get some useful criticism.
_________
> So, somewhere deep inside me there is a really, really small iota of
> sympathy for the OP. Then I see his pics.....
I think people would be more empathetic if he actually *tried* some of the
suggestions people have made in the past months. It would help too to know
his age...if 12, that is one thing; if 22, that is another.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Peter
news:ZgDNm.7582$Qc5....@newsfe29.ams2...
> Cat(h) wrote:
>
>> I had one recently that I am really pleased about, with maybe five
>> shots in it that I am downright proud of but I would be petrified of
>> putting any of these up for critique.
>
> Why? The worst that can happen is that some stranger will tell you they
> are awful. OTOH, you might get some useful criticism.
Gotta agree. There all of us have bad times. I can think of to reasons for
showing:
Hopefully someone will come forward with an improvement, through
constructive criticism.
To share work that I think is decent.
>
> I think people would be more empathetic if he actually *tried* some of the
> suggestions people have made in the past months. It would help too to
> know his age...if 12, that is one thing; if 22, that is another.
>
>
--
Peter
Sam
"Peter" <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b0705c4$0$28750$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "dadiOH" <dad...@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:ZgDNm.7582$Qc5....@newsfe29.ams2...
>> Cat(h) wrote:
>>
>>> I had one recently that I am really pleased about, with maybe five
>>> shots in it that I am downright proud of but I would be petrified of
>>> putting any of these up for critique.
>>
>> Why? The worst that can happen is that some stranger will tell you they
>> are awful. OTOH, you might get some useful criticism.
>
>
> Gotta agree. There all of us have bad times. I can think of to reasons for
> showing:
> Hopefully someone will come forward with an improvement, through
> constructive criticism.
This is exactly what I use the groups system on Flickr for.
I tend to only add those shots that are experimental or techniques that are
new to me, or the images that I'm not 100% happy with and need guidance on
how I can improve it or do it better.
Constructive criticism is great, but there are a lot out there who just
abuse you and give no justification for their comments.
Fortunately, Flickr has an ignore button.
Cat(h)
>
> Colston Tower is difficult. There's some obvious landscape and perspective
> shots but you don't see the lie of the land and clutter in most of those.
> The Colston Hall suffers from urban litter and a road running over the best
> place to shoot. But they're not going anywhere and there's always next time.
>
> --
> Charles E Hardwidge
That's a cool building. Are both photos of the same building?
Caít()
Cat(h)
> Cat(h) wrote:
> > I had one recently that I am really pleased about, with maybe five
> > shots in it that I am downright proud of but I would be petrified of
> > putting any of these up for critique.
>
> Why? The worst that can happen is that some stranger will tell you they are
> awful. OTOH, you might get some useful criticism.
True. When I feel particularly courageous, I might just post a couple
of links.
> _________
>
> > So, somewhere deep inside me there is a really, really small iota of
> > sympathy for the OP. Then I see his pics.....
>
> I think people would be more empathetic if he actually *tried* some of the
> suggestions people have made in the past months. It would help too to know
> his age...if 12, that is one thing; if 22, that is another.
All fair points. Assuming he is an adult, you'd expect him to engage
a bit. I sense also that English is not his mother tongue, which may
limit the extent to which he can engage.
Caít()
Charles E Hardwidge
> On Nov 20, 5:22 pm, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nialloswald/2874128726/
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/vemsteroo/3806570165/
>>
>> Colston Tower is difficult. There's some obvious landscape and
>> perspective shots but you don't see the lie of the land and clutter in
>> most of those. The Colston Hall suffers from urban litter and a road
>> running over the best place to shoot. But they're not going anywhere and
>> there's always next time.
>
> That's a cool building. Are both photos of the same building?
Different buildings about 100 feet apart. (If you look in the reflections on
the Colston Hall you can see Colston Tower.) Here's a pair of shots from a
broader perspective.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardmatthews/615390488/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jvandepas/4007251563/
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Cat(h)
wrote:
> "Cat(h)" <cathy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> --
> Charles E Hardwidge
I can see that Colston Tower is a photographer's challenge. The night
time lighting does a lot for it, visually.
Caít()
dadiOH
He is Peruvian IIRC. I tried in Spanish too.
mmyvusenet
news:bc68c8f1-d762-44d4...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Hello, really the reason why I don't respond some messages is because here
only I come to speak of photography, and the one that wants to analyze my
practices of photography, well, but simply that don't see them, I do the
same with some posts.
Sincerely I don't like to waste time.
"Redeeming the time, because the days are evil." (Ephesians 5:16, KJV)
--
MMYV
http://www.mmyv.com
Cat(h)
> "Cat(h)" <cathy...@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensajenews:bc68c8f1-d762-44d4...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 20, 8:48 pm, "dadiOH" <dad...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > Cat(h) wrote:
> >> I think people would be more empathetic if he actually *tried* some of
> >> the
> >> suggestions people have made in the past months. It would help too to
> >> know
> >> his age...if 12, that is one thing; if 22, that is another.
>
> > All fair points. Assuming he is an adult, you'd expect him to engage
> > a bit. I sense also that English is not his mother tongue, which may
> > limit the extent to which he can engage.
>
> Hello, really the reason why I don't respond some messages is because here
> only I come to speak of photography, and the one that wants to analyze my
> practices of photography, well, but simply that don't see them, I do the
> same with some posts.
>
To be fair, many posters have actually made real attempts to
constructively critique your photos. It may be an idea to stop
posting for a bit, borrow some photography books from your local
library, or buy a few photo magazines, and learn by practice, and by
looking at some other people's work.
> Sincerely I don't like to waste time.
It is wasting your time not to pay attention to what experienced
photographers who post here (I am not one of them) have told you.
In all honesty, and purely from a visual point of view (there are far
more technically minded people here than me who can address the
technical issues), none of the photos you have presented are
particularly interesting.
The last one you showed - an ancient cross, from the caption - is
flat, dull and boring, poorly composed, and frankly, if it were not
for the caption, I would not have known what it was. It probably is a
very beautiful ancient object, but your photo shows it from a poor
angle, with poor contrast, etc. and lets it down badly. Most of your
photos are not framed properly, nor are they composed pleasingly.
You displayed some caged birds recently, aiming to show the entire
bird, but left bits of the birds out of the frame (i.e. the tip of the
tail of the dove, may be more, I can't recall precisely). You made no
effort to capture the birds in a particularly interesting or natural
pose (that probably would be difficult when they are caged).
Here are a wee bird and a couple of crosses I shot two week ends ago
in the Burren, in Co. Clare, Ireland. They're probably full of
technical faults (and I'm putting on my chainmail in expectation of
the deluge of criticism), but they look pleasing to me.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43077823@N02/4121600495/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43077823@N02/4122377080/
I suspect some people here are now making unpleasant comments about
your posts because they are getting tired of seeing posts almost every
day with the same, boring, flat, dull photos, and their advice going
unheeded and unacknowledged, when you actually looked for comments.
Please don't take what I said above as a personal insult, it isn't.
Wishing you the best in your photographic endeavours,
>
> "Redeeming the time, because the days are evil." (Ephesians 5:16, KJV)
Well, that's suitably obscure.
Caít() (a militant heathen)
mmyvusenet
On Nov 21, 2:58 pm, "mmyvusenet" <mmyvuse...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>mensajenews:bc68c8f1-d762-44d4...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>> "Redeeming the time, because the days are evil." (Ephesians 5:16, KJV)
> Well, that's suitably obscure.
> Ca�t() (a militant heathen)
Sincerely, I not to have responded, if before knew about your philosophy,
and your photos of Halloween.
"Always be joyful, then, in the Lord; I repeat, be joyful."
(Philippians 4:4, New Jerusalem Bible)
--
MMYV
http://www.mmyv.com
Cat(h)
> "Cat(h)" <cathy...@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensajenews:1c764095-825e-4502...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 21, 2:58 pm, "mmyvusenet" <mmyvuse...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >mensajenews:bc68c8f1-d762-44d4...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> >> "Redeeming the time, because the days are evil." (Ephesians 5:16, KJV)
> > Well, that's suitably obscure.
>
> Sincerely, I not to have responded, if before knew about your philosophy,
> and your photos of Halloween.
OK, I give up.
Caít()
dadiOH
> Sincerely, I not to have responded, if before knew about your
> philosophy, and your photos of Halloween.
Favor de escribir la frase en espanol.
mmyvusenet
news:fIVNm.46208$Gz1....@newsfe25.ams2...
> mmyvusenet wrote:
>
>> Sincerely, I not to have responded, if before knew about your
>> philosophy, and your photos of Halloween.
>
> Favor de escribir la frase en espanol.
Only for general knowledge, the phrase is thus "Por favor escribir el
p�rrafo en espa�ol"
I think that you should continue writing in english.
"Make the best of the present time, for it is a wicked age."
(Ephesians 5:16, New Jerusalem Bible)
--
MMYV
http://www.mmyv.com
dadiOH
> "dadiOH" <dad...@invalid.com> escribi� en el mensaje
> news:fIVNm.46208$Gz1....@newsfe25.ams2...
>> mmyvusenet wrote:
>>
>>> Sincerely, I not to have responded, if before knew about your
>>> philosophy, and your photos of Halloween.
>>
>> Favor de escribir la frase en espanol.
>
>
> Only for general knowledge, the phrase is thus "Por favor escribir el
> p�rrafo en espa�ol"
>
> I think that you should continue writing in english.
Oh, OK. I didn't consider one sentence to be a paragraph, merely a phrase.
As far as "favor de..." goes, I'll be sure to tell my Mexican university
professor friend to stop using it. Ditto the Argentinian lawyer with whom I
occasionally correspond.
FYI, I asked you to write it in Spanish because it didn't make any sense in
English. I thought that it might make more sense in Spanish.
mmyvusenet
> mmyvusenet wrote:
>> "dadiOH" <dad...@invalid.com> escribi� en el mensaje
>> news:fIVNm.46208$Gz1....@newsfe25.ams2...
>>> mmyvusenet wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sincerely, I not to have responded, if before knew about your
>>>> philosophy, and your photos of Halloween.
>>>
>>> Favor de escribir la frase en espanol.
>>
>>
>> Only for general knowledge, the phrase is thus "Por favor escribir el
>> p�rrafo en espa�ol"
>>
>> I think that you should continue writing in english.
>
>
> Oh, OK. I didn't consider one sentence to be a paragraph, merely a
> phrase. As far as "favor de..." goes, I'll be sure to tell my Mexican
> university professor friend to stop using it. Ditto the Argentinian
> lawyer with whom I occasionally correspond.
>
> FYI, I asked you to write it in Spanish because it didn't make any sense
> in English. I thought that it might make more sense in Spanish.
Normally I don't write a lot in the messages that I do about my photos
because I have another profession and for me the photography is a hobby, but
always I try to continue practicing, reading comments about photography, and
seeing some examples, in some free time that I have.
--
MMYV
http://www.mmyv.com
Charles E Hardwidge
> Normally I don't write a lot in the messages that I do about my photos
> because I have another profession and for me the photography is a hobby,
> but always I try to continue practicing, reading comments about
> photography, and seeing some examples, in some free time that I have.
Your shit photos and social attitude are turning other peoples hobby into a
job so how about you stop being a cunt and start getting a clue?
This newsgroup isn't some free consultancy service you can dip into when
your royal fucking highness deigns to get off his throne.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Peter
Here are a wee bird and a couple of crosses I shot two week ends ago
in the Burren, in Co. Clare, Ireland. They're probably full of
technical faults (and I'm putting on my chainmail in expectation of
the deluge of criticism), but they look pleasing to me.
IMHO The first rule of an image is that it is pleaseing to the maker.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43077823@N02/4121600495/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43077823@N02/4122377080/
I suspect some people here are now making unpleasant comments about
your posts because they are getting tired of seeing posts almost every
day with the same, boring, flat, dull photos, and their advice going
unheeded and unacknowledged, when you actually looked for comments.
Some comments on technical changes I would make.
For both images. If you have a levels adjustment see this article. Proper
use of the levels adjustment tends to give you more separation between
foreground and background subjects.
On the robin. Remember pixels are cheap and expendable. Throwing them away
does not create an environmental hazzard. Simply throw away any that are
unecessary. Try to crop as close as you can to eliminate the extraneous
pixels. Try to tone down those two large bright circles both about the same
height aas the robin's head. Tone down the bright spots on the rock. These
bright highlights tend to draw my eyes away from the subject, which I assume
is the bird. And try to move the bird off center.
For birds and other animals, use the highest telephot lens you have and get
in as close at you can. First take a distance shot to establish something
then keep getting as close as conditions and the bird will permit. Unless
you are shooting a catalog shot, or for National Geographic, it may not be
necessary to show the entire anumal and/or its environment.
Play with this and see if it improves your images.
HTH
--
Peter
philo
> "Cat(h)" <cath...@yahoo.com> escribi� en el mensaje
> news:bc68c8f1-d762-44d4...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 20, 8:48 pm, "dadiOH" <dad...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> Cat(h) wrote:
>>> I think people would be more empathetic if he actually *tried* some of
>>> the
>>> suggestions people have made in the past months. It would help too to
>>> know
>>> his age...if 12, that is one thing; if 22, that is another.
>> All fair points. Assuming he is an adult, you'd expect him to engage
>> a bit. I sense also that English is not his mother tongue, which may
>> limit the extent to which he can engage.
>
>
> Hello, really the reason why I don't respond some messages is because here
> only I come to speak of photography, and the one that wants to analyze my
> practices of photography, well, but simply that don't see them, I do the
> same with some posts.
>
> Sincerely I don't like to waste time.
>
why would you expect others to waste their time reviewing your photos?
Rather than simply posting your stuff...
it's time to start *thinking* about what you are doing..
maybe if you'd put some real thought into what you are doing...you could
actually get good at it.
Charles E Hardwidge
> On the robin. Remember pixels are cheap and expendable. Throwing them away
> does not create an environmental hazzard. Simply throw away any that are
> unecessary. Try to crop as close as you can to eliminate the extraneous
> pixels. Try to tone down those two large bright circles both about the
> same height aas the robin's head. Tone down the bright spots on the rock.
> These bright highlights tend to draw my eyes away from the subject, which
> I assume is the bird. And try to move the bird off center.
>
> For birds and other animals, use the highest telephot lens you have and
> get in as close at you can. First take a distance shot to establish
> something then keep getting as close as conditions and the bird will
> permit. Unless you are shooting a catalog shot, or for National
> Geographic, it may not be necessary to show the entire anumal and/or its
> environment.
>
> Play with this and see if it improves your images.
The photos were pleasing but I'm always suspicious if I feel too pleased as
that often means there's something that's wrong.
I can easily "save" images from my last shoot but going back on another day
will get better composition and light before hitting the shutter.
Developing the right eye and patience before hitting the shutter can avoid
the temptation to Photoshop everything.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Cat(h)
> "Cat(h)" <cathy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1c764095-825e-4502...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Here are a wee bird and a couple of crosses I shot two week ends ago
> in the Burren, in Co. Clare, Ireland. They're probably full of
> technical faults (and I'm putting on my chainmail in expectation of
> the deluge of criticism), but they look pleasing to me.
>
> IMHO The first rule of an image is that it is pleaseing to the maker.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/43077823@N02/4121600495/
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/43077823@N02/4122377080/
>
> I suspect some people here are now making unpleasant comments about
> your posts because they are getting tired of seeing posts almost every
> day with the same, boring, flat, dull photos, and their advice going
> unheeded and unacknowledged, when you actually looked for comments.
>
> Some comments on technical changes I would make.
>
> For both images. If you have a levels adjustment see this article. Proper
> use of the levels adjustment tends to give you more separation between
> foreground and background subjects.
>
Can you be a little more specific, please? I have just gone through
every menu item on my camera, and cannot find a reference to levels
anywhere. If you are referring to Photoshop, I don't have it on my
computer, I do what (small amount) of tweaking I need to do on Gimp.
It may be dead obvious to the experienced photographer, but not to
this here bunny :-)
> http://tinyurl.com/pefaf
>
> On the robin. Remember pixels are cheap and expendable. Throwing them away
> does not create an environmental hazzard. Simply throw away any that are
> unecessary. Try to crop as close as you can to eliminate the extraneous
> pixels. Try to tone down those two large bright circles both about the same
> height aas the robin's head. Tone down the bright spots on the rock. These
> bright highlights tend to draw my eyes away from the subject, which I assume
> is the bird. And try to move the bird off center.
Thanks for those comments, I will play around with the pic on Gimp as
soon as time permits.
I did a course a couple of years back, because having purchased by
400D after decades of increasingly sophisticated point-and-clicks, I
realised just how steep the learning curve. We took lots of photos in
the field, then spent an afternoon in the virtual darkroom (with
photoshop, which I don't have at home), and I was quite amazed how the
two pros who were giving the course could see ways of improving our
photos that most of us simply could not even imagine. I am now a
little wiser, but I have a long way to go. Spending time sitting at
the computer is a lot of what I do for work (nothing to do with
photography), so free time for me is much more likely to be spent out
and about. Hence, I have spent relatively little time working on
photos. I see Charles' point when he says that developing one's eye
saves you a lot of photoshopping, and that would be my preferred
option too - but you still need to examine your shots very critically
on the large screen first.
>
> For birds and other animals, use the highest telephot lens you have and get
> in as close at you can.
My best zoom being my two legs.. I have heard this before :-)
First take a distance shot to establish something
> then keep getting as close as conditions and the bird will permit. Unless
> you are shooting a catalog shot, or for National Geographic, it may not be
> necessary to show the entire anumal and/or its environment.
>
> Play with this and see if it improves your images.
Thanks again, I will.
Caít()
Peter
Thanks again, I will.
For levels while I was referring to Photoshop, a similar type of adjustment
is available in most post processing programs, including Gimp.
The levels adjustment resets the black, gray and white punts in an image.
(In order to achieve a greater degree of color contrast. this can make an
image really pop.) With programs such as PhotoShop you can do it one channel
at a time. I can' say if Gimp would have that capability, you would have to
research the links in the page I posted.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=gimp+levels+adjustment&form=QBRE&qs=n
The tool you use is immaterial, the final result is what counts.
BTW They very well may be some who disagree with my thoughts, but that is
fair. All art is subjective.
--
Peter