mating season
Click on image to view larger image
idespi
Registered: February 2011
Posts: 14
|
macro
|
| · Date: Thu February 10, 2011 · Views: 678 · Filesize: 127.2kb, 1844.0kb · Dimensions: 2093 x 1388 ·
|
|
Keywords: insects
|
|
|
|
richingr
Registered: October 2010
Posts: 1,459
|
|
Thu February 10, 2011 6:25am
|
|
|
Good picture could be a bit sharper maybe use aperture of about f5.6 and lower iso
if your camera can do this.Only my opinion as im no expert
|
|
geofflaw
Site Admin
Registered: December 2007
Posts: 1,398
|
|
Thu February 10, 2011 6:42am
|
|
|
I think it is sharp enough, but it does need more contrast. I suspect if you look at the levels histogram you will see all the tones bunched in the middle and nothing at the ends. There is no black in the picture and no white. By spreading out the tones you will see more contrast and this will make the picture appear sharper as well. Great photo by the way.
Have a look at this video to see what I'm on about.
http://www.geofflawrence.com/photoshop_levels.html
|
|
Kev
Registered: February 2008
Posts: 2,722
|
|
Thu February 10, 2011 7:17am
|
|
|
Those crickets (or whatever they are) certainly have great colours.
I agree that it is sharp enough...as I think we are becoming somewhat obsessed these days with an unnatural level of sharpness. Many things in nature are not particularly "sharp" at all...and do not have clearly defined edges. In fact, if you look very closely...you will find that many objects actually have rounded or even soft edging. However, Geoff is right about the black and white components of an image...without those... the contrast- dynamic range appears rather bland/sterile and doesn't have that organic, punchy alive presence.
|
|
richingr
Registered: October 2010
Posts: 1,459
|
|
Thu February 10, 2011 7:27am
|
|
|
I bow to the experts on this one .Did say i was not a expert.You did well with this one to get a comment from Geoff and Kev .
|
|
Kev
Registered: February 2008
Posts: 2,722
|
|
Thu February 10, 2011 8:41am
|
|
|
Well, unfortunately...the USM tool has become over-applied in many cases. It's primary function is to 'restore' lost line-edge definition due to optical diffraction...but, not to push it back beyond the natural or authentic level...which is the case a lot these days.
I think this is a modern era product of our HD (high def) mentality...where we expect everything to be razor sharp with extremely well defined edges...when in reality, the universe just isn't like that - for the most part.
I picked up some of Krissoula's old 1970's Country Living magazines the other day and looked at the images (including studio created adverts, etc)...and you'd be surprised just how "soft" everything was back then compared with todays images.
WE are now pushing the envelope beyond that which is actually realistic and/or normal.
|
|
idespi
Registered: February 2011
Posts: 14
|
|
Fri February 11, 2011 3:50am
|
|
|
Thanks Geoff, it is indeed an honor to have caught your attention. Your tips will help a lot.
Kev with your explanation, I can say say that you've gone through the deepest corners of this branch of art. I've seen your works, they are filled with beauty. You really have a taste.
Rich I admire your being so expressive. Your honest opinions are a great help. Your skillful works and the love for your art inspire me.
Thanks guys...
|
|
|
|
|
| Users |
1,272 |
| Photos |
6,079 |
| Comments |
10,694 |
| Views |
9,527,642 |
| Disk Space |
4,571.3mb |
|
|
| Home
| Community Forum
| Photo Quiz
| Espaņol
