









Comments appreciated.
Went for a WanderModerators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent. Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature. Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread. Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Previous topic • Next topic
9 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Hi Nick
I like the colourings in #5-8. The coppery foliage against a very dark background works for me. #7 is the pick of them IMO. I think that my eyes would prefer to see a little more light on the trunk in #2 and I find the others lack a bit of punch (enderexposed perhaps??) It certainly looks like a nice plcae to take a stroll. ![]()
Thanks for the input meerkat.
I'd also have like to have more light on the tree, it had great textured bark, but that sort of dissapears when compared to the lit leaves above. The first shot is of the same tree. - Nick
Gallery
Hi Nick
I like #7 too, and I also like #1 and#2. The other shots with the brown fern fronds aren't as effective in my view; probably a combination of subject matter and lighting. With texture shots, like tree bark, side-lighting gives a much better result, because it really emphasises texture. I know you can't control the sun, but a reflector or your flash for fill lighting can often assist you to bring out the texture. Thanx for posting. ![]() TFF (Trevor)
My History Blog: Your Brisbane: Past & Present My Photo Blog: The Foto Fanatic Nikon stuff!
Hi Nick,
#8 is my favorite. #5-7 are quite good and artistic but bit busy. Tree, IMHO, is too "cold" - needs some WB correction. Overall, good set of photos! Mikhail
Hasselblad 501CM, XPAN, Wista DX 4x5, Pentax 67, Nikon D70, FED-2
Hi Nick,
These are nice. My faves are from 3 onwards but they are all of a high quality..well done. Which particular lense/s did you use for these? Geoff
Special Moments Photography Nikon D700, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4, 70-200 2.8VR, SB800 & some simple studio stuff.
Hi Nick,
These are nice. My faves are from 3 onwards but they are all of a high quality..well done. Which particular lense/s did you use for these? Geoff
Special Moments Photography Nikon D700, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4, 70-200 2.8VR, SB800 & some simple studio stuff.
Geoff: A combination of the Kit Lens and my Sigma 105.
cricketfan: Thanks for the tip on the lighting, might try it with a bit of flash next time. Hlop: I might make them a bit darker (eliminate some of the background stuff) and see how that goes. - Nick
Gallery
Great shots Nick, love the Fern series - especially #8 in the above series, looks like you made the most of great light and a great subject
cant help but think some of the ferns may work well in b+w conversions as well.......? and its good to see the quality of the Sigma 105 in capable hands! - mines on its way from HK, cant wait....... Chris in the beginning was the word, and the word was Aardvark......
Previous topic • Next topic
9 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|