[WPRESTO]

Here you go guys, you decide which version is better:

The version I like best = the first in your post
Second place = the last one
all others are a third place = similar to each other and a step down from either the first of the last image.
Maybe I have a liking for the extremes.

---------- Post added 06-24-18 at 07:57 PM ----------

A few macros from today - Tamron 90mm and flash with diffuser all heavy crops

I especially like the second image, both the bug and the quality of the image.

[Tas]

5 shot HDR with some substandard PP (needed to leave the sun flare at a higher level to keep it natural), image captured with the D-FA 15-30.


Tas

[clackers]

FA77, Melbourne Docklands.

[clackers]

No, no no! NONE of your images that I've seen have been "sleazy." I was making a general observation that very subtle changes in a model's pose can make a big difference in what the picture communicates - the difference between: here is a beautiful young woman VERSUS come let's have a romp right now. Do you remember that once I PM'd about a pose that was a bit too - how should I put it? - confrontational, or aggressive, or in-your-face, or "are you man enough" - hard to put into words. I did not find that one pleasing, it made me wince. As you replied, the pose was the model's choice, not yours. The vast majority of your images are tasteful celebrations of female beauty, a pleasure to see.

Yeah, I would have thought that on a photography forum we realize it's not about the subject, it's the approach that makes us different to the iPhone crowd.

We may not have Victoria Falls out our backdoor or James Franco in our living room to take pictures of, but we can make even a picture of a flower or a family cat or a park bench worthwhile if thought's gone into it … there's focus stacking, side lighting with a diffuser, juxtaposition with a secondary subject, or whatever.

IMHO, to take a picture of a geranium the same way we would have in 1998 is like running a white surrender flag up the pole. We have to push ourselves, that includes getting different poses out of our subjects and getting them to break their comfortable routines, too ("No, Dad, don't just stand there with your hands crossed in front of your groin, we can do better than that!").

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, we're always richer for having done it, though.

Check out the mad front bokeh ("Frokeh?") Chris uses in post 17155.

---

Last edited by clackers; 06-24-2018 at 07:17 PM.

[jva59]

A few shots, including a couple with my newly acquired FA 135, Watch Hill Westerly RI, 19 June 2018. The yacht is the Aphrodite, built for John Hay 'Jock' Whitney in 1937.

[wtlwdwgn]

K-1 and D FA 28-105.

[TedH42]

Here you go guys, you decide which version is better:

Quebec City: Shot from the plains of Abraham: A series of shots from the same location over roughly an hour, going from Golden to Blue hour. The time period was 8:37pm to 9:43pm.

Please allow a little bit of artistic latitude in processing, the aim was not to do a scientific test, rather optimize the look for each tone of light. Also since this these are 2 shot pano's, some distortion will occur between shots as each was processed separately.

Hope you guys like it.

8:37pm

8:52pm

8:59pm

9:30pm

9:39pm

9:43pm

My favorite is the 8:37, with the sun on the buildings, the action in the water, and the brilliant, diagonal cloud band leading into the sun-lit far shore.

A close second is the popular 9:39, with buildings lighted on both sides of the water, reflections and a moving boat on the water, the diagonal clouds dominating the sky, which has a blast of yellow-orange in the left distance, emphasizing the tower.

Coming in third is the 8:59, with the rest falling after. The red, diagonal clouds dominate the sky and the whole image, without turning the whole image red (in contrast to the overall orange of 8:52), there is action in the water, and the tower has an emphasis from the bit of blue sky behind it.

A terrific set of images. Well done!

[BruceBanner]

Whoa, that is a fantastic set. # and 6 stand out for me.

Thanks Kev!

Here's a panorama shot of Kangaroo Valley;


I had my cpl on my 24mm for this shot, and its a stitch of 3 frames. I take it I made a rookie mistake by either;

a) using it at all, if using it on a 24mm a single shot would be the max you should attempt?
b) using it and not adjusting the cpl as you pan to the next shot?
c) shoulda ditched the 24mm, when with the 50mm and used the cpl with that instead and done a panorama (including adjusting the cpl as panning across?

[LensBeginner]

Thanks Kev!

Here's a panorama shot of Kangaroo Valley;


I had my cpl on my 24mm for this shot, and its a stitch of 3 frames. I take it I made a rookie mistake by either;

a) using it at all, if using it on a 24mm a single shot would be the max you should attempt?
b) using it and not adjusting the cpl as you pan to the next shot?
c) shoulda ditched the 24mm, when with the 50mm and used the cpl with that instead and done a panorama (including adjusting the cpl as panning across?

I think a)
Polarizers are most effective at a 90° angle from the sun, no matter how much you adjust them, and the wider the panorama, the larger the variation.
24mm or 50mm wouldn't have made any difference, since the only thing of interested is the degrees of horizon covered, i.e. the field of view of the complete panorama.

Nice picture though!

[gaweidert]

Yeah, I would have thought that on a photography forum we realize it's not about the subject, it's the approach that makes us different to the iPhone crowd.

We may not have Victoria Falls out our backdoor or James Franco in our living room to take pictures of, but we can make even a picture of a flower or a family cat or a park bench worthwhile if thought's gone into it … there's focus stacking, side lighting with a diffuser, juxtaposition with a secondary subject, or whatever.

IMHO, to take a picture of a geranium the same way we would have in 1998 is like running a white surrender flag up the pole. We have to push ourselves, that includes getting different poses out of our subjects and getting them to break their comfortable routines, too ("No, Dad, don't just stand there with your hands crossed in front of your groin, we can do better than that!").

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, we're always richer for having done it, though.

Check out the mad front bokeh ("Frokeh?") Chris uses in post 17155.

Last year I took #2 son to Yellowstone. I offered him the use of my K3 and whatever lenses he needed. He declined saying he would use his latest model smart phone. Once he go back home and tried to post process the images he realized what a mistake he had made. The camera on the phone is a snapshot machine. The digital equivalent of the cameras with the drop in film 110 cartridges or the Disc cameras. I would bet that more images are deleted today than were taken on a average day in 1990.

[LensBeginner]

Last year I took #2 son to Yellowstone. I offered him the use of my K3 and whatever lenses he needed. He declined saying he would use his latest model smart phone. Once he go back home and tried to post process the images he realized what a mistake he had made. The camera on the phone is a snapshot machine. The digital equivalent of the cameras with the drop in film 110 cartridges or the Disc cameras. I would bet that more images are deleted today than were taken on a average day in 1990.

...nothing like a good reality check to set things straight!

[Rondec]

Dawn (DFA 15-30/multiple exposure/K1 II)

[jva59]

Here you go guys, you decide which version is better:

Quebec City: Shot from the plains of Abraham: A series of shots from the same location over roughly an hour, going from Golden to Blue hour. The time period was 8:37pm to 9:43pm.

Please allow a little bit of artistic latitude in processing, the aim was not to do a scientific test, rather optimize the look for each tone of light. Also since this these are 2 shot pano's, some distortion will occur between shots as each was processed separately.

Hope you guys like it.

8:37pm



8:52pm



8:59pm



9:30pm



9:39pm



9:43pm

Lovely images! We stayed at the Chateau Frontenac in February and loved it.

[Erictator]

smc PENTAX-DA* 300mm F4 ED [IF] SDM ƒ/7.1 300.0 mm 1/1600 iso3200

***As tempting as it was to select the subject with the magic wand, then invert the selection, then reduce noise, I chose to leave it alone because sometimes it just works as is. What would YOU have done? Do you find grain offensive or do you think it adds something, sometimes but not always? Coming from the film days, I like a little grain in my diet now and then myself.
Eric

[kengoh]

White Eye shot from house windows, taken with Sigma 500 F4.5 + Pentax 1.4x TC