Skip to content

SANParks.org Forums

View unanswered posts | View active topics






Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 25
 [ 374 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 25  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Photos for Criticism
Unread postPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:22 am
Posts: 4757
OK, thanks Bert, this in KTP, Pentax K110D, Sigma 70-300.

Image

Also this one, bit of change.

Image

Two totally different but I would like to know. :hmz:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Welcome!
Unread postPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:21 pm 
Offline
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:02 pm
Posts: 17118
Location: mind in SA, body in The Netherlands
Quite nice actually.
Why did i not see any of your entries in the yearly Photographer competition :shock:

1) Flying birds.
Great colour. You captured the atmosphere very well
Makes it very pleasant to watch.
Birds in flight are sharps and fill the frame
Only minor is that its best to crop the bit of wing in the left out of the image.
My eye wants to see the group taking of and wanders to the bit of bird in the left which for me is a distraction

2)Ellie close
Great composition. My eye follows the trunk and ends at the eye which is the eyecatcher of this image.
A rule is that we look from left to right (as we learn to read)
Therefore the placement of the eye to the right is perfect.
Another pleasent image to watch

_________________
Submit your Images


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Photos for Criticism
Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:31 am 
Offline
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 2:15 pm
Posts: 1901
Location: Johannesburg - too far from the closest Sanpark
Scipio: one of the basic rules in portraiture and wildlife photography, from what I've read, is that one must make sure the subject's eye is in focus. From what I can see, the elephant's eye in your photo is not in focus.

If you are having focusing problems on your camera, there are several ways to remedy this, depending on your camera type. This includes (for the DSLR), focus lock, changing your focus point etc.

In your bird shot, some of the birds are not in focus. In my opinion this detracts from the image. The background is far enough away so that even if you increased your depth of focus to have all the birds in focus, the background would have been nicely blurred. (If you want more tips on how to increase depth of focus, lets start a new post somewhere.) Having said that, you may have been constrained by your shutter speed for this shot, wanting to capture the in-flight action.

My 2c worth :)

_________________
The 'mite formerly known as joshilewis

FGASA Level 1 Guide

Glen Reenen TR

15-18 June: Berg-en-dal


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Photos for Criticism
Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:51 am
Posts: 2159
Josh, in the previous post you mention "depth of focus", do you not mean "depth of field"? They are two totally different things.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Photos for Criticism
Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:52 am 
Offline
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 2:15 pm
Posts: 1901
Location: Johannesburg - too far from the closest Sanpark
Sprocky wrote:
Josh, in the previous post you mention "depth of focus", do you not mean "depth of field"? They are two totally different things.

Well, I prefer to use the terms 'depth of focus' and 'field of view'.
'Depth of focus' refers to the spread of objects that appear to be in focus, perpendicular to the sensor plane.

'Field of view' refers to how 'wide' or 'narrow' the image you see is.

Do you agree on these terms? Do you use different terms?

In the context of my post, I thought I was being pretty clear about having more of the birds in focus, and not about how narrow or wide the image is.

_________________
The 'mite formerly known as joshilewis

FGASA Level 1 Guide

Glen Reenen TR

15-18 June: Berg-en-dal


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Photos for Criticism
Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:58 am 
Offline
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 2:15 pm
Posts: 1901
Location: Johannesburg - too far from the closest Sanpark
Ok, I've just done some more personal research on the subject.
The term I should have used is 'depth of field'.
I didn't know there was a difference between the two.
This probably deserves a post in the 'how to use your camera' thread.

Basically:
Depth of focus is how much one can move the camera while retaining focus.
Depth of field is the range of objects that appear to be in focus.

Thanks for questioning me on it Sprocky :)

_________________
The 'mite formerly known as joshilewis

FGASA Level 1 Guide

Glen Reenen TR

15-18 June: Berg-en-dal


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Photos for Criticism
Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:51 am
Posts: 2159
Still not right Josh. A lot of people confuse them, here is the difference...

Depth of focus vs depth of field

While the phrase depth of focus was historically used, and is sometimes still used, to mean depth of field, in modern times it is more often reserved for the image-side depth. Depth of field is a measurement of depth of acceptable sharpness in the object space, or subject space.

Depth of focus, however, is a measurement of how much the film or sensor plane can be displaced while an object remains in acceptably sharp focus. In this sense, it relates to a single plane in object space.[1][2] It can also be viewed as the flip side of depth of field, occurring on the opposite side of the lens.[2] With the first interpretation, the depth of focus is symmetrical about the image plane; with the latter, the depth of focus is greater on the far side of the image plane, though in most cases the distances are approximately equal.

Where depth of field often can be measured in macroscopic units such as meters and feet, depth of focus is typically measured in microscopic units such as fractions of a millimeter or thousandths of an inch.

The same factors that determine depth of field also determine depth of focus, but these factors can have different effects than they have in depth of field. Both depth of field and depth of focus increase with smaller apertures. For distant subjects (beyond macro range), depth of focus is relatively insensitive to focal length and subject distance, for a fixed f-number. In the macro region, depth of focus increases with longer focal length or closer subject distance, while depth of field decreases.


Hope this helps. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Photos for Criticism
Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:22 am
Posts: 4757
Thanks Bert, Josh, Sprocky :thumbs_up:

I will give somebody else a go now, or can I put one more, I am getting my new camera in a few weeks time & this is interesting. :thumbs_up:

I don't have photoshop etc. but could some of the problems be solved by computer. :hmz:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Photos for Criticism
Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:51 am
Posts: 2159
Scipio wrote:
I don't have photoshop etc. but could some of the problems be solved by computer. :hmz:


No buddy, photoshop can't fix anything that was not done correctly when the shot was taken, it can however make the overall appearance of the image more aesthetically pleasing. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Photos for Criticism
Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:06 am 
Offline
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 2:15 pm
Posts: 1901
Location: Johannesburg - too far from the closest Sanpark
Sprocky wrote:
Still not right Josh. A lot of people confuse them, here is the difference...

Hope this helps. :wink:

It did, thanks. I read, and linked to, the same source :)
Methinks a sticky topic on glossary/terminology is in order? Maybe with some example shots to explain?

I think a sticky post with some links might also be a good idea?

@bert: I know there is some historic content on the forum that covered a lot of these same topics. Can we dig them up and move them?

_________________
The 'mite formerly known as joshilewis

FGASA Level 1 Guide

Glen Reenen TR

15-18 June: Berg-en-dal


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Photos for Criticism
Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:08 am 
Offline
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 2:15 pm
Posts: 1901
Location: Johannesburg - too far from the closest Sanpark
May I also suggest that we try keep to one photo per thread? Or is that getting a bit picky?

_________________
The 'mite formerly known as joshilewis

FGASA Level 1 Guide

Glen Reenen TR

15-18 June: Berg-en-dal


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Photos for Criticism
Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:22 am
Posts: 4757
Thanks Sprocky, OK two more and I will give somebody else a chance. :thumbs_up:

Image

Image

This is a good Idea. :thumbs_up:Sorry Josh, loaded already :redface:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Photos for Criticism
Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:13 am 
Offline
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:02 pm
Posts: 17118
Location: mind in SA, body in The Netherlands
Scipio
Can find anything to moan about
Great pictures

Good , sharp close up
Its all about the eye :thumbs_up:

And the moment of landing/or take- off is great
And love the whole landscape in the image
Not a dull but very interesting image

_________________
Submit your Images


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Photos for Criticism
Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:03 pm 
Offline
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 2:15 pm
Posts: 1901
Location: Johannesburg - too far from the closest Sanpark
Crocodile: Great pic. I don't really have much to say, except maybe placement of the eye more according to the "rule of two thirds", instead of the center of the frame, would have more impact.

Bird: Again great pic. I'd say maybe crop some of the foreground and background out. I find it distracting though. bert disagrees with me though, so as with everything, its subjective :)

_________________
The 'mite formerly known as joshilewis

FGASA Level 1 Guide

Glen Reenen TR

15-18 June: Berg-en-dal


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Photos for Criticism
Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:48 pm 
Offline
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Honorary Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:42 pm
Posts: 17943
Location: Red sand, why do I keep thinking of red sand?
I messed about a little....
Lets first show what I made of it, then the why:
Image

Cropped more to the rule of thirds, so the photo 'reads' from left to right.
The parts under water suffer from bleaching due to the reflection of the clouds. So I upped the saturation of those bits.

Image
Just a crop... It mostly takes out the unwanted and distracting foreground. I left all the space available on the right and top as the that's the direction the bird is flying in. It wants that space, and creates a story. What does it see? Where is it going?

A photo should always tell a story, making the viewer wonder...

_________________
Arriving currently: The photos from our trip! Overhere! :yaya:

Feel free to use any of these additional letters to correct the spelling of words found in the above post: a-e-t-n-d-i-o-s-m-l-u-y-h-c


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 374 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 25  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group

Webcams Highlights

Addo Nossob Orpen Satara
Addo Nossob Orpen Satara
Submitted by Stampajane at 15:39:09 Submitted by BevAnn at 18:00:19 Submitted by Leopardess at 18:04:59 Submitted by deckhand at 13:33:28