|
|
|
Megan McCluskey
{K:3762} 10/24/2003
|
I really like this shot. Not sure why it din't get any comments. I was looking at your protfolio and this one jumped out atme. It has great color and while it may be a bit blurry I think it adds to the drama of this shot. You have a very good eye which, I've found, is more than half the battle in learning photography. In all your images in your portfolio the composition is right on. The technical stuff comes with practice.
Thanks so much for the comment on my cows pic. I've since worked with the color a little more in PS and ma post it again. Mesa is a nice area. I used to shoot a fashion catalog in the Pheonix area.
Good luck and keep it up.
: ) meg
|
|
|
|
|
Neil Cowley
{K:125} 10/23/2003
|
The Gehstalt of the colors is poor. Meaning the distribution of hues is not balanced well. Try the Hue pallate, and select different colors saturating and unsaturating them, shifting their hue etc. until you have a more pleasing result.
PS. I had all my flower photos developed at walmart and scanned them with my nikon scanner. Its more likely your tripod and shutterspeed that made it blurry. You can get more acutance out of a soft scan by using a step down sharpening method. Start at R:20px A:20% T:0 and sharpen with three or four passes decreasing your radius and increasing your amount.
|
|
|
|
|
Alan Orr
{K:9671} 10/9/2003
|
Daniel, I just came back to this. Im not very proficient in scanning, so Im not sure I can help. But, many people scan in photos at ridiculous resolution or dpi. This results in a huge file size and does nothing for the quality. Interestingly enough your Corel program seems to save at 75 dpi. I dont believe this is enough. In any case, Photoshop Elements is a very good program at a cheap price. It has most of the features of Photoshop including using most of the available plug in support. Then you could scan in at a reaonable dpi, and crop or resize to the 600 range at high quality. I believe the problem might be that the corel program is simply saving as a low dpi image for a web page. If you do work things out, repost some of these and let me know. You can email me anytime at aorr@hvc.rr.com Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel S. Garcia
{K:13946} 10/7/2003
|
After many tests I've come to the conclusion that its not the scanning, I'm not blind and its not the processing! Once I scan in my image, the file is to big to post. I then go into corel draw 8 and "publish to internet", then under "JPEG Options" I put 0 for compression and 0 for smoothing and it reduces the Kb's to posting levels, under 300K. Once posted I get the blurred look. Any suggestions? Except for me to buy Photo Shop, which I can't afford at this time. Thank you for all your help!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Stutes
{K:305} 10/7/2003
|
Hi,
I know I am a new member, but I have had many shots like this. Short DOF and poor lighing on a tight zoom makes it hard to get a crisp shot. I have wasted many shots on little creepers like this to get on ly marginal results. Using a tripod helps, but I never seem to have one when I need one.
I find tht taking time to compose the shot and controlled breathing make for the best shots when dealing with small wildlife. Take time to brace yourself in a comfortable position and take your shots at the end of an exhale.
It is kind of like sharp shooting. When shooting these I also like to use my aperture priority setting. Anything f8 and above should be OK, but idealy, I like f11. Also, the colors could be because of the film. I used a lot of Fuji 400 for macros and found the color to be great in some cases and not that great in others. I eventually switched back to Kodak for the consistency of the product.
I hope this helps.
Jason
|
|
|
|
|
Amitava Banerjea
{K:7088} 10/6/2003
|
As Alan said, this and others of you pictures are blurry. I doubt the problem is in the processing but it could be in the scanning. Also, you are hand-holding the camera. In this photo you seem to have hand-held the subject as well, which means you had only one hand free to hold the camera. At these extreme magnifications, even the slightest shake of the hand will be detected at even the faster shutter speeds that you are using. By and large the rule of thumb that is suggested is a shutter speed no slower than 1/f secs where f is the focal length of the lens in mm. This is for 35mm film. In this case the macro would require you to use an even faster speed. Also, it is my experience that holding a subject and camera steady at the point of focus is very difficult to do by hand. Because the D0F is so small, any slight backward or forward movement in either the camera or the subject will throw the focus off. May be you should consider using a steady tripod.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel S. Garcia
{K:13946} 10/6/2003
|
Alan thanks for you comment. I've been going nuts trying to figure out why I'm un able to get the clarity that others here seem to have mastered in their macro images. After reading your comment I will develop my film at a professional lab instead of the one hour places and also have them scan the images for me. I hope that this will help me. If that doesn't work I'll go get my eyes checked! Again thank you for your comment.
P.S. As you can see I get the views but few comments.
|
|
|
|
|
Alan Orr
{K:9671} 10/6/2003
|
Daniel, Im not an expert but... for some reason, most of your color photos are very blurred. Is this the scanning?
The black & white shots look great for some reason. This macro looks particularly bad. Very little if anything seems to be in focus. Also they appear very grainy. Again the BW photos look great. So, mostly it seems you have a technical problem. If you get it worked out, let me know, Id like to see the photos under better circumstances.
|
|
0 
