|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/26/2008
|
Thanks a lot, Aziz!
If I only had turned the camera a bit to the left, that is...
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/26/2008
|
Thanks a lot for the nice detailed comment, Dave!
I had to be indeed more careful when I was framing, since there would be really enough space for getting it completely at the left side.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/25/2008
|
Thank you very very much, Vandi!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/25/2008
|
Many thanks for the nice comment, Aykaan!
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/25/2008
|
Zactly, and zactly to the square, Valerij!
Swans can be such a torture to somehow get right, with some details of those highly reflective white feather. Here, for example, the region right after its neck is almost uniformly white - much like as if it had been painted with Alpina White.
And of course there are ways for getting high contrast with digital. Who could say the opposite? I have the impression that such statements are only dogmatic beliefs. Of course nowadays the most widespread dogma is that digital is automatically a synonym of quality, and the possibility of retouching an image has brought the false understanding that such things like high dynamics or sharpness can be enhanced with PS at no price. (Which after that evolved further to an extremely "coarse", almost barbaric "taste".) But any such absolute statement, be it pro or contra analog or digital, is simply false.
Film works better for me, but this is not any "ultimate truth". It just happens that I can cope much better with its characteristics, its response, its idiosyncracy. Another guy will of course be able to handle digital much better. This is not the important thing. Knowledge, the developing experience, the proecess of learning are important, but not the principle of technology somebody uses. After all, be it film or digital we all have to squeeze the dynamics of real world on some tiny range of dynamics for an image. Even our monitors are yet not able to grasp that huge dynamics range of real world, so what should that battle of dogmas mean?
BTW, the T90 will warn me about overexposure or/and underexposure. That's not the problem. The problem is that I don't take its warnings under consideration many too many times! ;-)
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
aZiZ aBc
{K:28345} 8/25/2008
|
nice moment to click , and proper shutter speed to freeze droplets, ...
|
|
|
|
Dave Stacey
{K:150877} 8/25/2008
|
Nicely composed, if cropped a little close on the left, Nick! I like the water dripping from his beak, too.
Dave.
|
|
|
|
Vandy Neculae
{K:7990} 8/24/2008
|
Great image, Nick. Excellent moment.
Best regards,
Vandi
|
|
|
|
Aykaan K
{K:13601} 8/24/2008
|
très belle série...
félicitations...
salutations amicales..
|
|
|
|
Valerij Reznikov
{K:3367} 8/24/2008
|
Those super contrasty swans are a real test for a photographer and a photo technique. Some say film (slide film) is superior to digital. I dont agree. There are ways in the digital world that allow us to conquer super contrast. (RAW, HDR etc). One of the advantages - an instant view control and warning of overexposure. Valerij
|
|
0 
