Rate the Photo Above you

[Ankerson]

8 hours ago, D13H4RD said:

Can see what you're going for but I don't find it interesting enough IMO. Good execution and I especially liked the sharpness of the subject matter, but it kinda looks a bit "eh". Perhaps a less distracting background would have worked in its favor, but it just looks kinda plain to me.

 

7/10 for effort. The actual shot would probably get a 6/10 from me.

 

The following is too big to upload at standard res (it is sized at nearly 80MB at a 11,588x6109 resolution). The reason? It's a composite consisting of 12 portrait-orientation shots combined and stacked together in Photoshop CS6, with the 12 individual frames edited in COne 12 beforehand. The camera used was a Fujifilm X-T3 with the Fujinon XF 18-55 f/2.8-4 R LM OIS lens attached. Each frame was captured for 4 seconds at an ISO of 400 and aperture of f/8.

 

 

I didn't crop it, that's a full sized image, with the lens almost right on the subject, that's how small those little berries are. They are like the size of a pin head.

 

Not going to rate your photo because I don't process like that, combining the frames, but why did you do it like that? I tend to think PS and the processing killed the sharpness. Maybe uploading to the forum did it. Would have to see some of the original frames before combining to see what happened however. I like the photo though. Reason why I am not going to rate the photo, wouldn't be fair to you.

 

 

[Ankerson]

8 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Seems like the image was uploaded far more compressed than my original.

On this camera, diffraction kicks in at about F9, so I couldn't get any more sharpness had I wanted to (minimum aperture is F11). In this case though, I'm fairly certain either the forums or my browser are reluctant to upload the full resolution image, or I accidentally uploaded the Instagram copy.

 

Edit: I'm suspecting the forums just doesn't much appreciate having a 20 MP image show up. Actually clicking on it seems to give you the full resolution though.

 

I saw that, I think the forums do have some effect on the photos. I see what camera you are using now, that is actually a good photo once you blow it up with that camera. Yeah you are limited with that camera defiantly for those types of pictures. Best not to look at it blown up as there is a ton of noise. I think you did very well given the camera you are using. 

[Zodiark1593]

3 hours ago, Ankerson said:

 

I saw that, I think the forums do have some effect on the photos. I see what camera you are using now, that is actually a good photo once you blow it up with that camera. Yeah you are limited with that camera defiantly for those types of pictures. Best not to look at it blown up as there is a ton of noise. I think you did very well given the camera you are using. 

Thank you.

 

If I recall, I didn't use touch the (luminance) noise reduction slider at all, so as to retain as much detail as possible. Given the black/white aesthetic, and the quite old townscape, I figured I could get away with it. Should still look pretty good in large print form as you need to be looking pretty closely before noise becomes disruptive. I've an 18 x 12 print (different shot) coming in tomorrow though, so I'll soon see how ambitious I can be with this camera. If I can't squeeze that much out of this camera at least, I'm certainly not worthy of anything better.

 

[Ankerson]

28 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Thank you.

 

If I recall, I didn't use touch the (luminance) noise reduction slider at all, so as to retain as much detail as possible. Given the black/white aesthetic, and the quite old townscape, I figured I could get away with it. Should still look pretty good in large print form as you need to be looking pretty closely before noise becomes disruptive. I've an 18 x 12 print (different shot) coming in tomorrow though, so I'll soon see how ambitious I can be with this camera. If I can't squeeze that much out of this camera at least, I'm certainly not worthy of anything better.

 

 

Yes, you are worth something better.

 

If you ever upgrade to a DSLR (DX or FX) and get good lenses it will blow you away how much better it can really be.

 

If you ever do upgrade glass is the most important thing that you can invest in above all else. Good lenses can make a massive difference.

 

I shot with the same class of camera for a long time before I upgraded to a DSLR. I was still shooting film primarily back then and didn't want to change over right away so just got a Sony DSC S75 to see how digital was. Yes, that was a long time ago.  

 

 

[Zodiark1593]

2 hours ago, Ankerson said:

 

Yes, you are worth something better.

 

If you ever upgrade to a DSLR (DX or FX) and get good lenses it will blow you away how much better it can really be.

 

If you ever do upgrade glass is the most important thing that you can invest in above all else. Good lenses can make a massive difference.

 

I shot with the same class of camera for a long time before I upgraded to a DSLR. I was still shooting film primarily back then and didn't want to change over right away so just got a Sony DSC S75 to see how digital was. Yes, that was a long time ago.  

 

 

The Powershot G7X mkii is the most capable camera I've used currently, by a very long shot. My first camera was a toy 110 film shooter out of a happy meal. My Kyocera Finecam l3V was my first foray into digital (I used this for the school yearbooks), followed by a cheap Aiptek 5 years later. After that. I've used phones for awhile up until February when I got my Canon.

 

Amusingly, the 1" sensor format in my camera is not much bigger than 16mm film, which the 110 film format uses as well.

[D13H4RD]

12 hours ago, Ankerson said:

Not going to rate your photo because I don't process like that, combining the frames, but why did you do it like that? I tend to think PS and the processing killed the sharpness. Maybe uploading to the forum did it. Would have to see some of the original frames before combining to see what happened however. I like the photo though. Reason why I am not going to rate the photo, wouldn't be fair to you.

I did it that way because it was the best and most ideal way for me to capture the entire scene. 27mm equivalent is not wide enough to capture all of that.

 

The sharpness probably died because I had to drastically reduce the resolution to get it under the 20MB limit. Here's the original one.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=16EtrDiCM8wVOYNx4DOvnmF-f2BCgD5AO

[Ankerson]

2 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

I did it that way because it was the best and most ideal way for me to capture the entire scene. 27mm equivalent is not wide enough to capture all of that.

 

The sharpness probably died because I had to drastically reduce the resolution to get it under the 20MB limit. Here's the original one.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=16EtrDiCM8wVOYNx4DOvnmF-f2BCgD5AO

 

That's what I figured, it wasn't wide enough.

 

Sharpness still looks about the same to me on my 27" 1440P Monitor. 

 

Maybe the tripod moved or something?

 

Like I said it's a good photo, I just wish it was sharper, it really would have been over the top. 

[D13H4RD]

1 minute ago, Ankerson said:

Maybe the tripod moved or something?

Possibly but not enough to really affect it for me.

[Ankerson]

Just now, D13H4RD said:

Possibly but not enough to really affect it for me.

 

That's all that matters. 

 

I am just picky about sharpness, tack sharp images.

[D13H4RD]

Just now, Ankerson said:

That's all that matters. 

 

I am just picky about sharpness, tack sharp images.

You should check out my 50-140mm f/2.8

 

Do focus stacking with that glass and you'll be greeted with pure tack sharpness

[Ankerson]

10 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

You should check out my 50-140mm f/2.8

 

Do focus stacking with that glass and you'll be greeted with pure tack sharpness

 

I have a Nikkor 70-200mm F2.8E FL that is extremely sharp, one of the sharpest lenses you can buy today.

 

Used on my D810 it is really unbelievable. 

 

Used it mostly on my D750, but that has the AF filter, the D810 doesn't and it's 36.7mp instead of 24.3mp....

 

There is a difference.... For me it was mind blowing....

 

 

[Zodiark1593]

On 9/10/2019 at 7:02 PM, Ankerson said:

 

That's all that matters. 

 

I am just picky about sharpness, tack sharp images.

I'm getting the distinct feeling that if you could, you'd use a giant boulder with a hole bored into it instead of a tripod, because stability.

[Ankerson]

41 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

I'm getting the distinct feeling that if you could, you'd use a giant boulder with a hole bored into it instead of a tripod, because stability.

 

 

I am normally good with handheld or at the most a monopod.

 

VR is a beautiful thing, especially with the newer Nikon lenses.

 

But then I have been shooting for about 40 years.

 

Here is one candid, it's cropped quite a bit, hand held at 200mm with my Nikon 70-200mm F2.8E FL, and D750

 

 

 

[D13H4RD]

On 9/11/2019 at 10:06 AM, Ankerson said:

 

I have a Nikkor 70-200mm F2.8E FL that is extremely sharp, one of the sharpest lenses you can buy today.

 

Used on my D810 it is really unbelievable. 

 

Used it mostly on my D750, but that has the AF filter, the D810 doesn't and it's 36.7mp instead of 24.3mp....

 

There is a difference.... For me it was mind blowing....

 

 

Same for my 50-140 f/2.8. When I used it seriously for the first time, the sharpness really wowed me. So much so that even some primes now look soft to me.

 

To put it back on topic though 

[Ankerson]

On 9/12/2019 at 1:41 AM, D13H4RD said:

Same for my 50-140 f/2.8. When I used it seriously for the first time, the sharpness really wowed me. So much so that even some primes now look soft to me.

 

To put it back on topic though 

 

 

Looks pretty good, good catch, very good sharpness. 9/10

 

Nikon D810, Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 Art at 70mm then cropped in for size. Basically was just testing out the lens today since I just got it.

 

 

[jdlc]

Hey guys,

I'm new to the forum and saw this thread about photography and rating each other's photos. Not sure how it works, but I'm submitting this photo to see what feedback I can get.

I'm not sure if I'm posting this the right way or if I'm doing something wrong so please tell me if I'm posting in the right place.

 

This was shot RAW on a Canon Rebel T5i / 700D with a Sigma 70-210mm.

settings:

f/5, 1/200, 150mm, ISO 100

Manual settings on Neutral Color settings

Slight edits in Photoshop

[BoredErica]

Seems like a pretty decent picture. The background is a little busy. I feel like it would be a little better if the animal was facing in a way that allows you to shoot with the background being really far away to make it a little less busy. I think the eyelashes of the animal is covering up a fair bit of the eye. I dunno if there was anything you could've done (I know very little about animal or telephoto photography, or animals in general but hey, I'm trying to follow the thread rules ).

This is my first real attempt at a portrait. I am a beginner. This is on a5100, f1.4, 1/500 sec, 100 iso. Sigma 56mm f1.4 DN prime. Colors adjusted with Capture One's high contrast curve. Are the colors too contrasty? What do you think of the skin tones? I cropped out the very top of this image because you could see the top of my backyard's fence, and it was kind of jarring. I know the top of my shirt is clipping, so that could've been better. The wind kept blowing, but thankfully the wide aperture allowed me to shoot at such a fast shutter speed. My hair was a little messy from the wind but it almost makes the picture better I think. You can see CA at high contrast edge between the sleeve of my white tshirt and the background, but I dunno how to fix it.

 

[Ankerson]

On 9/20/2019 at 9:39 PM, BoredErica said:

Seems like a pretty decent picture. The background is a little busy. I feel like it would be a little better if the animal was facing in a way that allows you to shoot with the background being really far away to make it a little less busy. I think the eyelashes of the animal is covering up a fair bit of the eye. I dunno if there was anything you could've done (I know very little about animal or telephoto photography, or animals in general but hey, I'm trying to follow the thread rules ).

This is my first real attempt at a portrait. I am a beginner. This is on a5100, f1.4, 1/500 sec, 100 iso. Sigma 56mm f1.4 DN prime. Colors adjusted with Capture One's high contrast curve. Are the colors too contrasty? What do you think of the skin tones? I cropped out the very top of this image because you could see the top of my backyard's fence, and it was kind of jarring. I know the top of my shirt is clipping, so that could've been better. The wind kept blowing, but thankfully the wide aperture allowed me to shoot at such a fast shutter speed. My hair was a little messy from the wind but it almost makes the picture better I think. You can see CA at high contrast edge between the sleeve of my white tshirt and the background, but I dunno how to fix it.

 

 

Try and not to shoot wide open in daylight and f1.4 has a very narrow depth of field. Stop it down to f4.5 to f5.6 for a better depth of field and the image will be sharper also. 50ish mm isn't the best for portraits either, better to use an 85mm so you can stop down more and compress the background. Also best to have the background farther away...

 

 

OSPREY.

 

Nikon D810 - Nikon 70-200mm F2.8E FL.. 

 

[ScottStearns]

On 9/22/2019 at 12:30 PM, Ankerson said:

 

Try and not to shoot wide open in daylight and f1.4 has a very narrow depth of field. Stop it down to f4.5 to f5.6 for a better depth of field and the image will be sharper also. 50ish mm isn't the best for portraits either, better to use an 85mm so you can stop down more and compress the background. Also best to have the background farther away...

 

 

OSPREY.

 

Nikon D810 - Nikon 70-200mm F2.8E FL.. 

 

Found your exif. 1/800 f4.5? iso64 @200mm I think you had to do some serious shadow recovery in post for this at that iso. Or, does LTT do any weird compression crap like FB does? In camera I would suggest risking higher iso to balance a higher shutter speed and/or aperture. I don't think the potential lower noise is worth that loss of detail in shadows. Plus bumping the other two up will clean up your edges. I like the comp, the mid day light, and the blue!

 

 

Focus Stacking Practice.
About 40 photos to make this. Not quite enough to get all the way back. I started too far forward. 
I'd love suggestions on post processing stacking. In particular, I'd like to mask in/out manually on rendering errors (like the front left foreground of the base of the subject).

I'm not sure this has exif so: I used Canon's old 100mm 2.8 macro (not L), at 2.8, 1/250, iso50, one step at a time with Magic Lantern. Render B in Helicon Lite with no edits beside basic in LR. I used one large softbox with 1/32? flash 4" directly above subject on white foamcore.
 

[Ankerson]

2 hours ago, ScottStearns said:

Found your exif. 1/800 f4.5? iso64 @200mm I think you had to do some serious shadow recovery in post for this at that iso. Or, does LTT do any weird compression crap like FB does? In camera I would suggest risking higher iso to balance a higher shutter speed and/or aperture. I don't think the potential lower noise is worth that loss of detail in shadows. Plus bumping the other two up will clean up your edges. I like the comp, the mid day light, and the blue!

 

 

Focus Stacking Practice.
About 40 photos to make this. Not quite enough to get all the way back. I started too far forward. 
I'd love suggestions on post processing stacking. In particular, I'd like to mask in/out manually on rendering errors (like the front left foreground of the base of the subject).

I'm not sure this has exif so: I used Canon's old 100mm 2.8 macro (not L), at 2.8, 1/250, iso50, one step at a time with Magic Lantern. Render B in Helicon Lite with no edits beside basic in LR. I used one large softbox with 1/32? flash 4" directly above subject on white foamcore.
 

 

 

Actually it wasn't too bad due to the angle of the light coming in. I just brought up the shadows slightly, it didn't need much.

 

I didn't have time to fool with the settings at all as I literally had just walked up the hill and heard the 1st splash. I started tracking it seconds after shooting on CH, took about 500 shots all together in a few mins. 200mm... I had to crop in a lot too, I do have a Nikon 300mm F4E PF coming to give me more range. Staying away from any pumper zooms, all internal focus or zooms only with my current D810.

 

I got some fishing sequences that I would have missed had I stopped tracking it.

 

 

Here is the original SOOC....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mnky313]

20 hours ago, Ankerson said:

9.5/10 (I'm not a photographer, but it looks cool :P)
The only thing I have to say is the edges kind of lose focus but I like it

Here is mine (Are we supposed to say what it was shot on? It was shot on a Galaxy S6 in panorama mode, Temagami, Ontario, Canada) I have more shots from this area as well (https://photos.app.goo.gl/1Ceg6HQtEhc3DWRM7) as well as a leveled version of the shot that overlooks the town/forest as my background that's on my home pc.

[Guest]

For a phone shot that is quite impressive. The jetty leads nicely into the scene. Shame the clouds are a little bright but it was taken on a phone.

Here is a shot of a mason bee cleaning itself. A single frame taken handheld in the wild with the Canon MPE-65 at about 3.5* magnification. Lighting was with a diffused Yongnou twin flash attached to a Canon 80D. As the evenings cool down in August these solitary bees find a flower to settle down in for the night so if you are lucky you can find them before they bury themselves deep in the flower.

 

[ScottStearns]

So I critique a post. The poster then responds, posting another of his own photos. My photo is now isolated and ignored. Like GO.

Except this isn't GO. 

It's a waste of my time.

[Mediawarlock]

macro

original content

[Mediawarlock]

macro

original content