Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Still life  (Read 1485 times)

jmd56

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Still life
« on: June 08, 2012, 10:40:57 pm »

flowers, 120mm Makro Planar with 32e extension tube,
F5.6, 1/4 second, about 1.5 feet away, just using sunlight into the kitchen
all comments welcome. CFV-50, tripod, mirror up, with
arrangement by my wife...

Thanks,
James
Logged

wolfnowl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5824
    • M&M's Musings
Re: Still life
« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2012, 01:57:28 am »

I like the lighting, the colours and the arrangement, but it seems slightly tilted to me.  Maybe it's just my eyes.

Mike.
Logged
If your mind is attuned t

stpf8

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
    • Stephen Penland Photography
Re: Still life
« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2012, 03:00:41 pm »

I also like the light.  I think I (but I'm not entirely sure) that I'd like to see the seed pod in the immediate foreground in sharp focus.
Logged
Stephen Penland
www.stephenpenland.com

framah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1418
Re: Still life
« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2012, 03:12:22 pm »

Go buy the Helicon focus software and then  reshoot it in slices of focus, then merge them all together and you will have a really nice still life.
As it is right now, the out of focus parts are distracting.
Logged
"It took a  lifetime of suffering and personal sacrifice to develop my keen aesthetic sense."

sailronin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 335
    • David Reams Photography
Re: Still life
« Reply #4 on: June 13, 2012, 04:14:02 pm »

I like the photo, well lit and interesting.
The out of focus adds depth, Helicon (used carelessly) puts too much in focus and the feel of depth is lost, winds up looking like a point and shoot (infinite depth of focus).
Dave
Logged
Thank you for looking, comments and critiques are always welcome.
Dave

http://sailronin.smugmug.com

ckimmerle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 441
    • http://www.chuckkimmerle.com
Re: Still life
« Reply #5 on: June 13, 2012, 05:38:23 pm »

The depth-of-field is fine the way it is. If everything were in focus, it would change the entire feel and focus of the image.

My only issue has to do with the vase. It has very strong shape which competes with the flowers Also, it seems a bit too formal, too symmetrically positioned, and thus distracts from the free-flowing forms of the flowers. If it had been turned just a bit, it would have helped.

Otherwise, it's very nicely composed and lit.
Logged
"The real voyage of discove

framah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1418
Re: Still life
« Reply #6 on: June 13, 2012, 07:15:31 pm »

It's one thing to have something that isn't as sharply in focus as the rest of the image and another to have that bud in the lower right be SO out of focus as to be a visual distraction.

There is also a difference between an image that is all in focus and one that has been sharpened to death in PS.

At the least, pull that bud closer to the flowers and make it more a part of the whole.

You will get all sorts of comments on here and all are worth exactly what you paid for them. These are my opinions on how the image works or does not work for me. For me that  bud doesn't work as it is and thus lessens the overall beauty that you wanted to convey.

I DO really like what you are going for!!
Logged
"It took a  lifetime of suffering and personal sacrifice to develop my keen aesthetic sense."

kencameron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
    • Recent Photographs
Re: Still life
« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2012, 08:01:46 pm »

It's one thing to have something that isn't as sharply in focus as the rest of the image and another to have that bud in the lower right be SO out of focus as to be a visual distraction.
I DO really like what you are going for!!
That's what happens for me too. A little bit out of focus would be fine, but as it is the bud distracts me. Otherwise a lovely image.
Logged
Ken Cameron
Pages: [1]   Go Up