StarDestroyer.Net BBS

@Darth Mall

First flower shot - nice, but not interesting enough in composition. It's nice and colourful though, and the varying distances work well.
Second shot - rather nice. What was the f-stop? The parot's body is out of it, good work on getting the eye sharp and in focus.
Third shot isn't very interesting.

I probably lapsed into photojournalist mode on that first shot - the point though was to show the closed shop in the foreground, then more empty ones disappearing off into the background (the "TO LET" signs).

However, it doesn't really show off what the 10-20 can do... so here's a picture that I took on my family holiday to Chester just before last Christmas.

Razor sharp though, goddamn that's a nice lens. 2.8 or 4.0?.

f/4.0, non-IS, so it's really quality on a budget. From what I understand though, the 4.0 versions are actually somewhat sharper than their 2.8 counterparts because of a newer optical design.

Anyway, here's another example of its output... one of the Komodo Dragons at Chester Zoo.



Finally, just for a bit of variety, here's a macro photo - it's a tiny little airgun valve at 1:1 magnification, with a 1p coin included for scale. This was from a paid job, so normally I wouldn't post it, but I was working for extended family, and they gave me permission to show the stuff I do for them.

@Dave - Yeah, the 4.0 version is meant to be sharper, as well as being cheaper and lighter. Still way out of my budget though :. (Assuming I had a budget at all).
The first shot is very nice, I like the sunlight behind the tree. Pity about the benches creeping in at the edges of the frame.
Macro shot, well, isn't interesting (and I like Macro stuff).
Komodo dragon shot is nice and sharp, but again, not that interesting, alass.

An interesting looking side street...


A pretentious shot of gravel.


An air baloon (Bristol is famed for its baloons).

DEATH: Yea, I just really liked the colours of the flowers. The parrot was at f/3.2 on my 50mm prime. Unfortunately my camera is starting to die and not focus properly and over exposing, so now its time to start saving my pennies for a Sony A900.

DaveJB, while I'll agree with death the macro isn't "interesting" from an artsy standpoint, I like it technically. Its very sharp and well focused. I also added you on flickr

Here are some photos from Vietnam now:

the Neon Buddah

I've added you to my contacts list as well, Darth. DEATH, I thought I'd added you as well, but evidently I didn't, so I've rectified that now.

As for your photos Darth... half-and-half on the first one. It's not brilliant, but I can definitely see what you were aiming for, composition-wise, with the dragon in the background. Likewise with the second one, it doesn't immediately jump out, but it's pretty nice and you've definitely considered your framing. Last one, I think you could have done with a bit more DoF... but then again you'd probably need a tilt-shift to get the right effect, so I don't really blame you.

I like the third dragon one, yeah more DOF might have been nice, but it looks to be indoors, it's sharp, and so who cares? .

BO, if you want to shoot items up close, you'll need to use a macro mode because those last shots are blurry as hell.

Try some external lighting, even a cellphone or lightbulb, or the camera's own flash with a zoom. The last two shots (and first in the previous shot) are blurry!

I'll try and deal with the blurring, although it is not so detrimental in these next three photos:

First shot is nice and fine (nice glass), 2 others are horribly blurry.

That guy from Starsailor busking. I don't know if anyone actually gave them money . ISO 200 film, Sunny 16 rule. I couldn't get closer, the crowd was too thick.



The rest of the roll were birthday party shots not worth posting. I'm waiting for better weather to go out to new places to shoot.

DEATH wrote:First shot is nice and fine (nice glass), 2 others are horribly blurry.

I agree about that with the toy Dalek, but I think the blurriness makes the highway shot more atmospheric. Anyway here are three shots of the Bristol skyline:

IMG_0005


UFO:

I have no idea what the purple lights were, and couldn't see them with the naked eye. Freaky.

IMG_0039



a quickr pickr post

DEATH wrote:UFO: I have no idea what the purple lights were, and couldn't see them with the naked eye. Freaky.

Internal reflections from the lens & camera, that's why you couldn't see them with your naked eyes. Look at the lights on the pole. Then look at the purple lights. Look familiar?

Big Orange wrote:paints

Color is hard to control and hard to use deliberately. The palette (not the actual palette, the other kind) works well for you here, though. Not bad.

highway

I don't see "atmospheric" as much as I see noise, low detail, and not much of interest. Looking to communicate moods and trying to use whatever light you can get to your advantage is good, but this is not a successful photo here.

Dalek

Not very good in general, but you want to make sure you're far enough away from your subject that you can get it in focus. You had the same problem with some of your earlier shots, and it's something you'll want to be mindful of - it's about a 5-foot (1.5 meter) minimum distance in most cases. Use your zoom or a long-focus lens to get sufficiently close if necessary, but keep control of your focus.

Death wrote:IMG_0005

Good idea, incomplete execution. Mirrors themselves are boring, but put something important in the mirror and you've got a winner:


(Eliot Erwitt)

UFO

No good.

IMG_0039

Cool. Positioning's a wee bit off for my taste, but I still like it.

Posting some whatever:



Trilobite, 1:1 macro, stopped down to 5.6 for some depth of field, and badly lit with a halogen desk lamp. Next time, I'll add fill lighting with my LED flashlight...



Pots & pans. This is what people who cook for photographers use.



Beech leaf.

Earth Hour has hit my street. I figured I might try photographing "darkness".



The bit where the street runs off to the horizon looks like the nucleus of a good image, but cropping so far hasn't gotten me anything striking. It's raining now so I can't go back out

Bounty wrote:The bit where the street runs off to the horizon looks like the nucleus of a good image, but cropping so far hasn't gotten me anything striking. It's raining now so I can't go back out

I didn't have any luck with it either. I think the attractive part is the receding line of trees, for the repetition and for the strong diagonal, but the other elements of the horizon line hem them in and get in the way of a good crop. I also noticed that straightening the photo weakens the trees' diagonal somewhat. The lighting worked out really well, though - it's too bad conditions like this aren't more common.



Ice on the Passagassawakeag River, Belfast, Maine. First time I ever used clone stamping; see if you can figure out where.



Robinson Homestead, Wiley's Corner, Maine.

First time I ever used clone stamping; see if you can figure out where.

If I had to guess... upper right quarter, right above the big white slab?

What did you need to get rid of?

Maine is a favourite location for Stephen King.

Bounty wrote:If I had to guess... upper right quarter, right above the big white slab?

What did you need to get rid of?

Close - the middle third along the right edge, actually. I had to edit out a mess of lint that had gotten under the scanner lid, since it was much worse than the usual dust.

Big Orange wrote:Maine is a favourite location for Stephen King.

Well, he does live up Bangor way. But it's not a bad place to set horror stories, by any means.

Looks like you're having a nice bit of spring across the pond, though. I think I'd like to have seen the weight of that first panorama in the foreground instead of in the sky. A large section of sky in a photo emphasizes wide-openness and distance, while a large section of foreground looks 'down' and encloses the scene. Your scene is already enclosed by the trees, which conflicts with the 'up and out' perspective of a big sky. The second panorama does this better.

Some pictures I took in France last year, they look a bit grainy because they've been sharpened for printout.

Statue of Charlemagne in front of Notre Dame de Paris:


I really, really like how the pidgeon gives this statue's pose a whole new meaning:


I think it took five or six attemps to get one not-totally-blurry shot of this. The lighting of the statue on top of the building looked awesomely dramatic (and the shadow was cast by a Charles de Gaulle statue)


Sundown on the Côte d’Azur:

A collection of my insect shots:

IMG_0213

Early last month shot. A colony "enjoys" springtime.

IMG_0301

Bees collecting pollen from a willow tree.

IMG_0328

Ladybug found it's way into the classroom last weekend.

a quickr pickr post

@Charlemagne - Great stuff! (Even if it is 4 pictures ).
@Folti - IMG_0213 - Gah! My foot still resembles a tomatoe from a bee sting from yesterday (I ran into a swarm).
Also, your focus is on your hand, not the ladybug in the third shot, but needs must when using a compact (would be my guess, right?)