> http://albert.achtung.com/photos/macro/index.html
Nice -- I like #17 a lot, it's got a great sense of depth. #20's nice, too,
good job catching the insect!
Some of the flowers could maybe do with either being cropped closer or a
bit wider -- there's a lot where the flower is about 2/3 there, and the bits
of background that show through are distracting. Compare, say, 24 to 27 --
the first one looks (in my opinion) a lot nicer because it's got more sense
of context. Also, with a flower, the viewer always knows where the thing
ends, so in 27 it's easy to know that the tips at the top are just off-shot;
moving in to capture just the center there would give it more impact.
30's a cool one; it looks like the fruit is glued to the surface, and I
really like the contrast between the berry being in focus and the shadows
not.
Another comparison; 35 -vs- 38, both the same sort of idea, but 38 works
better because there's more in focus. It's really really difficult (I find)
to get limited depth-of-field to look good in macro stuff -- I always end up
with the picture not gently fading out of focus as I'd imagined -- I think
the subject matter makes a big difference, flowers are awkward because
there's not much of them that's at the right distance to be in focus so they
tend to look overly blurry.
For example,
http://www.danielmitchell.net/gal/flowers&pageType=image&image=yellow1.jpg
looks okay because the in-focus stuff is all at the same depth, and I can
get away with the petals being blurry because they're acting as background
here.
http://www.danielmitchell.net/gal/flowers&pageType=image&image=ma5.jpg is
less successful, though it just about works -- if I'd gone for more DOF it
would have helped a lot.
-- dan
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|
