On 4/8/2012 10:48 AM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
> ... spring revitalization/rebirth ritual occasion of your preference.
>
> Today being mine,
Happy. Many.
> I have put some more spring flowers in a gallery here (it's the April
> gallery):
>
> http://myweb.uiowa.edu/jfwilcox/index.html
>
> Probably one or two too many of everything, which usually means none truly
> makes the cut. Oh well.
Not so sure. A little excision of close duplicates wouldn't hurt, but I think
the survivors will stand up well. These
aren't shots of newly discovered flora, so a nice presentation of pleasing
things is all that's required. At least
that's what I tell myself as the image count climbs. :-)
> Appreciating your tolerance -- in advance.
Only 20 images? Cake! The image I just posted of a Calif. Fawn Lily is one of
140 in that gallery, with more to come.
Yeah, I can edit it more, maybe break it into categories. And there are time
series buried in there that need their own
sub-galleries. Nevertheless, no need to ask tolerance of me. :-)
A nice gallery, bright, cheery and enjoyable to me. Like Ken, I like 318. A
clear example where relatively close-in
bokeh is OK and the background has little in he way of highlights to point up
the busy bokeh.
I also like 417, just to confuse those who find my bokeh bustin' annoying. The
bokeh is really 'awful', but works really
well. Not at all realistic, but very like a painting might look. I love it when
things like that happen! 'Twere mine, I
would probably tone down the bright edges in the rear flower to a little
shorter of incendiary.
Like you, apparently, I like the way light looks through flower petals, so I
enjoyed all those.I also liked the unusual
tulip in 409.
Most of the bleeding heart images look good to me. 430 might be the best, but
it's a near thing. Our last bleeding
hearts didn't last, but we are trying again, with a different variety. My
favorite bleeding heart shot is special
because I recall taking on the porch outside the Ansel Adams gallery in
Yosemite. :-)
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Yosemite/pages/02043032.htm>
Film shot, maybe 35-105/2.8 Tammy.
> OM-5D mk OLD-ONE, Z 90/2 mostly. Some of the tulips were taken with the
> Z 50/1.2 with 12mm extension or none; the small blue flowers were taken
> with the 50/1.2 and 25mm extension (they are tiny flowers) -- at f11 or
> 16 there is still almost no DOF. Makes me yearn to try a bit of
> "stacking."
That seems a good DOF result to me, for that subject. True stacking is a pain
on live subjects out in the world where
there is wind and the light moves. You have, however seen images from me of
flower groups where two, rarely three,
images are taken quickly, hand held, at different focal depths and worked
together later in PS. Where the background is
OOF/indistinct and the forward and rear groups of individual blooms don't
overlap, it's pretty easy using a mask to
paint in one group on top of another for more DOF.
Stacked Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|