Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Macro, Flowers, Insects, and Greenery' started by JPS, Jul 22, 2008.
....found a great big one !
Nikon D200 + Tamron SP90 - 1:250 @ f/11 - ISO 100
I like the content and the composition, J-P, but it would help to remove the glare off the leaves.
Beautiful, I like how the leaves frame the flower.
Thanks Andrew, Bob and Tom !
.......errrrrr....... Bob, what glare ? I can't see glare (on my monitor ) ! Please show/tell me where....
Glare???? I see some highlight, which is fine....it's not blown out! You need to have highlights or the image will look FLAT!
I agree that it's not blown out, but, for me, the specular reflection off the leaves detracts from the thistle. It might be just me, but I prefer that the star shines while the supporting cast supports.
Maybe that's why we each have our own cameras:wink:. Personal preferences are just that, nothing more.
Oooooops ! Don't start a war, please ...
One thing is, that, although my monitor is calibrated, i know that i haven't got ALL the details i could get in the deep shadows... on some images, i received in the past some comments from people who could SEE some lighter details in the apparent -to me- black background ! I had to re-open the pics in Photoshop, then pull the highlights in "Levels" to be able to notice these details... So maybe Bob has got a much wider level on his monitor than we have !?!
Hey J-P, I just took another look, and I see that this image is tagged as Adobe RGB. I suppose that too could be influencing what I think I see on an sRGB monitor. In any case, my comment was directed at what I perceived as a very minor flaw in an otherwise marvellous photo. My apologies if it didn't come across that way.
Its a Beaut!
No problem at all, Bob ! I beleive that, if we show our images here, it's -more- to receive critics and advices on how to do better than to get pats in the back, don't we ?
I did check the "original" TIF file and found that, effectively, there were some tiny parts in the highlights that were 255,255,255...... Although the NEF file didn't have any burned highlight, i'm affraid that my post-process induced some... Ohhh well... that'll teach me to be more carefull and to check any 255,255,255 points in my future images :tongue: !
BTW, i never -or hardly ever- convert my pics into sRGB when uploading on the Net... never think of it... also, i found that often the colors become too strong when converted, so....
Thanks Birgit !
Interesting. When some folks forget to convert, their images end up looking washed out. On the other hand, I've looked at many of your images and I've never had that impression about them. In fact, I think this one is the only one I've ever checked. I think this calls for a little experimentation on my part:wink::smile:
I like it.. very nice...
Beautiful shot, I like it very much.
I like it! I think it works with less on the leaves as well, I think it's a matter of taste, in any case a nice image, cool subject, and the black bg, is it ps or did you use a black bg?
Thanks Eric, Linda and Darrell !
BTW, i use a sheet of black velvet as background, because it eats all the light !
Bob, here you are ! I converted the *.JPG into sRGB !
The colors get a bit more saturated... too much for my taste !?!
I think perhaps the suggestion is that the leaves are fighting the thistle for the eyes attention
Well..... errrrr..... i think Bob was right, in the sense that, looking closely, i found 3 or 4 255,255,255 pixels in my *.jpg images ! ...but there weren't any in the original RAW file !
That should teach me to be more carefull with my post-processing workflow...
Please consider disabling your ad blocker for our website.
We rely on ad revenue to pay for image hosting and to keep the site speedy.
Or subscribe for $5 per year to remove all ads and support our efforts.