|
|
|
Fabio Keiner
{K:49368} 9/1/2008
|
no, nothing went wrong, imho! given the sharp contrast between the sun lit rock and the almost completely dark parts in the shadow, it could not have ben better! at altphotos.com they will love you for this kind of stills and for the (proven analog) colors :))
|
|
|
|
|
aZiZ aBc
{K:26035} 9/1/2008
|
I tried to find wrong things !
I have found nothing !
I like its dof which has made impression of three dimentional photo.
Excellent indeed. >>7
Best,
Aziz
|
|
|
|
Dave Stacey
{K:138153} 9/1/2008
|
I think the exposure is as good as it could have been, given the range of lighting, Nick, and the detail and texture of the rock comes out. You've even got a nice reflection in the water!
Dave.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:126737} 9/2/2008
|
Thanks a lot for another detailed comment, Fabio!
Nice from you to tell me about altphotos.com, but to tell you the truth, I already have my professional shooting sessions, and I am already in two online photoclubs, and so that's enough. I just can't spend more time with such things, except of course if they are going to pay my bills! ;-)
On the image now, well... I have the impression, just give somebody an image with limited DoF and that's enough for firing up his/her fantasy to any possible romantic spheres. But we are into photography here, and that clearly means much much more than that! The limited DoF is one of the many style elements, especially when it comes to "separating" something from its environment. But this is not some kind of "unfailing rule", you know.
In the case of this image.. yes, the limited DoF did its work and the sunlight was OK for letting some things "shine". But what about overall composition? Does the image make the spectator "expect" something that is not present on the image? I am confused about that.
Oh, and not to forget, what is "proven analog colors"? Some kind of color proof for findelity, or what is that?
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:126737} 9/2/2008
|
Thanks a lot, Aziz!
Still, limited DoF is way not enough. The composition seems a bit "too easy" to me.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:126737} 9/2/2008
|
Still... something I miss, Dave. Perhaps the completeness of the scene (including the *while* reflection), who knows..
Thanks a lot!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
aZiZ aBc
{K:26035} 9/2/2008
|
You re welcome Nick.
I insist(!) on adequency of DOF of this shot !
With less DoF it will be a very good macro and with higher DoF will be a conventional , normal shot !
Healt and Happiness
Aziz
|
|
|
|
|
Fabio Keiner
{K:49368} 9/2/2008
|
'digital colors' look sharper (more accentuated) and more shiny :)
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:126737} 9/4/2008
|
I didn't say that the DoF was not good for this one, Aziz. I said that this alone is not enough. But in our days a DoF limited to the main objects seems to be the photographical dream come true. BTW, a more limited DoF wouldn't turn that to a macro. The scale would still be completely outside the range of macro photography.
But again, the DoF here is OK to me too, since a greater DoF would make the background interact perhaps too strong with the rock and so weaken its appearance. But this is *one* point of consideration. Another one is for example if the background is the best possible. I could also take some two steps to the left and turn the camera to the right for "detaching" the big background stone from the one in the foreground. Perhaps this way the main stone would be surrounded by water only.
Many things have to be considered.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:126737} 9/4/2008
|
Really? Are you sure that your eyes have already that experience in order to distinguish between the two? Then tell that some professional photographer and give him also your recipe in case he asks you for that. ;-)
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
