Members: AdrianW >> Critiques Written

Register

Critiques: Critiques Written | Critiques Received | Comments
Page: << <  1 2 3 4 5 6  >

PhotoCritique [Translate]

AdrianW Gold Star Critiquer/Gold Star Workshop Editor/Gold Note Writer [C: 257 W: 185 N: 215] (710) [2006-08-28 7:26]

Good shot Jaap! You've captured this beautiful butterfly well. Exposure's spot on. I think I might be tempted to tone down the nearest petal a fraction though, it's bright enough to be marginally distracting. DOF is good, although I'd have gone to f/8 for the antennae. I might be tempted to sharpen this one a bit more - you can get more detail out of the scales on the wings if you use a bit of SmartSharpen - say 75% @ 0.8px, but sharpening is a matter of taste as always. That said it's really nicely done - it almost jumped off the front page :D

AdrianW Gold Star Critiquer/Gold Star Workshop Editor/Gold Note Writer [C: 257 W: 185 N: 215] (710) [2006-08-17 21:31] [+]

Good shot! You've captured this spider well, I particularly like the background seperation you've achieved here. About the only thing I'd suggest is a little high radius USM to give it a bit more punch - try 45%, 250px, 0 and see what you think. I agree with the others though, you're definitely getting to grips with your D200 now - well done :D

AdrianW Gold Star Critiquer/Gold Star Workshop Editor/Gold Note Writer [C: 257 W: 185 N: 215] (710) [2006-07-29 11:26] - [workshop] [compare] [+]

Nice shot! Greenbottles are always picturesque, in a grotesque kind of way ;) Detail and focus are good, I think a fraction more DOF might have been useful though. My main concerns about this one are the chopped front leg, and the fact that it appears very dark - I understand why it's dark, capturing the highlights on the body without blowing them has pushed the rest of the exposure down - but it's always worth playing around in Photoshop to see whether you can fix that - in this case it's readily possible. There's also a bit of noise in the background. Have a look at my Workshop for some ideas of solutions! Some notes might be nice too. Anyway, well captured :D

AdrianW Gold Star Critiquer/Gold Star Workshop Editor/Gold Note Writer [C: 257 W: 185 N: 215] (710) [2006-07-29 11:01]

Nice shot of a difficult subject! I particularly like the way you've given us a sense of the scale of the bird. Two minor nits, and they're post-process - slightly too much JPEG compression has caused artifacts around the bird, and there's a little bit too much sharpening as can be seen from the halo to the left of the him. I'm in two minds about the OOF brown stem just to the left of him. Well captured though :D

AdrianW Gold Star Critiquer/Gold Star Workshop Editor/Gold Note Writer [C: 257 W: 185 N: 215] (710) [2006-07-28 9:45]

Nice shot! You've done very well considering the light levels here - 1/15 @ 250mm is really close to the edge, well done for getting it so sharp. My only real nit is the white balance, if you'd chosen a slightly warmer one (shade/cloudy) I think the colours would be more representative - you can alter that in PS of course, Image/Adjust/PhotoFilter/Warming(85) perhaps 55% or so. Not sure whether you were wide open or not - I suspect you probably were - but ideally I'd have preferred a little more background seperation (wider aperture, say f/2.8). Anyway, a good capture considering the circumstances :)

AdrianW Gold Star Critiquer/Gold Star Workshop Editor/Gold Note Writer [C: 257 W: 185 N: 215] (710) [2006-07-18 18:38] [+]

Nice shot Lori! You've captured these falls well, and the stitching isn't visible at this size either. I particularly like the rich greens of the moss/ferns in the foreground. There are a couple of slightly hot spots, most noticeably at the base of the waterfall (if you can try half a stop negative exposure compensation next time, as well as the metered value). If I were to make any changes, I'd probably alter the colour balance slightly to compensate for the bluish tone of the water - try using Image/Adjust/PhotoFilter/Warming(85) @ 25% - it'll accentuate the greens, whilst neutralising the blue ;) AutoColor would work too, but it seems to blow out the highlights a fraction more - that should be easy to find... Anyway, a very nice capture :D

AdrianW Gold Star Critiquer/Gold Star Workshop Editor/Gold Note Writer [C: 257 W: 185 N: 215] (710) [2006-07-13 20:46] [+]

Nice shot, however as an ident I'd suggest Large Red Damselfly (Pyrrhosoma nymphula) - or similar. It's clearly a damselfly (Zygoptera), rather than a dragonfly (Anisoptera) - the key distinguishing feature between the two sub-orders being that in Zygoptera the eyes are widely separated and project from the sides of the head (rather like a hammerhead). Technically, it's a good capture - focus and DOF are good - the only thing I'm less keen on is the narrow leaf just hitting his right eye. Anyway, thanks for sharing :D

AdrianW Gold Star Critiquer/Gold Star Workshop Editor/Gold Note Writer [C: 257 W: 185 N: 215] (710) [2006-07-10 19:28]

I'd say Thistle's good ;)

You've captured this Cirsium nicely - focus is good, and DOF is reasonable (Any idea what aperture? If you could go wider aperture wise you'd throw the background out better), colours are soft and realistic too. I think the lighting's a bit harsh though, I like the effect, but I think a fraction less would be even better IMO - perhaps try using a thin piece of tissue paper or something like that as a diffuser next time?

Also, from your note we see it's a wavy leaved thistle - I think it would be even better if you could include a leaf in the shot somehow...? Tricky to see how though.

Anyway, nicely done :D

AdrianW Gold Star Critiquer/Gold Star Workshop Editor/Gold Note Writer [C: 257 W: 185 N: 215] (710) [2006-07-10 17:44] - [workshop] [compare] [+]

I know you're frustrated, but... It's impossible to determine any real differences in quality at this sort of size - I could resize the output from my old DC210 and my Canon EOS 10D, and after a bit of processing you probably wouldn't be able to tell at this size - now when you print them, then you'll know ;)

I've already mentioned that the Sony will use higher sharpening settings than the Nikon by default, so if you're unhappy with the sharpness - bump up the sharpness settings in camera. Or, far better, shoot RAW - then you can twiddle things afterwards.

As several of the others have already mentioned - the kit lens isn't going to perform as well as that on the Sony anyway, particularly not for macro work.

Send me a RAW file you'd like processed, and I'll post you a Workshop on it. First up I'll see what I can do with CS2, and then I'll download and install RawShooter (I didn't like it last time I tried it), and give you instructions for that.

Incidentally, have a look at the Workshop I've just posted - see what you think now ;)

Also, as a matter of interest - do all your lenses seem to front focus? If so, it's either your eyesight, or the dioptre setting on the camera that need work...

Lovely capture though :D

AdrianW Gold Star Critiquer/Gold Star Workshop Editor/Gold Note Writer [C: 257 W: 185 N: 215] (710) [2006-07-09 22:37] [+]

Good shot! Welcome to the wonderful world of macro, enjoy your new lens :D

Love the composition, but I think rather than having the stick on the third, I might have placed it on the fifth - that way you'd have less empty sky in the shot. Focus/DOF/exposure are spot on, I think I'd like a little more fine detail sharpening ideally - but then I prefer higher levels than average, and you're just at the limit of haloing so... My main post-process suggestion would be to run Shadows/Highlights (S:25, H:0) just to bring out the shadow detail a bit more.

Anyway, good shot, and worthy of the lens - look forward to seeing many more :D