
and i just liked this one

thanks for looking, please comment.
EDIT: i did what andrew suggested and cloned out the shadow in the first shot
hairy legsModerators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent. Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature. Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread. Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Previous topic • Next topic
9 posts
• Page 1 of 1
hairy legsi know the back legs are out of focus, and that its the arse end of the spider, but there was something i just liked about the composition.
![]() and i just liked this one ![]() thanks for looking, please comment. EDIT: i did what andrew suggested and cloned out the shadow in the first shot Last edited by NJ on Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nathan
D700 | MB-D10 | Nikkor 14-24 | Nikkor 24-70 | Sigma 70-200 | 20 2.8 28 2.8 35 2 50 1.8 | Sigma 105 | SB-800 http://www.flickr.com/nathanjphoto/
I think the dark corner in the first might throw some viewers, if you clone out that dark corner I think that will help the image, but the second is an absolute pearler!
Out of curiosity, which lens? The EXIF tells me the first image was F0 at a focal length of 0mm, and the second was F1 @ 0mm??? Aka Andrew
gday andrew, thanks for the tip with the first one.
the reason there is limited exif is that i used an old manual focus 50mm 1.4 with close up filters. Nathan
D700 | MB-D10 | Nikkor 14-24 | Nikkor 24-70 | Sigma 70-200 | 20 2.8 28 2.8 35 2 50 1.8 | Sigma 105 | SB-800 http://www.flickr.com/nathanjphoto/
thanks marco.
yeh is a nice lens, got it for nothing from a relative, but had to pay $140 to get it repaired after my cousin dropped it ![]() Nathan
D700 | MB-D10 | Nikkor 14-24 | Nikkor 24-70 | Sigma 70-200 | 20 2.8 28 2.8 35 2 50 1.8 | Sigma 105 | SB-800 http://www.flickr.com/nathanjphoto/
Just a quick Newbie question, but how did you check that? I know how to do it on Flickr because there was an option, but here? Sorry if I sound dumb. Still learning ![]()
if you save the image, then depending on what program you use to vew the pic, theres usually an option to view the exif data somewhere, usually in image properties. well thats how i do it anyway.
and no questions sound dumb here mate, dont feel affraid to ask questions just because they seem simple. you will only get answers. its a great community here. Nathan
D700 | MB-D10 | Nikkor 14-24 | Nikkor 24-70 | Sigma 70-200 | 20 2.8 28 2.8 35 2 50 1.8 | Sigma 105 | SB-800 http://www.flickr.com/nathanjphoto/
G'day mate, There are utilities you can download that adds an option of "View EXIF/GPS/IPTC with Iexef" to your menu when you click on an image, so you can click on an image on a web page and get the exif without downloading it... Cheer here for some freeware options.. http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php?t=15531&highlight=iexif Oh, and no dumb questions here mate, it's all good ![]() Aka Andrew
Previous topic • Next topic
9 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|