Got a thin skin? Then look elsewhere. Post a link to an image that you've made, and invite others to offer their critiques. Honesty is encouraged, but please be positive in your constructive criticism. Flaming and just plain nastiness will not be tolerated. Please note that this is not an area for you to showcase your images, nor is this a place for you to show-off where you have been. This is an area for you to post images so that you may share with us a technique that you have mastered, or are trying to master. Typically, no more than about four images should be posted in any one post or thread, and the maximum size of any side of any image should not exceed 950 px.
Moderators: 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.
by Oscar on Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:00 am
Nice shots Andrew. I prefer the second shot. The backgroud does not distract from the main subject.
Well done.
Cheers, Mick 
-

Oscar
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 1305
- Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 11:15 am
- Location: Panania, Sydney
by rcg on Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:27 am
They both look great! Although I agree with the second looking slightly better. Awesome work!
MJ
-
rcg
- Member
-
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 3:50 pm
- Location: warrnambool
by sirhc55 on Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:01 pm
#2 
Chris -------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
-

sirhc55
- Key Member
-
- Posts: 12930
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: Port Macquarie - Olympus EM-10
by Glen on Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:18 pm
#2 for me as well, the eye contact makes it. Maybe if you look at them through the mask, they will make eye contact with the camera? 
-

Glen
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 11819
- Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:14 pm
- Location: Sydney - Neutral Bay - Nikon
-
by ATJ on Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:47 pm
Thanks for the comments.
Glen wrote:Maybe if you look at them through the mask, they will make eye contact with the camera? 
 Ahh... if only it were that easy. These fish constantly swim in, out and through their anemones and rarely stay still from more than a second or two. Add to that, this particular fish was in an anemone on top of a bommie in around 5m of water. There was a constant (but inconsistent) surge which meant it was hard enough for me to stay in the one place. Finally, the viewfinder on the D70 is not exactly huge and by the time you put the camera in a housing and then look through the viewfinder while wearing a mask, it is not possible to see the full frame in one go.
After getting myself in roughly the right place and getting the fish in more or less the centre of the frame, I wait for it to be in what looks like might be an interesting pose and shoot. These are the best 2 out of 11 shots taken.
The size of the viewfinder is my biggest complaint about the D70. There were a couple of semi-pro photographers on the boat who shoot with Canon gear (in Ikelite housings). I was complaining to one of them about the viewfinder and she said she has the same problem and has just learnt to live with it.
-

ATJ
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:44 am
- Location: Blue Mountains, NSW
-
by Pehpsi on Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:58 pm
Wow greatness. #2 is a bit better as mentioned.
I was happy with my viewfinder till i looked through a D200. I want one.
-

Pehpsi
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 1418
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:24 pm
- Location: Kingsgrove, Sydney
-
by ATJ on Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:05 pm
Pehpsi wrote:I was happy with my viewfinder till i looked through a D200. I want one.
That is where my lust now lies... Only problem is I'd need to buy a new housing, too, at US$1200. 
-

ATJ
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:44 am
- Location: Blue Mountains, NSW
-
by stetner on Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:19 pm
Number 2 for me as well, less backscatter...
ATJ wrote:Thanks for the comments.  There was a constant (but inconsistent) surge which meant it was hard enough for me to stay in the one place. The size of the viewfinder is my biggest complaint about the D70. There were a couple of semi-pro photographers on the boat who shoot with Canon gear (in Ikelite housings). I was complaining to one of them about the viewfinder and she said she has the same problem and has just learnt to live with it.
Tell me about it ATJ (surge!) ...
I have my 20D in an ikelite housing, and I can see through the view finder pretty well, but there always seems to be surge and particles in the water! Part of the challenge I guess 
-

stetner
- Member
-
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:06 pm
- Location: Wynnum West, Brisbane
Return to Image Reviews and Critiques
|