hairy legs

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.

hairy legs

Postby NJ on Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:21 pm

i 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.
Image
and i just liked this one
Image
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/
User avatar
NJ
Senior Member
 
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 12:00 am
Location: Ringwood, Melbourne

Postby mudder on Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:34 pm

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
User avatar
mudder
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3020
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:58 pm
Location: Melbourne - Burwood East

Postby NJ on Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:23 pm

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/
User avatar
NJ
Senior Member
 
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 12:00 am
Location: Ringwood, Melbourne

Postby mudder on Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:56 pm

Strewth that has made a difference eh? I'm surprised how something like that can change the image so much... The EXIF makes sense now, ta... I was scratching my head there for a tick :lol:
Aka Andrew
User avatar
mudder
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3020
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:58 pm
Location: Melbourne - Burwood East

Postby marcotrov on Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:19 pm

Nice images NJ. That's one seriously sharp lens. Very intriguing lighting. It seems to add a different dimension to the set.:)
cheers
marco
marcotrov
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2577
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Cairns, Queensland, Australia

Postby NJ on Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:27 pm

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 :evil: but i had to get the huge amount of fungus cleaned anyway, just cost more than i would have liked, but $140 for the lens really isnt to bad.
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/
User avatar
NJ
Senior Member
 
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 12:00 am
Location: Ringwood, Melbourne

Postby StevenLaugle on Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:57 pm

mudder wrote: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???


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 :D
StevenLaugle
Newbie
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:26 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Postby NJ on Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:19 pm

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/
User avatar
NJ
Senior Member
 
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 12:00 am
Location: Ringwood, Melbourne

Postby mudder on Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:58 pm

StevenLaugle wrote:
mudder wrote: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???


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 :D


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
User avatar
mudder
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3020
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:58 pm
Location: Melbourne - Burwood East


Return to Image Reviews and Critiques