Ginger, I like this a lot, but I don't think it's really 18mm. I think it's 18mm * 1.6 = 28mm. Right? In order for you get 18mm with your rebel you'd need an 11mm lens, something I doubt even Pathfinder has.
Hike to Great Point on Monday night. This should be a great subject, but it's hard to do better than postcards. I'm finding wide angle challenging, as expected. Please comment. Don't be afraid go be blunt; I think I have a lot to learn here.
46mm
Good, but for some reason I don't like it as much as some of the others in your group.
Another good shot! I think it might have worked a little bet better if you had swung the camera to the right, moving the fisherman to the left, and more importanly, moving the tip of the fishing rod away from the right edge of the frame.
Very cool If it was my shot, I'd try to remove the shadow using Photoshop, if only to see what it looked like. Also it looks like there's a bit of a lean to the image.
Ginger, I like this a lot, but I don't think it's really 18mm. I think it's 18mm * 1.6 = 28mm. Right? In order for you get 18mm with your rebel you'd need an 11mm lens, something I doubt even Pathfinder has.
Rutt, I have an interesting take on that issue. And it seems to differ from the rest of the world, but it won't soon. Digital is digital and film is film, IMO. So when we are shooting with a digital camera, which I am, and I can't imagine anyone, in the need, who doesn't know that. So when we are shooting with a digital camera, I cannot imagine any reason to convert to a film camera statistics. I did for a few posts, then I said, this is the last time I will be doing this. I have also said I am shooting with a kit, and you would not be familiar with that, maybe, lens, and it is 18-55mm on the lens. You can/may convert that if you want.
My idea on this is that when in Rome, or Paris. Since my only knowledge is of french and very little of that. I would point out that when speaking English, we say "the cat", we do not then say "le chat". The same with le chien.
(I think they are both masculine which is a non issue in English)
Also, we are going 60mph, not so many whatevers as we would be going in Europe, for examples. Some things here are a foot, 12 inches, whatever long, not then converted.
I see digital as a medium that has been around long enough, exists in its own right. I do not see any reason to compare it to film photography when mentioning the mm s. Or any other term peculiar to the medium.
I do think that it is good to know what is allowed on this Challenge, and it is interesting, informative, etc. to know that a telephoto lens shoots at its longest, equivalent to 1.6 times that which we think it does, by comparing it to the same length word on film cameras. That made me excited.
I think it would be nice for the opposite end to be true. IMO, the wider the better, so I would rather not know, or even have the fact be true, but an 18 on a digital shoots the equivalent of a 18 X 1.6 of what we might think.
Most of us understand this. That is my opinion, my strongest opinion.
If the rules are that we state the whole thing out, it will be more work, but I will do it. Won't be much more work for those not posting.
I will say that on Smugmug it gives the conversion figure, and it often says around, or about, or something like that.
I think 18mm digital is 18mm digital. If one is shooting with a film camera and scanning photos, then one could phrase that differently, as in 18 SLR, scanned to the PC, or Mac.
Lynne,
There is nothing quite as compelling to horse lovers as a mother with it's foal. Warms the heart. I do love how you captured the pair just about to "kiss." Still at the point where they breath each other's air, each taking in and revelling in the scent of the other. You have a fantastic ability to capture the details in the shadows, which to me and my eye, simply beautiful and rewarding to the viewer who really takes a moment, to look. You are right, the sunset is wonderful here, offering a warm color to what is, as it should be, a warm scene. I love the lighting on the mares tail, the legs of the mare and foal, the green (blue) feed pail. In this piece, even the subtle lines of the electic lines and poles don't bother me overly much, but tend to pull into the scene.
Still, all of that being said, I can honestly say, I prefer your first attempt. There is really something about the composition in that one, the attention in the horses head and alertness of the ears, that grabs me and makes me want to look and imagine what she might be seeing off in the distance. If it is the color of the sunset that makes your second attempt more "palatable," why not warm the sky?
You <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/bowdown.gif" border="0" alt="" >are wonderful at taking photos of your horses. How many do you have? On how much acreage, where? (We currently have 4) I honestly think you could make money with some of these.
My thoughts.
ginette
Thanks, Ginette. I have really high standards for my horse photos, and ruthlessly trash them if they aren't up to snuff. So far, I haven't done sky replacement, sort of don't believe in it; the closest I come to being a purist. Part of that is shooting a lot for editorial use, where that's taboo. And yeah, as it says in my profile (?) I'm a professional horse photographer, but have spent the last few months ramping up the fine art aspect of that. My featured galleries over at smugmug kind of show that, and the images are really drawing notice, and I'm transitioning into hopefully full time photography. If you're in the mood, check out <http://www.lynnesite.com/dropbox.html>, a little iPhoto movie of the foal's first 4 months. Moved here last winter, I have 3 horses now, mom and brother are Arabian, kid is half Lipizzan and we live on 45 acres that aren't mine at 2000 feet (above the smog) in SoCal. Earlier today we had thunder and lightning (24 strikes that I counted; rare for here, some monsoonal thing) and the horses are statues: kid's hearing it for the first time, while the adults each are watchful in different directions. Living fairly primitively by SoCal standards, I call myself "techno trailer trash" because of the biz class satellite.
I like what you did with the waterfall, BTW, bringing the details out. I've spent a lot of time learning how to shoot to retain that foreground detail, and love silhouettes.
very cool If it was my shot, I'd try to remove the shadow using Photoshop, if only to see what it looked like. Also it looks like there's a bit of a lean to the image.
_____________________________________
On the other hand, lol, I like that one, the one with the window and the shadow. It might have lean, might want to correct that, or not.
But I really like the shadow. However, it is one I would call a photographer's photo, and maybe only liked by one photographer, so I just want to say that I like all except the guy fishing (Looks like there is a rim of light all around him), and maybe the first one. But my favorite is the window and the shadow.
I didn't even look at the mm, I assume it is within limits, lol.
This is my second contest.. and my first attempt at a decent wide angle shot. My olympus 750 only goes down to the equiv of 38 mm ..
While stopping by the local digital lab to print some pics I came across this...
I liked the angles and colors - the highlights are a bit blown - unfortunately no RAW mode or tripod to bracket reliably with at the time..
Comments and criticisms appreciated.
why does this image look so square? i'm not sure what camera it came from, but it certainly feels square - and this really doesn't help it feel wide. As andy said, i'm not sure what I'm looking at, and where to focus. the shadows are cool, but maybe too much contrast and range of exposure here.
I think it would be nice for the opposite end to be true. IMO, the wider the better, so I would rather not know, or even have the fact be true, but an 18 on a digital shoots the equivalent of a 18 X 1.6 of what we might think.
I think 18mm digital is 18mm digital. If one is shooting with a film camera and scanning photos, then one could phrase that differently, as in 18 SLR, scanned to the PC, or Mac.
ginger
18mm digital is not always the same. The rebel you have has a 1.6 multiplier, but my 1dmkii is 1.3. For digicams like the Sony f828, things are very different, since they have much smaller sensors. So it really isn't just as simple as 18mm digital if we want to be able to compare, say Damon's images made with his f828 with yours. The idea of standardizing to 35mm equivalents is just to make this sort of comparison easier.
It doesn't really matter in your case. It's easy enough to figure out that you have a rebel and are stating the unstandardized lens length. But if everyone does that, it sort of defeats the purpose that Andy had in mind when he asked for these numbers.
Rutt, on the window
on the window shot. Just looked again, and it is a choice as to which part you would want level.
I think it is a matter of perspective, and I wouldn't worry about it. Or I would darken a bit more the part not in perspective, if you would decide to straighten a window side, I might darken a bit the bottom side.
This is, IMO, an artistic call. I like that photo, also the bottom one that Cletus liked, but I don't love the one Cletus liked.
18mm digital is not always the same. The rebel you have has a 1.6 multiplier, but my 1dmkii is 1.3. For digicams like the Sony f828, things are very different, since they have much smaller sensors. So it really isn't just as simple as 18mm digital if we want to be able to compare, say Damon's images made with his f828 with yours. The idea of standardizing to 35mm equivalents is just to make this sort of comparison easier.
It doesn't really matter in your case. It's easy enough to figure out that you have a rebel and are stating the unstandardized lens length. But if everyone does that, it sort of defeats the purpose that Andy had in mind when he asked for these numbers.
I am not quite sure, really, as to why he asked for those numbers.
But then I am so untechnical. Wide to me is wide. And I don't compare that much, I don't have your windows to do with, or duplicate.
One thing, lots of people are shooting with lenses that are not as wide as mine. Well, I don't really understand the point anyway, except to make us aware if we are legal. Since I wasn't, totally inadvertently.
Wide might be wide, but I, too, would like a fish eye.
A better day might suit, too. Going to go out and see if there are any interesting headlights?????? Bill said no one is out there, I want to relax, but that isn't going to happen until I give this a "shot".
Just for your sensibilities, I only put one rolly there.
Rutt, I have an interesting take on that issue. And it seems to differ from the rest of the world, but it won't soon. Digital is digital and film is film, IMO. So when we are shooting with a digital camera, which I am, and I can't imagine anyone, in the need, who doesn't know that. So when we are shooting with a digital camera, I cannot imagine any reason to convert to a film camera statistics. I did for a few posts, then I said, this is the last time I will be doing this. I have also said I am shooting with a kit, and you would not be familiar with that, maybe, lens, and it is 18-55mm on the lens. You can/may convert that if you want.
My idea on this is that when in Rome, or Paris. Since my only knowledge is of french and very little of that. I would point out that when speaking English, we say "the cat", we do not then say "le chat". The same with le chien.
(I think they are both masculine which is a non issue in English)
Also, we are going 60mph, not so many whatevers as we would be going in Europe, for examples. Some things here are a foot, 12 inches, whatever long, not then converted.
I see digital as a medium that has been around long enough, exists in its own right. I do not see any reason to compare it to film photography when mentioning the mm s. Or any other term peculiar to the medium.
I do think that it is good to know what is allowed on this Challenge, and it is interesting, informative, etc. to know that a telephoto lens shoots at its longest, equivalent to 1.6 times that which we think it does, by comparing it to the same length word on film cameras. That made me excited.
I think it would be nice for the opposite end to be true. IMO, the wider the better, so I would rather not know, or even have the fact be true, but an 18 on a digital shoots the equivalent of a 18 X 1.6 of what we might think.
Most of us understand this. That is my opinion, my strongest opinion.
If the rules are that we state the whole thing out, it will be more work, but I will do it. Won't be much more work for those not posting.
I will say that on Smugmug it gives the conversion figure, and it often says around, or about, or something like that.
I think 18mm digital is 18mm digital. If one is shooting with a film camera and scanning photos, then one could phrase that differently, as in 18 SLR, scanned to the PC, or Mac.
I like this one. What ISO was that at? looks a weeee bit noisy - doesn't affect the shot, just curious.
The ISO was 500, not very much for the 1Dmkii. The noise came from a pretty extreme aplication of shadow/hightlight. The shot is striking without this, but I wanted to recover some of the bench and some of the details of the walls.
yah but rutt -
now the rest of everybody knows that ging has a rebel @ 1.6 multiplier. easy enough for us to figger out, and then ginger doesn't have to worry bout it
18mm digital is not always the same. The rebel you have has a 1.6 multiplier, but my 1dmkii is 1.3. For digicams like the Sony f828, things are very different, since they have much smaller sensors. So it really isn't just as simple as 18mm digital if we want to be able to compare, say Damon's images made with his f828 with yours. The idea of standardizing to 35mm equivalents is just to make this sort of comparison easier.
It doesn't really matter in your case. It's easy enough to figure out that you have a rebel and are stating the unstandardized lens length. But if everyone does that, it sort of defeats the purpose that Andy had in mind when he asked for these numbers.
hehe, I am going to skip the fact that you are only giving one set of figures, also,as far as how wide, so I would have figured they were digital figures, but I would imagine they are not.
That is why I expect this to change given a short period of time, most people are going to give just one figure, unless there is a strong need otherwise. Like we all have access to the Acropolis, and it would be interesting to know what others have used particularly if one were going to try to duplicate it. But this is just my take.
Andy has said to go shoot.................. not you, I don't think. I plan on that, (Not you) had it all planned rain headlights, etc. No rain now, light blown skys. Can't count on nothin' these days.
However, on your picture the one with the window. So glad to hear another positive opinion.
I love "noise", so I wouldn't have noticed that either. But I am just so glad someone else likes it, hate being the only one in an area of expertise at which I am not totally sure of myself.
I also wanted to say that when I say a photographer's photo, I am complimenting you. If you were shooting for Hallmark, you would be dissappointed, but I would not expect that you were doing that. Actually, I guess I am saying that I am not sure how wide the appeal would be, ask here before so you know how these people feel re a photo, but that I really like it.
A photographer's photo, IMO, as I am using the expression is "photographer's photo", I am speaking like a movie critic's movie (not a chick flick, in fact probably a very good picture, but very different,) as these guys are bored to death of commercial type movies, same with book critics, etc.
All your masters, the people you love to love, IMO, they did photographer's photos of their times. I am not that aware of each circumstance, Penn, was/is very famous and did well, I would imagine, but lots of great artists have not been commercial successes, as I am sure you know.
I am putting you in that class when I say a photographer's photo. I would put Sid's in that class, too, the one that won the last time he entered. A lot of street photography is such that only a photographer is going to love.
Then there are the crossover artists, so to speak, as in music, they exist in many arts.
My rainbow was very commercial, that is why I asked the paper if they wanted it. My reflection was OK, if I were employed for the paper, and that were my part of town, it would be printed, you know the houses, almost totally a reflection, but it is not terribly commercial.
Then the Black Skimmer, I don't know why you and Phil both liked that so much, that is a nature lover's photograph.
Never mind, I have to go shoot something, or someone. I like that photo, you may just be warming up, but I like your start this time.
Tough shot, you get so much from him blocking the sun, great detail, shadow & action but it'd be good to have the end of the rod and the space he's fishing in. I still like it though, a lot!
Please, I would like as much feedback as possible on this. Andy? Sid?
et al.
ginger
Ginger:
Tough call. But I think that I like the Sepia background. The "near center" composition doesn't really bother me at all here. There are times when near center works, and more when it doesn't, I suppose. But I do think it is nice here. Very nicely done manipulation.
ginette
"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
Tough shot, you get so much from him blocking the sun, great detail, shadow & action but it'd be good to have the end of the rod and the space he's fishing in. I still like it though, a lot!
Right, it's flawed by comosition, but it was very hard to get. He actually has a fish on and was moving around a lot while playing it. Too bad, but it's a nice snapshot.
Yeah, i't me. I'm wearing a backpack with my tripod sticking out, hunched over composing the shot. I liked this a lot, but thought it might be just me. Might be worth some more post work.
Yeah, i't me. I'm wearing a backpack with my tripod sticking out, hunched over composing the shot. I liked this a lot, but thought it might be just me. Might be worth some more post work.
I think lots of people like it Rutt. Looks to me like a photograph I might find in a very good book, or collection of photographs.
Boy riding a board thing 18mm by ginger
A beautiful evening at the beach, Isle of Palms. Bill joined the VFW, so we will have a better vantage point to watch the beach. Second floor, as most things are. For the storm surge on the first floor.
So this was tonght, here. We could have gone downtown, etc, it was that nice. Not supposed to be nice tomorrow.
Wide Volley Ball Game 18mm by ginger
And you all need to be treated to this. I shot a volley ball game at 18 mm on my D Rebel, conversion factor 1.6, leaving the math to others. But a volley ball game on wide. I sat as close as I could.
And you all need to be treated to this. I shot a volley ball game at 18 mm on my D Rebel, conversion factor 1.6, leaving the math to others. But a volley ball game on wide. I sat as close as I could.
Ginger,
This shot is wonderful, everyone looking up, action stance, at the ready... The line of the net is placed beautifully in the frame. The only thing missing, is the "Ball." It leaves one wondering "what they are looking at." Yes, I realize that it ought to be understood... but... In MVHO this would be the winning shot were the ball in the image.
ginette
"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
just shot this this afternoon e-20 9mm lens with 0.5 addon guess about 20-25mm =
I had up the cropped one this is the uncropped
A while back Rutt and I had a discussion about how to shoot great images with wide angles lenses, and one of the suggestions was to include a good foreground element. I used deer footprints in the image I posted as an example leading to a bridge. I would like to point out that I think the reason this image works so well is the rope as a leading foreground element. My only suggestion might be to crop part of the sky and raise the horizon in the frame higher - close to the 2/3 line - The sky really is not what this image is about in my opinion. Good shot - I lilke it.
My only suggestion might be to crop part of the sky and raise the horizon in the frame higher - close to the 2/3 line - The sky really is not what this image is about in my opinion. Good shot - I lilke it.
Don't forget the no cropping restriction for submissions. I really like the shot too, and the placement of the motorcycle works well.
Comments
I like this one a lot more than your first image. If this were my shot I think I'd try to get rid of the slight brown cast of the silhouette.
Another good shot! I think it might have worked a little bet better if you had swung the camera to the right, moving the fisherman to the left, and more importanly, moving the tip of the fishing rod away from the right edge of the frame.
Very cool
I think this one is my favorite. I don't think there's anything I would change... Well done
Rutt, I have an interesting take on that issue. And it seems to differ from the rest of the world, but it won't soon. Digital is digital and film is film, IMO. So when we are shooting with a digital camera, which I am, and I can't imagine anyone, in the need, who doesn't know that. So when we are shooting with a digital camera, I cannot imagine any reason to convert to a film camera statistics. I did for a few posts, then I said, this is the last time I will be doing this. I have also said I am shooting with a kit, and you would not be familiar with that, maybe, lens, and it is 18-55mm on the lens. You can/may convert that if you want.
My idea on this is that when in Rome, or Paris. Since my only knowledge is of french and very little of that. I would point out that when speaking English, we say "the cat", we do not then say "le chat". The same with le chien.
(I think they are both masculine which is a non issue in English)
Also, we are going 60mph, not so many whatevers as we would be going in Europe, for examples. Some things here are a foot, 12 inches, whatever long, not then converted.
I see digital as a medium that has been around long enough, exists in its own right. I do not see any reason to compare it to film photography when mentioning the mm s. Or any other term peculiar to the medium.
I do think that it is good to know what is allowed on this Challenge, and it is interesting, informative, etc. to know that a telephoto lens shoots at its longest, equivalent to 1.6 times that which we think it does, by comparing it to the same length word on film cameras. That made me excited.
I think it would be nice for the opposite end to be true. IMO, the wider the better, so I would rather not know, or even have the fact be true, but an 18 on a digital shoots the equivalent of a 18 X 1.6 of what we might think.
Most of us understand this. That is my opinion, my strongest opinion.
If the rules are that we state the whole thing out, it will be more work, but I will do it. Won't be much more work for those not posting.
I will say that on Smugmug it gives the conversion figure, and it often says around, or about, or something like that.
I think 18mm digital is 18mm digital. If one is shooting with a film camera and scanning photos, then one could phrase that differently, as in 18 SLR, scanned to the PC, or Mac.
ginger
Thanks, Ginette. I have really high standards for my horse photos, and ruthlessly trash them if they aren't up to snuff. So far, I haven't done sky replacement, sort of don't believe in it; the closest I come to being a purist. Part of that is shooting a lot for editorial use, where that's taboo. And yeah, as it says in my profile (?) I'm a professional horse photographer, but have spent the last few months ramping up the fine art aspect of that. My featured galleries over at smugmug kind of show that, and the images are really drawing notice, and I'm transitioning into hopefully full time photography. If you're in the mood, check out <http://www.lynnesite.com/dropbox.html>, a little iPhoto movie of the foal's first 4 months. Moved here last winter, I have 3 horses now, mom and brother are Arabian, kid is half Lipizzan and we live on 45 acres that aren't mine at 2000 feet (above the smog) in SoCal. Earlier today we had thunder and lightning (24 strikes that I counted; rare for here, some monsoonal thing) and the horses are statues: kid's hearing it for the first time, while the adults each are watchful in different directions. Living fairly primitively by SoCal standards, I call myself "techno trailer trash" because of the biz class satellite.
I like what you did with the waterfall, BTW, bringing the details out. I've spent a lot of time learning how to shoot to retain that foreground detail, and love silhouettes.
Galleries here Upcoming Ranch/Horse Workshop
_____________________________________
On the other hand, lol, I like that one, the one with the window and the shadow. It might have lean, might want to correct that, or not.
But I really like the shadow. However, it is one I would call a photographer's photo, and maybe only liked by one photographer, so I just want to say that I like all except the guy fishing (Looks like there is a rim of light all around him), and maybe the first one. But my favorite is the window and the shadow.
I didn't even look at the mm, I assume it is within limits, lol.
ginger
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
It doesn't really matter in your case. It's easy enough to figure out that you have a rebel and are stating the unstandardized lens length. But if everyone does that, it sort of defeats the purpose that Andy had in mind when he asked for these numbers.
on the window shot. Just looked again, and it is a choice as to which part you would want level.
I think it is a matter of perspective, and I wouldn't worry about it. Or I would darken a bit more the part not in perspective, if you would decide to straighten a window side, I might darken a bit the bottom side.
This is, IMO, an artistic call. I like that photo, also the bottom one that Cletus liked, but I don't love the one Cletus liked.
Just wanted to tell you that.
ginger
But then I am so untechnical. Wide to me is wide. And I don't compare that much, I don't have your windows to do with, or duplicate.
One thing, lots of people are shooting with lenses that are not as wide as mine. Well, I don't really understand the point anyway, except to make us aware if we are legal. Since I wasn't, totally inadvertently.
Wide might be wide, but I, too, would like a fish eye.
A better day might suit, too. Going to go out and see if there are any interesting headlights?????? Bill said no one is out there, I want to relax, but that isn't going to happen until I give this a "shot".
Just for your sensibilities, I only put one rolly there.
Smile, ginger
I hope I'm just getting warmed up. I like the window witht he self portrait shadow, but as you say, it's probalby pretty personal.
I like this one. What ISO was that at? looks a weeee bit noisy - doesn't affect the shot, just curious.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
i gave you personal instructions to shoot at 18mm with your kit lens, and not to go more than 31mm.
you're fine, don't worry 'bout the math dear, you go shoot!
hehehe
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
now the rest of everybody knows that ging has a rebel @ 1.6 multiplier. easy enough for us to figger out, and then ginger doesn't have to worry bout it
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
_______________________________________________________
hehe, I am going to skip the fact that you are only giving one set of figures, also,as far as how wide, so I would have figured they were digital figures, but I would imagine they are not.
That is why I expect this to change given a short period of time, most people are going to give just one figure, unless there is a strong need otherwise. Like we all have access to the Acropolis, and it would be interesting to know what others have used particularly if one were going to try to duplicate it. But this is just my take.
Andy has said to go shoot.................. not you, I don't think. I plan on that, (Not you) had it all planned rain headlights, etc. No rain now, light blown skys. Can't count on nothin' these days.
However, on your picture the one with the window. So glad to hear another positive opinion.
I love "noise", so I wouldn't have noticed that either. But I am just so glad someone else likes it, hate being the only one in an area of expertise at which I am not totally sure of myself.
I also wanted to say that when I say a photographer's photo, I am complimenting you. If you were shooting for Hallmark, you would be dissappointed, but I would not expect that you were doing that. Actually, I guess I am saying that I am not sure how wide the appeal would be, ask here before so you know how these people feel re a photo, but that I really like it.
A photographer's photo, IMO, as I am using the expression is "photographer's photo", I am speaking like a movie critic's movie (not a chick flick, in fact probably a very good picture, but very different,) as these guys are bored to death of commercial type movies, same with book critics, etc.
All your masters, the people you love to love, IMO, they did photographer's photos of their times. I am not that aware of each circumstance, Penn, was/is very famous and did well, I would imagine, but lots of great artists have not been commercial successes, as I am sure you know.
I am putting you in that class when I say a photographer's photo. I would put Sid's in that class, too, the one that won the last time he entered. A lot of street photography is such that only a photographer is going to love.
Then there are the crossover artists, so to speak, as in music, they exist in many arts.
My rainbow was very commercial, that is why I asked the paper if they wanted it. My reflection was OK, if I were employed for the paper, and that were my part of town, it would be printed, you know the houses, almost totally a reflection, but it is not terribly commercial.
Then the Black Skimmer, I don't know why you and Phil both liked that so much, that is a nature lover's photograph.
Never mind, I have to go shoot something, or someone. I like that photo, you may just be warming up, but I like your start this time.
ginger
Tough shot, you get so much from him blocking the sun, great detail, shadow & action but it'd be good to have the end of the rod and the space he's fishing in. I still like it though, a lot!
gubbs.smugmug.com
gubbs.smugmug.com
The patterns in the sand combined with the light are lovely.
Rutt you live in a beautiful place!
gubbs.smugmug.com
Tough call. But I think that I like the Sepia background. The "near center" composition doesn't really bother me at all here. There are times when near center works, and more when it doesn't, I suppose. But I do think it is nice here. Very nicely done manipulation.
ginette
I had up the cropped one this is the uncropped
ginger
A beautiful evening at the beach, Isle of Palms. Bill joined the VFW, so we will have a better vantage point to watch the beach. Second floor, as most things are. For the storm surge on the first floor.
So this was tonght, here. We could have gone downtown, etc, it was that nice. Not supposed to be nice tomorrow.
And you all need to be treated to this. I shot a volley ball game at 18 mm on my D Rebel, conversion factor 1.6, leaving the math to others. But a volley ball game on wide. I sat as close as I could.
We have all said we would be back tomorrow morning, don't think it will happen, not with me.
with ginger's great shot from "lines and curves"
it's right here
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
This shot is wonderful, everyone looking up, action stance, at the ready... The line of the net is placed beautifully in the frame. The only thing missing, is the "Ball." It leaves one wondering "what they are looking at." Yes, I realize that it ought to be understood... but... In MVHO this would be the winning shot were the ball in the image.
ginette
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Don't forget the no cropping restriction for submissions.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au