My New D-SLR!

[Sahil]

And the young beauty is not taking out time to have a look at my clicks

[Sahil]

I took this shot and set the white balance on Capture NX2. The plain sky was kind of looking boring so I played around with hues in Photoshop. I know it looks way too unnatural, but still I look forward to some comments and critiques.

[rogerb]

Sahil:
This type of shot is more abstract than realistic in that it's an interesting pattern of backlit "random" lines and shapes, without a "subject".
The bird is very small and in the center so it's not prominent enough to be the subject.
I prefer the top shot but, given that it's really an abstract type of image, each viewer will have his or her own preference.
Roger

[Sahil]

Are these any good? Need some C&C
My eyes got hurt taking these shots
I thought only sun caused trouble to the eyes when seen through the viewfinder.

DSC_1904 copy.jpg

DSC_1899n.jpg

DSC_1910 copy.jpg

[Shadowman]

Sahil,

I like the third one best. I think the spatial distance between the objects creates a better focused pattern. The first two look more out of focus than a shallow depth of field, but you were probably trying to capture the reflection in the first image.

[Sahil]

Thanks, Shadowman.
Third shot is something I was trying to do but with little different arrangement. But my eye had started to hurt (because of the candle) so I had to stop clicking soon.

[Donald]

Sahil

Not sure how you've inserted these on the site, as I am not being allowed to click on the image to open it up to see it as a 'stand alone'. I would like to see #3 in a larger size.

Like Shadowman, I think it is the best of these 3 images. Why?

The composition is much stronger. The subject fills much more of the frame than in #1 and #2, both of which have a lot of 'dead' space. I think #3 is a nice, balanced image that is pleasing to look at. #1 and #2 do not have the same balance and harmony.

[Dave Humphries]

Not sure how you've inserted these on the site, as I am not being allowed to click on the image to open it up to see it as a 'stand alone'. I would like to see #3 in a larger size.

Hi Donald,

They seem to be attachments here (although that in itself isn't the problem), the reason they won't open is because they are all less than 700px, so no downscaling has been applied. Previously, one of my complaints about the new image handling was that even small images looked like they would get bigger if you clicked them, because the cursor went to a 'hand' - it seems Sean has fixed that now. No hand.

To see #3 bigger, I think Sahil needs to upload a bigger picture. Although the filesize (123kB) indicates he must have saved it at maximum quality - that's big for 400px × 271px.

Hi Sahil,

I agree #3 is good, but I quite like #1 too, although I think a square crop, to save 'wasted' space, might be in order.

Cheers,

[Sahil]

Boy what a hard time I had with uploading attachments. Earlier version took care of the size itself. It wasn't that fussy.
Although I like the UI of the present 'manage attachment' section now.
Thanks for appreciating #3 image and calling it good, but its good just out of the given 3 images or otherwise too? Here is the link to bigger image.



I will square crop the 1st image, but does that mean getting rid of the reflection too?

And thanks again for the critics.

[Sahil]

Here is the square crop of the 1st image.



I am so sorry, Dave. I deleted the older pic (with critter) from Flickr, without thinking that it was linked here. I am replacing it with the edited one.
I am sorry, again.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Sahil,

~ does that mean getting rid of the reflection too?

No, As you did it in post #90 is about how I intended.

Unfortunately, now it is bigger, I have noticed a little critter (an ant or a midge, maybe?) has wandered into/alighted to the right hand side and now distracts, I feel that should be cloned out, but there is no need to do on this, just keep an eye out for such things before saving.

Regarding the #3 shot, now bigger in post #89, and thanks for making bigger, I am now finding the bright reflection of the last candle is a bit of a distraction that near the edge of frame, I think he composition would be stronger still if that were significantly toned down (i.e. reduced in brightness), so it is about the same as the green one to its left.

~ Thanks for appreciating #3 image and calling it good, but its good just out of the given 3 images or otherwise too? Here is the link to bigger image.

With those issues addressed and perhaps, if I am super critical, clone out a very few dust spots, I would call them "good" (otherwise too) well done!

Cheers,

[Sahil]

Wow. Thanks Dave. Now thats what I call a constructive criticism, and that is one major reason I love this forum. Post any goddamn thing and you will be told, very politely and nicely, what all should have been done.
Yes, I really need to clone out that critter and will look for those kind of distractions in future.

As for the #3 shot, I will need to reduce the brightness of the reflection as well? That would be an interesting thing to do. But I don't know how to take care of the dust spots, now that they are there. I really should have cleaned the table before taking the shot Lazy me.

[Shadowman]

Sahil,

I think that way whenever I do still lifes, should I dust off the bottle or leave it as it is. Unfortunately, dust shows up too well in a photograph and distracts from the purpose of the theme.

Wow. Thanks Dave. Now thats what I call a constructive criticism, and that is one major reason I love this forum. Post any goddamn thing and you will be told, very politely and nicely, what all should have been done.
Yes, I really need to clone out that critter and will look for those kind of distractions in future.

As for the #3 shot, I will need to reduce the brightness of the reflection as well? That would be an interesting thing to do. But I don't know how to take care of the dust spots, now that they are there. I really should have cleaned the table before taking the shot Lazy me.

[Sahil]

Shadowman,
Cool, So I am not the only one who get confused and lazy

Well I was going through Nikon's site and was looking at lenses (although I had thought that I would not spend money to buy a lens for next one year). I feel handicapped when I have to zoom in. Then I 70-300mm lenses. They are pretty cheap (compared to other lenses). It doesn't have VR. But budget is a big constraint. Is this worth buying?
"AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G (4.3x)"

[Dave Humphries]

~ I don't know how to take care of the dust spots, now that they are there. ~

Hi Sahil,

Can't you clone out the dust spots too? Or use the spot removal tool?

As for reducing the brightness of the reflection, is there a "burn" tool in CS-2?

And fear not, you are not alone in being lazy, you should see some of my (dusty) shots

Anyway, glad to be of help,

[Sahil]

All I have to say is, YOU GUYS ROCK!

Thanks again, Dave. Just recently I got to know the utility of burn and dodge tool. I had thought only curves were good for brightness control.

As of now, I am ignoring the dust specs. Too lazy to take care of the on PS too . (My bedroom is a mess)
next time I plan still photography, will tell the maid to do a better job

[arith]

I like the last one, I like dead space so long as it contributes to the image. The border I think I would like darker or even black so as to not distract from the excellent composition.

[Dave Humphries]

I feel handicapped when I have to zoom in. Then I 70-300mm lenses. They are pretty cheap (compared to other lenses). It doesn't have VR. But budget is a big constraint. Is this worth buying?
"AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G (4.3x)"

Hi Sahil,

Depending upon what you intend to shoot, being without VR on such a long lens isn't a compromise I would make personally.

It may well require the use of a tripod to avoid camera shake if there's not much light to shoot with.

Cheers,

[Shadowman]

Sahil,

I have the Nikon AF-S VR 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 G IF ED. If you are going to get one this is the one and it is worth it.

Shadowman,
Cool, So I am not the only one who get confused and lazy

Well I was going through Nikon's site and was looking at lenses (although I had thought that I would not spend money to buy a lens for next one year). I feel handicapped when I have to zoom in. Then I 70-300mm lenses. They are pretty cheap (compared to other lenses). It doesn't have VR. But budget is a big constraint. Is this worth buying?
"AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G (4.3x)"

[Shadowman]

Sahil,

Sometimes dust has its place in a photo. If you were photographing an old cabin would you stop to dust off the coffee table?

Shadowman,
Cool, So I am not the only one who get confused and lazy

Well I was going through Nikon's site and was looking at lenses (although I had thought that I would not spend money to buy a lens for next one year). I feel handicapped when I have to zoom in. Then I 70-300mm lenses. They are pretty cheap (compared to other lenses). It doesn't have VR. But budget is a big constraint. Is this worth buying?
"AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G (4.3x)"