Day 31 - October 2010 PAD

[carregwen]

Rob, I'd love to know how you did that, and if possible see it before PP

Wendy

Wendy

It took me about 15 mins. I took this shot for the back layer of my gold watch using a white backdrop and a single studio flashlight...


Then I took this shot of a gold clock for the top layer...


I loaded the back layer (watch) into a new CS5 file and lowered the opacity to make it pale looking. I then took the clock shot and selected just the round face and distorted it using polar coordinates, and made the backdrop transparent. I put this layer on top of the watch layer and fiddled with the opacity of both until it looked like this. I added the overlay frame in a routine I have, but you could do it in Flickr Picnik editing.

Apart from all that, I had absolutely no ide what I was doing!

[Ollokot]

Torrential rain coupled with a gale of wind for the last day.I had to brave the elements to get the stones so I could take a shot for day 31.
Thank you Colin and all participants for what has been for me a very enjoyable learning experience.



Best Wishes Pat

[melikarish]

I was expecting to take photos of lots of trick or treaters tonight but they don't seem to be out this year so another slight cheat - a photo from yesterday.

I have found this quite a challenge - some days easier than others - but a very worthwhile one!!

[Camellia]

Hi Raylee,

I like too. No suggestions to improve further, as Rob says; "Just right in every way" and he's knows more about these shots than I do.

It puts me in mind of a crowd waiting expectantly for something to happen in stage centre
Cheers,

Thanks Peter, Rob, Kay and Dave. It's nice to know that something I find appealing to the eye has the same effect on other people. Sometimes it's so easy to doubt oneself.

[carregwen]

I was expecting to take photos of lots of trick or treaters tonight but they don't seem to be out this year

Oh, I don't know about that. I'd say the one on top is getting ready for a trick, and the one in the water is anticipatimg a treat! But I could be wrong...

[Dave Humphries]

I don't know Dave, the teasle looks pretty sharp. I see what you mean about the background, but even that looks pretty good. Seeing as I am working on DOF right now, I have to ask what this shot would have been like if you had snuck up on the teasle with your 105mm and shot wide open. I'm thinking the tealse would be just as sharp or sharper, and bokeh would be lovely? Note the question mark. It's a serious question. What differences would the other lens have made?

Love the castle tower, Congratulations on making it through October. Maybe I will try in January.

Wendy

Thanks, Wendy,

Yes, the teasle is OK, I took at f/8 and f/11, on a big screen, the f/8 shot looked better.

It is the background, which I should have paid more attention to at shooting time, that was the problem. In terms of cloning issues, it is the border between fake green and natural biege below and to right is the problem area.

I'll try a comparison as you suggest next time - I just hope I don't get a taste for the wider apertures though, that glass is expensive and heavier than what I'm used to

Thanks for the encouragement, although I didn't do as much as I should - I see my PAD gallery has just 29 pics in, and a few of those were 'two a day' jobs like this! but at least I haven't overdone it like last time.

Cheers,

[rick55]

Canon 50D, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM @ 200mm, f/4.5, 1/250s, ISO 200, on a monopod. Full EXIF, PAD slideshow.

Not the best light, but I like the expression on the bird's face (you know what I mean ).

C&C are always welcome.

Cheers,
Rick

[rick55]

Great series, Kay. And a wonderful final shot. You've managed to capture the relaxed eye, even while focused on the muzzle, and providing a nice reflection. Beautiful.

Cheers,
Rick

[wilgk]

Great series, Kay. And a wonderful final shot. You've managed to capture the relaxed eye, even while focused on the muzzle, and providing a nice reflection. Beautiful.

Cheers,
Rick

Thanks Rick - I think that's 1 piece of (reflecting) black cardboard that made the ultimate sacrifice...can't seem to get the doggy drool off...eew

[Katy Noelle]

I couldn't leave anyone out or I'd be an in trouble mommy; so, you get four, for one, today!









It was a pleasure, a treat and, really, an honor to take this little intense journey with you all. I could see everyone improving and it got to a point that it would be ridiculous if I oooohed and aaaaahed over EVERYONE's efforts every time. Thanks for all of your encouragement, too. It's meant a lot!

[ScoutR]

Wendy

It took me about 15 mins. I took this shot for the back layer of my gold watch using a white backdrop and a single studio flashlight...


Then I took this shot of a gold clock for the top layer...


I loaded the back layer (watch) into a new CS5 file and lowered the opacity to make it pale looking. I then took the clock shot and selected just the round face and distorted it using polar coordinates, and made the backdrop transparent. I put this layer on top of the watch layer and fiddled with the opacity of both until it looked like this. I added the overlay frame in a routine I have, but you could do it in Flickr Picnik editing.

Apart from all that, I had absolutely no ide what I was doing!

Thanks Rob, I really like the finished product, and I love the concept. I would never in a million years think of something like that.

Wendy

[ScoutR]

Thanks, Wendy,

Yes, the teasle is OK, I took at f/8 and f/11, on a big screen, the f/8 shot looked better.

It is the background, which I should have paid more attention to at shooting time, that was the problem. In terms of cloning issues, it is the border between fake green and natural biege below and to right is the problem area.

Yes, I see what you mean about the problem areas. If you had shot this wide open with the same lens from the same spot,do you think that would have solved the problem. I am only asking to try to muddle out this DOF and what difference the lenses might make. I'm still thinking of getting the 105 macro, but I'm not sure that it will do any better than the other lenses if used under the right conditions and proper settings.

I'll try a comparison as you suggest next time - I just hope I don't get a taste for the wider apertures though, that glass is expensive and heavier than what I'm used to

Is the 105mm heavier than the 70-300 or 18-200?

Wendy

[ScoutR]

Congratulations to everyone - I really enjoyed viewing the PAD albums and think you all did a great job with a lot of really stand out shots.

Wendy

[carregwen]

Thanks Rob, I really like the finished product, and I love the concept. I would never in a million years think of something like that.

Wendy

Oh, I think you would if you were desperate for the 31st shot at the eleventh hour - as I was!

[carregwen]

For some reason I really like this one. It seems to sum up my attitude to life at the moment - "what the heck!"

[Donald]

I think that, at the time of writing, everywhere in the world has gone into November. So ......

Well done to all of you who again made it through the month and produced your PAD. I'm full of admiration and envy.

Admiration for your commitment and effort that, despite all that life could throw at you, drove you forward and made sure you got your PAD posted. Envy for your being able to do this. And admiration also for the continued stream of creativity that keeps flowing through this forum.

I look forward to the day when I can commit to a PAD!

[ScoutR]

Oh, I think you would if you were desperate for the 31st shot at the eleventh hour - as I was!

Not a chance - I would have taken a picture of my cat.

Wendy

[Katy Noelle]

For some reason I really like this one. It seems to sum up my attitude to life at the moment - "what the heck!"

[Dave Humphries]

If you had shot this wide open with the same lens from the same spot,do you think that would have solved the problem. I am only asking to try to muddle out this DOF and what difference the lenses might make. I'm still thinking of getting the 105 macro, but I'm not sure that it will do any better than the other lenses if used under the right conditions and proper settings.



Is the 105mm heavier than the 70-300 or 18-200?

Wendy

Hi Wendy,

Yeah, I know you have a hankering for it, that's why I promised to do some comparisons, more worthwhile if you benefit as well as me
I may have some time Thursday (day off work for an early morning trip with daughter somewhere), so I should get a chance later on in day.

Looked it up;
18-200 = 565g
70-300 = 745g
105mm= 790g

but better than > 1kg of the f2.8 zooms.

One problem I find, keeping them in their cases, is telling them apart in the rucksack

Cheers,

[Peter Ryan]

Canon 50D, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM @ 200mm, f/4.5, 1/250s, ISO 200, on a monopod. Full EXIF, PAD slideshow.

Not the best light, but I like the expression on the bird's face (you know what I mean ).

C&C are always welcome.

Cheers,
Rick

Great shot Rick.