2018 Project 52 - 2nd QTR - Sandy(Skitterbug)

[Rufus]

Wow, Sandy - I had to put my sunglasses on when I scrolled down to the Petunia

David

[rudi]

week 25: good shots Sandy.
With the delphinium, the RHS seems to get 'lost' a bit in the OOF background.As Geoff already said, maybe trying different angles, camera positions....to see what you like best. HTH.

[skitterbug]

Hi Geoff - Good suggestions! I tried getting another of the Delphinium without the distracting "whites" in the background and found it impossible to do. Best way to get a decent photo of it would be to cut it and bring it in. (sigh) I wanted it in its natural location.....

I'm going to see if I can find PP instructions for the technique(s) you suggest. It would be useful to be able to tone down areas like the one on the right of the petunia without changing the flower itself.

Thank you!

[skitterbug]

Wow, Sandy - I had to put my sunglasses on when I scrolled down to the Petunia

David

Hi David - This petunia is mixed in with some white petunias and a bit of lobelia - a tiny flower with colours of light violet and white. It makes a grand show!

I'm glad you knew where your sunglasses were! <LOL>

Thanks for commenting!

[skitterbug]

week 25: good shots Sandy.
With the delphinium, the RHS seems to get 'lost' a bit in the OOF background.As Geoff already said, maybe trying different angles, camera positions....to see what you like best. HTH.

Hi Rudi - After I posted my flower photos online and received "feedback", I realized that I'd "focused" on the flowers and forgot about what may be intruding in the scene around them. I can't seem to get a better position for the delphinium. Now we have blowy winds so it has become impossible for photos of them. I still do like these two so maybe with a bit of PP they could even turn out to be better! <grin>

Thanks for your reply!

[Geoff F]

Sometimes I manage to use a few sticks etc to bend stems in or out of the required focus area without having to cut the blooms.

[skitterbug]

Week 26 - June is winding down and the next quarter of P52 will begin next week. So I'll close out with these three because I'd like time to slow a bit and this fellow is known for being slow.

So why did I have my first photo set for such high numbers? Because I forgot to look at the settings in my haste to capture the moment. We were about to leave and I was in "dress up" clothes running around in our yard trying to compose decent shots.

I was really hoping he'd still be around when we returned. Well, being slow really isn't one of his attributes because he was GONE! And I haven't any idea where he went! Luckily, he isn't in the koi pond. I doubt the fish or the frogs would have been happy to see him!

Hope you all enjoy these and please feel free to comment - bad or good! I always do appreciate the suggestions!

#1 - ISO5000 - f/5.0 - 1/2000ss



The next two were set at ISO200 - f/5.0 - 1/100ss

#2



#3

[Geoff F]

They work well. Good clear images and pleasing compositions.

[skitterbug]

They work well. Good clear images and pleasing compositions.

Hi Geoff - I chuckled when I posted them because I was thinking of a "turtle sandwich"....... but there wasn't much I could do about this one's background. In fact there was no way I'd attempt to touch him!

Thanks for checking the photos and commenting!

ps: For clarification about the "sandwich comment", see post #31.

[rudi]

Nice shots Sandy. Weird eyes … How big was (s)he ??

[skitterbug]

Nice shots Sandy. Weird eyes … How big was (s)he ??

Hi Rudi - I'm estimating but believe s/he was about 35cm. I've been reading about them and found out they are typically reclusive and will be aggressive if bothered, so I guess I'm lucky to see one in our yard. They like muddy bottom fresh water areas. We have a large drainage ditch south of our home so I believe this is where our turtle was going.

I agree, the eyes are dynamic. I put this photo as a desktop background for now and have those eyes staring at me as I type! LOL

Thanks for commenting!

[Geoff F]

#1 is possibly a bit of a sandwich effect but the top layer (background) is noticeably more blurred than the foreground so it isn't too much of a sandwich.

With the other two you have obviously more 'bread' on the top than the bottom and the top is also more blurred so once again you have avoided getting a noticeable sandwich effect.

[skitterbug]

Hi Geoff - I was really disappointed that the snapping turtle was gone when we returned home. I wanted to be able to capture him "up and moving along" as turtles do. Since he was in the middle of our lawn, there wasn't much else for background except grass but I like the idea of keeping it blurred more to help remove the concept of "sandwich".

I was viewing an Affinity video about the technique of blurring the background in photos and was thinking about whether I could apply it to any of my photos. I am not sure yet how to accomplish what I was trying to learn but my quest for the second half of this P52 year will be trying more PP techniques. It will take time, but I believe it will be worth the effort in the long run.

Thanks for critiquing my "stuff". I appreciate your (and other's) opinions!