Stick yer tongue out

[carregwen]

Warlocks and witches in a dance:
Nae cotillon, brent new frae France,
But hornpipes, jigs, strathspeys, and reels,
Put life and mettle in their heels.
A winnock-bunker in the east,
There sat auld Nick, in shape o' beast;
A towzie tyke, black, grim, and large,
To gie them music was his charge:
He screw'd the pipes and gart them skirl,
Till roof and rafters a' did dirl. -
Coffins stood round, like open presses,
That shaw'd the Dead in their last dresses;
And (by some devilish cantraip sleight)
Each in its cauld hand held a light.
By which heroic Tam was able
To note upon the haly table,
A murderer's banes, in gibbet-airns;
Twa span-lang, wee, unchristened bairns;
A thief, new-cutted frae a rape,
Wi' his last gasp his gabudid gape;
Five tomahawks, wi' blude red-rusted:
Five scimitars, wi' murder crusted;
A garter which a babe had strangled:
A knife, a father's throat had mangled.
Whom his ain son of life bereft,
The grey-hairs yet stack to the heft;
Wi' mair of horrible and awfu',
Which even to name wad be unlawfu'.
Three lawyers tongues, turned inside oot,
Wi' lies, seamed like a beggars clout,
Three priests hearts, rotten, black as muck,
Lay stinkin, vile in every neuk.

As Tammie glowr'd, amaz'd, and curious,
The mirth and fun grew fast and furious;
The Piper loud and louder blew,
The dancers quick and quicker flew,
The reel'd, they set, they cross'd, they cleekit,
Till ilka carlin swat and reekit,
And coost her duddies to the wark,
And linkit at it in her sark!

Wonderful. Is Burnsese the new offficial language of CiC? Should I henceforth (what's that in Burns?) comment on someone's shot in the new terminology... "Aye, laddie, 'tis nay a duddie shot, it just needs mair exposure"

[Donald]

But now to get back to the real business of photography

#1 The bottom is cut off so that there's no background. Is that just wrong?

It makes it a no-goer for me. I think the shapes of that inner part of the flower (sorry, don't know the technical name), are so significant in a shot like this, that the whole thing needs to be there. That's one view. There may (will) be others.

#2 & 3 I am thinking that #2 above would be "better" but I really like #3 best.

#2 for me .. for the same basic reason as above. #2 has got that centre part in focus and clear as, I think, it needs to be.

#4 Is the one above too simple?

No. I love the colour, tone and texture you've got in this. I would not call it simple. If there was such a word, I would call it 'un-busy'. In my book that equals good. Uncluttered is probably the term I'm looking for.

#5 And, then, finally, I really had a lot to work with.

I wonder how it would look if it had all been sharp, rather than having some of it out-of-focus? Not sure. Can't decide.

So, NO, they're not boring. They are nice to look at. They induce a sense of calmness.

[carregwen]

May I share one or two or three or.... I've got a hundred of these pics "back at home".

#1

AV priority 55mm shutter 1/2 f16 ISO100 spot metering

Should I have, somehow, lit the center a bit? I wanted to focus on the glowing bits. The bottom is cut off so that there's no background. Is that just wrong?

#2

AV 1/2 f16 55mm ISO100 spot metering

Thanks, Katy.

Yes, #1 could do with a bit more light in the central area. I used a single studio lamp with a diffuser fitted, which gives a nice soft light, especially if it's close to the subject.

#2. This is quite good, but it looks a little flat to me. It's surprising what a difference some simple levels and curves wil do in Photoshop. Here's an edit of it.

[mythlady]

Um . . . is there a wine appreciation section?

Gorgeous flowers, both of you -- I'm having my photography club over on Sunday for a macro shoot, and there will be orchids -- I'm going to learn from this thread and see what I can do.

[carregwen]

Um . . . is there a wine appreciation section?

Gorgeous flowers, both of you -- I'm having my photography club over on Sunday for a macro shoot, and there will be orchids -- I'm going to learn from this thread and see what I can do.

The composition of them is not too difficult. The hard part, I find, is getting the light right. I guess that's the same for all shots though.

I don't think there is an appreciation group, but there undoubtedly is one for drinking.

[Clactonian]

Um . . . is there a wine appreciation section?

No Elise, just two silly old soaks at opposite ends of the UK trying to claim bragging rights.

Let's stick to photography. I can't keep up with Donald.

[Katy Noelle]

It makes it a no-goer for me. I think the shapes of that inner part of the flower (sorry, don't know the technical name), are so significant in a shot like this, that the whole thing needs to be there. That's one view. There may (will) be others.

#2 for me .. for the same basic reason as above. #2 has got that centre part in focus and clear as, I think, it needs to be.

No. I love the colour, tone and texture you've got in this. I would not call it simple. If there was such a word, I would call it 'un-busy'. In my book that equals good. Uncluttered is probably the term I'm looking for.

I wonder how it would look if it had all been sharp, rather than having some of it out-of-focus? Not sure. Can't decide.

So, NO, they're not boring. They are nice to look at. They induce a sense of calmness.

Thanks, Donald! The slight trouble I had with these is that i don't like the center part tremendously much but I LOVE the subtle color of the petals and the movement and flow they have in their shape and pattern. I'm not sure what to do or think about that - is it even possible to make composition without that middle part? However, because of this, I focused on and exposed for the petal. Now, a good month or so, later, I wonder, could I have exposed for the petal, done an exposure lock and, then, focused on the middle? (I should say that I do love the fresh white of the "nub" in the center.)

Anyone could answer, it doesn't just have to be Donald (even though I hang on every word he says. )

[Katy Noelle]

#2. This is quite good, but it looks a little flat to me. It's surprising what a difference some simple levels and curves will do in Photoshop. Here's an edit of it.

Mine



Rob's
[/QUOTE]


That is better, Rob! It's much more vivid - alive. I just put them side by side so that, maybe, I can see the difference better.

Is there such a thing as a very soft, less colorful photo? Is there a place for a soft "colorwash"? Would something like that EVER "read"? Is there a way to be very subtle and not get lost?

I'm sorry, I'm editing this post because I really have more questions. Do you mind?

(Maybe, this is a question for Rob?) Is it possible to have it glowing from the back AND have the front illuminated? or, am I not "seeing" things correctly?

I'm getting Light: Science and Magic, soon. Will the answer - or more options - just be in there?

[carregwen]

Is there such a thing as a very soft, less colorful photo? Is there a place for a soft "colorwash"? Would something like that EVER "read"? Is there a way to be very subtle and not get lost?

Do you mean something like this one? I can't remember how I shot this now. I used studio lights, and I think I added a solid white layer then did some brush-work on it to get the effect.

[Katy Noelle]

Do you mean something like this one? I can't remember how I shot this now. I used studio lights, and I think I added a solid white layer then did some brush-work on it to get the effect.

YES! (although, are there more ways, too?)

Oh, NO! Now, a whole new thing that I have to figure out and learn is dawning on me. eeeeeeek! Why does this work? I would love it without the bottle, too. Wouldn't it work then, also? Blarg and happy, at the same time!

Even though this is soft and washed - doesn't it still have that "depth" you were talking about?

(I have GOT to get back to my housework! )

[Wirefox]

Warlocks and witches in a dance:
Nae cotillon, brent new frae France,
But hornpipes, jigs, strathspeys, and reels,
Put life and mettle in their heels.
A winnock-bunker in the east,
There sat auld Nick, in shape o' beast;
A towzie tyke, black, grim, and large,
To gie them music was his charge:
He screw'd the pipes and gart them skirl,
Till roof and rafters a' did dirl. -
Coffins stood round, like open presses,
That shaw'd the Dead in their last dresses;
And (by some devilish cantraip sleight)
Each in its cauld hand held a light.
By which heroic Tam was able
To note upon the haly table,
A murderer's banes, in gibbet-airns;
Twa span-lang, wee, unchristened bairns;
A thief, new-cutted frae a rape,
Wi' his last gasp his gabudid gape;
Five tomahawks, wi' blude red-rusted:
Five scimitars, wi' murder crusted;
A garter which a babe had strangled:
A knife, a father's throat had mangled.
Whom his ain son of life bereft,
The grey-hairs yet stack to the heft;
Wi' mair of horrible and awfu',
Which even to name wad be unlawfu'.
Three lawyers tongues, turned inside oot,
Wi' lies, seamed like a beggars clout,
Three priests hearts, rotten, black as muck,
Lay stinkin, vile in every neuk.

As Tammie glowr'd, amaz'd, and curious,
The mirth and fun grew fast and furious;
The Piper loud and louder blew,
The dancers quick and quicker flew,
The reel'd, they set, they cross'd, they cleekit,
Till ilka carlin swat and reekit,
And coost her duddies to the wark,
And linkit at it in her sark!

Oh god...I have just got through to the 'based in the UK' RBS call centre again. I am not sure, because I usually end up pressing any button on my touch tone handset (posh eh?) roughly translated means

You will now be presented with a menu of options...if for some wildly insane reason you wish to listen to this message again...get your head felt

Dial1; if you wish to listen to a loop tape of 'Bat out of Hell" for 3.5 days
Dial2; If you wish to have a raging argument with a very nice lady who speaks with an accent exceedingly rare (Glaswegen). Best to keep saying sorry love can you repeat that its a bad line at my end (what you really mean is put someone on that speaks queens English you Scotch Welsh git)
Dial 3; If you wish to mistype your credit card number and then have to go through all your children's and previous pets names trying to a recall a password you set in 1973. "Sorry Sir you have obviously scanned Mr O'Neill's card at the deli counter in Tesco"..."we will have to hand you over to a Stasi interrogator who will reset you account and beat you genitals black and blue with a rubber hose"
Dial 4; If you have put your credit card through the linen wash and fast spin cycle with your 501's or put it down for "a fraction of a second" rummaging in your handbag for your ringing cell phone in the middle of the Arndale Centre.
Dial 5; If you have paid for a subscription to a web site run by a rather scary lady called Miss Whiplash and can't find how to cancel your subscription on the FAQ page
Dial 6; If you wish to hear another customers balance and be thrown into blind panic thinking your wife is having an affair with Kerry Catona.
Dial 7; If you wish to speak to an advisor...all our advisers are busy at this time. We have an unusually volume of callers wishing to string us up by the goolies with piano wire. We value your call so please hold and listen to The Wurzels greatest hits by various artists.

This is a great thread by the way. Very entertaining...better than repeats of Rising Damp on Dave. I think we should have a CiC version of I'm a Photographer..Get me out of Here. Rob starts a perfectly innocent thread with some gorgeous shots of his botanicals we all digress and vote each other out when we get thoroughly naffed off with each other. Last one out is the winner and gets smack round the chops with a wet fish and a CiC logo camera strap. POTN eat your hearts out

[carregwen]

Rob starts a perfectly innocent thread with some gorgeous shots of his botanicals we all digress and vote each other out when we get thoroughly naffed off with each other. Last one out is the winner and gets smack round the chops with a we fish and a CiC logo camera strap. POTN eat your hearts out

I've told you before, leave my botanicals out of it!

And don't tell them about the exclusive CiC camera straps, they will all want one. Elise will post now saying "Er... are there really CiC camera straps...?"

Trouble-makers!

[Wirefox]

Sorry, I get your PM now. Please, please do not bother the mods with requests for straps with CiC logo. I assure you will look silly and rather sad wearing a forum logo dog leash around your necks.


However, if you wish to reserve your 'CiC Me Kwik' t-shirts or your CiC 'Club' sweatshirts (please state bust size and which of Donald's images you wish to have emblazoned across your chest)...name address on a postcard to......

Novelty goods featuring Rob's avatar are available from all service stations on the M5

[Clactonian]

Novelty goods featuring Rob's avatar are available from all service stations on the M5

Er ... Can I really get one? I shall be on the M5 tomorrow.

[carregwen]

I think I need to abuse my executive powers and stop this silly thread in the interests of public mental health.

Anyone want a CiC camera strap?

[Donald]

I think I need to abuse my executive powers and stop this silly thread in the interests of public mental health.

Anyone want a CiC camera strap?

Okay - Agreed.

I don't need the strap - Already got one.



END OF THREAD!

[carregwen]

[pono]

Both shot with Canon 50D, Sigma 105mm macro, 31mm extension tube, and single studio flash light. Six manually focussed exposures each - stacked in Helicon Focus.

C&C welcome

Why did you stack 6 shots? Was it to get evrything in focus? Can I do this with PS CS3?

[pono]

Are they all boring? Are they pretty or interesting? I really struggled between striking a balance between how soft and subtle they are in real life and making them "ping" in the photo more. There was so much in this flower to "work" with - I kind of didn't know what to do.

In conclusion, I've fiddled with these for over a month and can't decide what to think of or do with them.

I think these photos are very pretty. I like #3 the best too. For me, I think it's the aperture.

Do you use a macro lens, and what about lights?

[Katy Noelle]

I think these photos are very pretty. I like #3 the best too. For me, I think it's the aperture.

Do you use a macro lens, and what about lights?

Pono! Thanks so much for commenting! Nooooooo, I have no macro, just the kit lens. I get as close as i can with the tripod and my limited lens, squint my eyes, hyper focus, use mirror lockup and the 2 sec. timer and, then, crop. I think that it's a good way to learn while I wait and "earn my stripes".

I saw that you want a macro lens, too. The thought of the flora and fauna that you could practice on in Hawaii is exciting. Anyway, I WAS hoping that Santa might bring me that Canon 60mm macro but it looks doubtful, again. (Kay, I need to let Tom SEE me taking pictures of him on the John Deere!)

My lighting? I've always been tuned into what the light is doing - it's just this thing. If the light is good, I crowd by the window. I've got to work on what to do on cloudy days.

Thanks, again, for commenting!