Dear Author works, I was just thinking the other day: I haven't seen you for a while—no one to criticize me. Thanks for the C, too—your attention is precious. The photo (the red airplane) was taken in 1970, by the photographer "Amateur," using DS4 film. Altai is beautiful, my homeland.
Alexey Krik, I understand you so well)))))) By the way, why do you need the curve of your hip?)))) (Joke, but it's cool))) The curve of a yellow guitar, I hug you tenderly, thu, thu.... Now Atlas will come and avenge all the thu, and I still won't be able to tell you my next theory about life positions)))))) If anything, there are three main ones - the stoic ones and one prostitute - but my favorite))))
Vlad Sokolovsky, good morning. I apologize for writing here about my work; I just don't know how to reach you under my work (you didn't leave a comment). Please write under my work "Red Dawn," which you rated a 2 – why? If it's not too much trouble...
Please write under my work "Red Dawn," which you rated a 2 – why? If it's not too much trouble...
Victor Burlev, Hello! I certainly promise to do so! But only after you first demand an explanation and get one from those who "advertised" you and gave you "10s." Agreed?
You understand that I won't demand anything, just as I can't demand anything from you. I've approached you with a request, as a professional. If you find the time and inclination, please write – I'd be grateful. Thank you for your attention to the work.
Vlad Sokolovsky, I asked because I don't understand this part View crop, and other different places in the photo, and when I don't understand something, I get angry (at myself, of course)))
I asked because I don't understand this place (cropping option), and other various places in the photo, and when I don't understand something, I get angry (at myself, of course)))
O. Salas, I'm not a descendant of V. Messing, so it's hard for me to understand your train of thought You could have just written out what's confusing and that's it. This place is a close-up (open image in a new window)...I don't know what kind of catch you're looking for here.
O. Salas, I'm not a descendant of V. Messing, so it's hard for me to understand your train of thought. You could have just written down what's confusing and that's it. This is a close-up of the place (open image in a new window)... I don't know what kind of catch you're looking for here.
Vlad Sokolovsky, no catches, I'm just trying to stitch together images myself, and I see that landscapes are very popular on the site. And sometimes I notice the horizon is off, or some details are missing. But from your photo, I even thought that you pasted the sky in there, because after mentally comparing the reflections, I was confused, View cropView cropView crop , and this reflection View crop plus the flow from lake to lake, with different water levels, made me think it was a stitch. ... and also the ovals of the circles on the water hint at different shooting points.
The flow from lake to lake, with different water levels, made me think it was a stitch.
O.Salas, it's not the different water levels – it's actually the different grass levels... And the reflections – I'm simply standing much higher than the lake. I can't even tell how much of a difference in elevation there is. But it's not 20-30 meters... And the 260mm focal length did the trick.
Olga Dan, :-) The way it's built - yes. And the quality... I feel like I'm looking through a thin film of soap. I don't have enough sharpness... . Maybe the zoom worked that way at its limit, or maybe something else. I don't know. That's why I'm keeping quiet))
Olga Dan, :-) The way it's built - yes. And the quality... I feel like I'm looking through a thin film of soap. I lack sharpness... . Maybe the zoom worked that way at its limit, or maybe something else. I don't know. That's why I'm keeping quiet))
Alexey Krik, I was keeping quiet too, and then I couldn't resist asking you...) I looked at the EXIF file - the shooting time was 4:55 a.m. - it seems like a busy time and the shadows should be different, which would give the work more depth and volume. I also didn't find enough sharpness, including - I think that with such a focal length - the depth of field was chosen incorrectly - the aperture should have been closed more, which would have increased the sharpness of the frame, including the reflections. The composition of the frame - the diagonal, I would have liked it to be even more "diagonal"... I was also very surprised by the number of recommendations for such a vague work, and the recommendations began to grow rapidly when the author revealed his "anonymity"... I know that it is not easy to photograph in the mountains - you have to constantly change the settings depending on the distant or near perspective, the light and etc. Thank you for answering)
Olga Dan, as for recommendations, people can honestly vote if they think the photo is excellent. I don't see any reason for outrage or even bewilderment. :-)
Olga Dan, As for recommendations, people can honestly vote for the photo because they think it's excellent. I don't see any reason for outrage or even bewilderment. :-)
Alexey Krik, You're certainly right about the different views on the work. There's no outrage or bewilderment—just a little surprise...)
Alexey Krik, )))And I tried it just for fun - on my grandfather's Zenit - Wow, what a hassle - and that's considering I developed the film and printed the photos in a photo lab...)))We're so spoiled by digital that it's scary to even think about film...!)And the frame limit!!!)
Alexey Krik, )))And I tried it just for fun - on my grandfather's Zenit - Eh...uzhzzzzoooooo much hassle - and that's considering I developed the film and printed the photos in a photo lab...)))We're so spoiled by digital that even thinking about film is scary...!) And the frame limit!!!)
Olga Dan, well, everyone has different ideas about happiness ) For one, it's simplicity, and for another, fussing over film, so we each do what makes us happy.
As for this photo, I can say that I personally was pleased with it, since it's quite unusual, exotic, I would even say... And as for the lack of sharpness, well, who knows, maybe it would have been better with sharpness?.. There's graphics and a surprising reflection here - and for me, that's enough to enjoy the photo. I don't want to get carried away with film again either; its time in my life has passed, and I think it would be more useful to spend this time on other things...
Film makes sense for people who want to experience the mystery of the process, who will hear the shutter curtains of their grandfather's Zenit speak to them, who will inevitably wonder what kind of creature is shrinking behind the glass, and who will inevitably, after a wild and unforgettable night, sniff their fingers and think, no, methol isn't so grainy after all. But it's not at all certain that anyone else will know or remember. And the odds that someone who stained their fingers with hydroquinone will become famous are a very, very round number. But one thing remains, a very important moment in life...
The quality... I feel like I'm looking through a thin film of soap. I lack sharpness...
Vlad is very meticulous about the quality of his photographs – both technically and artistically. I think you're right – the lens. But not at the limit of the zoom – it's actually 260mm (out of the 150-600mm range). More like front-focus. ... Vlad Sokolovsky, would you like to comment?
Alexey Krik, I don't know))) Today I picked up a camera for the first time in a year. I went to the seaside with the kids by chance. Oh my God! I never touched it, but the kids, like two monkeys, were snatching it from each other and snapping away, asking where the button was and which one. They only asked for the first five seconds, though, after that it was like, "We know without you." The funniest thing? Do you know what they were shooting? (Considering they're great at shooting on their phones and posting on Instagram)))) Trash! Really!))) If the author allows, I'll share a couple of their photos. But they were happy! They immediately looked through them, adjusted them, and ran off to keep shooting. Even without film, there's happiness in shooting!
Alexey Krik, Vlad is very meticulous about the quality of his photographs – both technically and artistically. I think you're right – the lens. But not at the zoom limit – it's actually 260mm (out of a 150-600mm range). More like front-focus. ... Vlad Sokolovsky, would you like to comment?
Andrey Semykin, I don't understand what kind of sharpness you're looking for at such a distance from the subject...the drop in sharpness could be due to simple haze, or, in other words, the optical properties of the atmosphere. Period.
Film is easier. You don't have to worry about finding pearls in a huge pile of filmed crap. The pile is small, and you can immediately see whether something turned out right. And you don't have to fuss over Photoshopping what didn't work out on camera. Because on film, it always comes out naturally. Then you just print it. And here's another thing. They're pouring out digital footage, but the best part, the one that should have been captured, always happens between frames. Don't think I'm starting a film vs. Canon fight.
Read the optical properties of the atmosphere. Period.
Alexander Zeonoff, Sasha, given the reputation you've already built for yourself on the site with your "uncontrolled stream of consciousness," trying to teach others seems ridiculous and absurd. Therefore, even "pointing" to strangers can add very little to the overall picture of a person—just a small touch to the image ))) ... As for the sharpness, it's present on the water despite the "properties of the atmosphere" ... I would be very grateful if you could spare me from communicating with you in the future...
Alexander Zeonoff, Sasha, given the reputation you've already built for yourself on the site with your "uncontrolled stream of consciousness," trying to teach others seems ridiculous and absurd. Therefore, even "poking" strangers can add very little to the overall personality profile—just a small touch to the image. ))) ... As for harshness, it's present in the water, despite the "atmospheric properties." ... I would be very grateful if you could spare me from communicating with you in the future...
Andrey Semykin, Agreed, Andryusha. But for the sake of objectivity, I suggest you carefully examine your own work for harshness and consider the reasons for its absence. This is before blaming others.
Basically, here's a question... which most likely pertains to matters of "authorial preference," namely... which plane to focus on and what depth of field to choose. I usually focus on the middle plane. Because the distant plane doesn't need sharpness, and the near plane, unless there are objects to focus on, doesn't need it either. Like in this shot, I'd even add some blur to the distant plane... something like that. I'll say it again. It's a matter of "authorial" decision. That's all.
I read with interest the discussions about depth of field, blur, zoom, front focus, digital vs. film, etc.
Vlad Sokolovsky,
Will you comment?
Andrey Semykin, Yes, no problem...
The crash could be caused by simple haze, read about the optical properties of the atmosphere
In fact, it's much simpler than it seems: the site has a KB "weight" limit. Naturally, this shot, with its dimensions (in pixels) and the presence of small details, doesn't fit within those limits. At all. It's about 1.8 MB. Without compression, it looks like this: And on Photocenter, it's about 750 KB. This is the first reason why someone might have "poor vision." Although, personally, I don't notice anything special.
The second reason is the monitor on which the photo is viewed. I don't know what everyone else was viewing it on, but I was really curious myself about what could be wrong with the photo (I have a 27" iMac, not a Retina display (God forbid a photographer uses one)). I took a flash drive with the version from the website and went to a computer store and looked at the photo on several different monitors. And again, I didn't see anything unusual (I was only interested in detail). A typical shot. All I can recommend is calibrate your monitors and avoid viewing or taking photos on laptops or old LCD monitors.
Andrey Semykin, I don't understand what kind of sharpness you're looking for at such a close distance to the subject... the drop in sharpness could be due to simple haze, or rather, the optical properties of the atmosphere. Period.
Alexander Zeonoff, Yes, the sharpness is quite decent at that focal length (I posted a fragment of the shot above). You won't be able to see the dew drops, of course, but everything else (including the ripples on the water) is quite good.
...and even with such a resolution of 300 megapixels, when everyone knows that for photo sites there is a well-known standard of 72 megapixels...
I apologize for interfering, but here you have formulated something absurd with the numbers, their use, and in general the phrase shows that you have not really understood what you are talking about...
You can then return to these works at any time using the link:
https://photocentra.com/author.php?id_auth=26730&works=1#favor=1&id_auth=26730&page=1
You can remove them from your favorites, except for "River"
I understand you so well)))))) By the way, why do you need the curve of your hip?)))) (Joke, but it's cool))) The curve of a yellow guitar, I hug you tenderly, thu, thu.... Now Atlas will come and avenge all the thu, and I still won't be able to tell you my next theory about life positions)))))) If anything, there are three main ones - the stoic ones and one prostitute - but my favorite))))
I apologize for writing here about my work; I just don't know how to reach you under my work (you didn't leave a comment).
Please write under my work "Red Dawn," which you rated a 2 – why? If it's not too much trouble...
But only after you first demand an explanation and get one from those who "advertised" you and gave you "10s."
Agreed?
You understand that I won't demand anything, just as I can't demand anything from you.
I've approached you with a request, as a professional. If you find the time and inclination, please write – I'd be grateful.
Thank you for your attention to the work.
You could have just written out what's confusing and that's it.
This place is a close-up (open image in a new window)...I don't know what kind of catch you're looking for here.
http://i5.imageban.ru/out/2016/12/25/29b9bb28b5f87ec5b387554c97a68e29.jpg
... and also the ovals of the circles on the water hint at different shooting points.
And the reflections – I'm simply standing much higher than the lake.
I can't even tell how much of a difference in elevation there is. But it's not 20-30 meters...
And the 260mm focal length did the trick.
Somewhere the birds landed/took off earlier, somewhere later.
For me, EXIF and WB are the same thing. :-)
I don't see any reason for outrage or even bewilderment. :-)
As for this photo, I can say that I personally was pleased with it, since it's quite unusual, exotic, I would even say... And as for the lack of sharpness, well, who knows, maybe it would have been better with sharpness?.. There's graphics and a surprising reflection here - and for me, that's enough to enjoy the photo.
I don't want to get carried away with film again either; its time in my life has passed, and I think it would be more useful to spend this time on other things...
I think you're right – the lens. But not at the limit of the zoom – it's actually 260mm (out of the 150-600mm range). More like front-focus.
...
Vlad Sokolovsky, would you like to comment?
I don't know))) Today I picked up a camera for the first time in a year. I went to the seaside with the kids by chance.
Oh my God! I never touched it, but the kids, like two monkeys, were snatching it from each other and snapping away, asking where the button was and which one. They only asked for the first five seconds, though, after that it was like, "We know without you."
The funniest thing? Do you know what they were shooting? (Considering they're great at shooting on their phones and posting on Instagram)))) Trash! Really!)))
If the author allows, I'll share a couple of their photos.
But they were happy! They immediately looked through them, adjusted them, and ran off to keep shooting.
Even without film, there's happiness in shooting!
And here's another thing. They're pouring out digital footage, but the best part, the one that should have been captured, always happens between frames.
Don't think I'm starting a film vs. Canon fight.
Sasha, given the reputation you've already built for yourself on the site with your "uncontrolled stream of consciousness," trying to teach others seems ridiculous and absurd.
Therefore, even "pointing" to strangers can add very little to the overall picture of a person—just a small touch to the image )))
...
As for the sharpness, it's present on the water despite the "properties of the atmosphere"
...
I would be very grateful if you could spare me from communicating with you in the future...
Agreed, Andryusha.
But for the sake of objectivity, I suggest you carefully examine your own work for harshness and consider the reasons for its absence. This is before blaming others.
Like in this shot, I'd even add some blur to the distant plane... something like that.
I'll say it again. It's a matter of "authorial" decision. That's all.
As for the examples you provided, I don't consider them successful.
With that, I take my leave.
Vlad Sokolovsky, Andrey Semykin, Yes, no problem...
In fact, it's much simpler than it seems: the site has a KB "weight" limit.
Naturally, this shot, with its dimensions (in pixels) and the presence of small details, doesn't fit within those limits. At all. It's about 1.8 MB.
Without compression, it looks like this:
And on Photocenter, it's about 750 KB. This is the first reason why someone might have "poor vision."
Although, personally, I don't notice anything special.
The second reason is the monitor on which the photo is viewed. I don't know what everyone else was viewing it on, but I was really curious myself about what could be wrong with the photo (I have a 27" iMac, not a Retina display (God forbid a photographer uses one)).
I took a flash drive with the version from the website and went to a computer store and looked at the photo on several different monitors. And again, I didn't see anything unusual (I was only interested in detail). A typical shot.
All I can recommend is calibrate your monitors and avoid viewing or taking photos on laptops or old LCD monitors.
....
You won't be able to see the dew drops, of course, but everything else (including the ripples on the water) is quite good.