Nature Pictures

No, it was done in camera.

Wow, ok, it just seemed very 'even', particularly in the way the
foreground tree's bark pattern is so clear still, but I guess this must
just be the difference in distance from the lens, and I guess it was
your tripod keeping the blur nice and vertical? Was this a fairly wide
angle lens? Definitely gonna give this a go. It made me think of
Klimt's paintings of birch trees, like this one:
http://www.expo-klimt.com/1_3.cfm?ID=1627840557 Although now I've
looked at the paintings again, they're quite dark. I think Klimt would
have like the amount of gold in your picture though!

wrote:

No, it was done in camera.


Wow, ok, it just seemed very 'even', particularly in the way the
foreground tree's bark pattern is so clear still, but I guess this must
just be the difference in distance from the lens, and I guess it was
your tripod keeping the blur nice and vertical?

Oh, there's no tripod, just hand held, long shutter speed. I found 1
second to be good outdoors and 1.5-2 seconds for the indoor stuff. If
it's bright out, you're gonna have to use an ND or two to bring the
shutter speed down far enough or just deal with the over exposure as
best you can in your image editor.

Was this a fairly wide
angle lens?

No, it's a 35-80 mm, which on the digital body is 56-128mm. On the
florals (indoors) I used close up diopters.

Definitely gonna give this a go. It made me think of
Klimt's paintings of birch trees, like this one:
http://www.expo-klimt.com/1_3.cfm?ID=1627840557 Although now I've
looked at the paintings again, they're quite dark. I think Klimt would
have like the amount of gold in your picture though!

I think light and bright colors overall work best for it. I did a couple
of just tree trunks and they came out as just kinda blobby. Ditto with
some taken at the cemetery, but we've got a very boring cemetery here.


--
Angela M. Cable
Paint Shop Pro 8, 9, X Private Beta Tester
Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source:
http://www.neocognition.com/

PSP Tutorial Links:
http://www.psplinks.com/

5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and mo
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/

wrote in message
oups.com...
Praising bad work rarely helps anybody

Agreed, but sorry, I don't think his work was bad - not for someone his
age, and not within the context of his site. I run photo workshops for
kids, so I know how 'bad' work can be (very!) 8) In my experience, kids
like what's *in* the pictures, and get bored pretty quickly with f
numbers and shutter speeds. So the full programme and autofocus misses
sometimes - so what? When it comes to 'beginners', especially kids,
their enthusiasm can be very fragile. Focusing on the positive is what
gets them on to the next stage. What I see in Joe's site is a young
lad, agog at the exhuberance of nature, enthusiastically snapping right
left and centre, and wanting to share this with as many people as
possible. I enjoyed looking at it (in context), and isn't the basic
definition of a good portfolio one that one enjoys looking at?

You're quite right of course, that criticism needs to be balanced. My
own post was deliberately not, because some of the other reaction was
excessively scornful. So many posters seem to give up as soon as they
see a bit of dodgy focussing or exposure; they make these easy
critisisms and don't bother to do the much harder part of looking for
good content. My aim was to balance the thread as a whole.

I know that posting about how to post is dull, but I think we could do
with occasional reminding that photo critisism is about finding the
good points in any picture, as well as the bad.


Yeah, I can attest for what you say here. I remember when I got my first
camera. All I wanted to do was click the shutter and then see what I'd done
and show others, no matter how bad it was. I guess this posting was a bit
of an eye opener. You do have to admire the enthusiasm I suppose if not
anything else, and this kid does have that at least. Apologies for scornful
grumpy behaviour on my part.

wrote:

There's a difference between intentional "un-focus" and carelessness.


Absolutely! But in that post I was more interested in the difference
between slamming a young photographer and encouraging him.


I don't know about weird, I've been experimenting with this:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=556781


Love it! I'm assuming this is done in the 'processing'? I particularly
like the Impressionist Trees. Lack of detail puts the emphasis on
light. Which is, after all, what the Impressionists were all about.
Thanks Angela, I'm inspired!


Looks like moving the camera while making the image; hand-held with a
very slow shutter speed.

wrote:
great photos whish i could do that, i might be able to if i had been to
a place like that, you luck, great job. i am also a new photographer
please check out my website.

www.the-photo-place.piczo.com

I think you did a great job. You very well could be a professional one
day. Persistence is the key, never give up.

I think its great that you have a website that you built yourself. When
I was you age I didn't even own a camera or know what a computer was!

Thanks for the reply.

Keep it up and God Bless you!

Pss.37:4
Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of
thine heart.