1st post

hover.jpg


OK - crisis over - figured it out now !!!
 
Wow,

I wish my first attempt had been half as good as that. Excellent shot, really well done.

Depth of Field looks good, what processing have you done on it or is it straight from camera?
 
Excellent first post (y)
 
Oh yes, a real cracker, well done :)
 
That's great for a 1st try! I can't photograph critters for toffee on my camera :bang:
Whats that background, brick ?
 
Wow,

I wish my first attempt had been half as good as that. Excellent shot, really well done.

Depth of Field looks good, what processing have you done on it or is it straight from camera?


:agree: excellent first shot! I look forward to seeing more(y)
 
"I'd be tempted to very slightly raise the saturation to make the image really "pop" though"

Mike, why do general photographers always feel a need to over-saturate things? The principle of natural history photography is that the colours should look natural and as they were on the subject. "Gilding the lily" is not considered ethical in natural history photography which attempts to portray life as it actually is.

I think the colours on the hoverfly are great so why mess up a perfectly good picture by over post processing it. If you get it right in camera it should virtually go straight through post processing without needing much other than resizing and sharpening. If you need to do much more than that you got it wrong at the taking stage. The need for extensive post processing is a sign of poor photography.

You did not do it with slide photography so why start with digital? But we seem now to be breeding a generation of post processing "twiddlers" who cannot resist using all the Photoshop "bells and whistles" on every shot just because they have bought expensive software. Hopefully some day the results will just come from a digital camera as they did with slides and only very basic post processing software will be needed, if any at all.

Sorry Mike, off my hobby horse now!

The only thing spoiling the picture in the closest wing is out of focus but depth of field is such at these magnifications it is impossible to get both wings in unless a "plan view" of the insect is taken.

DaveW
 
i would like to see the original image before the crop, how much did you loose?
 
Really nice shot LP - a tricky subject and you have very much done it justice - well done! Yes the fence colour isn't great but to be honest you've got such a smooth background blur there it doesn't notice so much as you'd think - the subject matter just leaps out!

I think you've made the correct call to treat the PP very gently. IMO it really doesn't need anything more done to it - well done you!!

:clap:
 
That's just not fair, your first post is better than my last post.

Well done (y)
 
Great shot!

I actually think the background compliments the fly and flower and with the fly's back and it's pattern being the main subject (rather than the eyes/head) makes the shot superb imho. :clap:

More of the same please

David.
 
"I'd be tempted to very slightly raise the saturation to make the image really "pop" though"
.............. The principle of natural history photography is that the colours should look natural and as they were on the subject. "Gilding the lily" is not considered ethical in natural history photography which attempts to portray life as it actually is. ..........................................................


DaveW

But the colours the camera captures, are not 100% the natural colours of the original scene.
The use of Photoshop is down to individual taste, I know from experience at our local camera club some judges hate the slightest manipulation of an image and others will mark you down for not having used it.:shrug: The trouble is you dont know which judges you are going to get before submitting images:)
 
really!!?!?!? you cropped that much!!! wow!!! ace picture, still really sharp after the crop!
 
Back
Top