Another good one Bruce. Not your best backlit flower, but still, darn good.
Let me first state the obvious. You have done two manipulations here. First, fixing the background. This is IMO ok, because you havent altered the motif it self. Here, you have just altered the way the motif is rendered. The other one is different, here you have altered nature. I don't have much against that either, as long as this is what you saw when the motif caught your eye. Does it improve the image? IMO, no, I think it makes the photo less interesting. To me, perfection often is a bore. But that's another debate. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: 24. oktober 2006 23:06 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: PESO - Simple Macro This is an interesting discussion. Since the first post, I have 'fixed' the image to not show the reality that was there. I suppose it would be helpful to know the circumstances a bit. This was shot on San Bruno mountain in a state park that is trying to protect the plants and animals. So first, one would have to decide whether to alter the foliage to make a shot that is different than reality or not. Second, it was shot in early afternoon in very bright sun. That means shooting much more like film - because I could barely make out the review screen - certainly not well enough to see the details that are deemed as less desirable. For myself, I tend toward things as they were, rather than altering them. It is probably why my zoo shots still leave me feeling a bit like a cheat. So a little natural flaw doesn't bother me as much as some others. I realize that all picture taking is a manipulation to some degree or another. The lens chosen, the exposure, the filters, the angle and composition are all somewhat a manipulation of the subject. So does putting an insect in the fridge to make it sluggish bother you? Does removing foliage or nearby plants bother you? Does misting a spider web bother you? The list can go on. Thoughts anyone? Or shall we talk about aperture simulators? Here is the original: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3580.htm Here is the 'fixed' one: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3580a.htm -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, October 24, 2006, 1:24:04 PM, you wrote: k> Hey,. Shel... k> It's REALITY! What can I say? k> I loved what you captuted, but, change this and change that and I'd find k> it more acceptable? Whatever that means... k> keith k> Shel Belinkoff wrote: >> Behind the three heads in the foreground, behind the center stalk and the >> "V" created by the left and center stalks. >> >> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3580.htm >> >> Shel >> [Original Message] >>> From: keith_w <keith_w >> >>> OOF flower head? All three are lousy with teeny, tiny hair-like fuzz >>> needles, that are quite clearly delineated. Some of them couldn't be >>> more than .001-.002" in diameter, yet Bruce and his hand-held lens >>> captured them well. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
