The Epic Saga - Weeds II, The Retribution

[I X L R 8]

And here I was thinking it would be "Weeds: Revenge of the Arachnid"

Thank you for that.
I like a sense of humor.
I think you read me the right way.
Be well.

 

[I X L R 8]

Dude, what? just - what?

I hope you're kidding,
I just visited your gallery.

 

[Brutus]

It looks like a painting to me.

Composition?

No. When blown up to full size, it seems to have been painted. Whatever post processing done is quite extreme.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Umm, I am not exactly sure what you are going on about here. I work with 21 mega pixel (OOC) images regularly, and viewed full size, the image is sharp as a tac. Yes, if you increase the size of an image from it's native camera resolution, you will introduce problems because the software has to "create" pixels. Reducing from native resolution removes pixels, but often, for the web, this makes soft images appear sharper.

I think people, like Butus, are wondering why you needed to create three threads, of the same subject, and you really haven't asked for critique, or how it could be better, or how to deal with the problems not getting a proper sharp exposure.

Ok. Then you tell me.
Deal??
Without offending you, I can promise you that what you are seeing here on the pic, is not what I'm seeing on my end as sharpness goes. By this I mean , Internet web site versus computer equipment and software.
That could be a discussed problem, for one.

get a better host.

Secondly, what about composition, .....of a weed??????????
I could use some advice there. And everywhere else.

Thera not much to discuss or work with as far as composition goes, with this image. Have you search for and read about composition on the internets?

Also, as was said once, basically, find a more compelling subject, for starters. Present the subject from a different perspective. From this image, and your others, it seems nobody can figure out exactly what you are trying to show us.

Do I need new lenses?

How would that help?

What can I digitally do with this image from a digital camera?
And why do I have that choice?

Do whatever you feel like. You have that choice because this is art.

Should I go with what the camera spits out? Or should I take advantage of its technology?

that's up to you. You are the artist, aren't you?

Where are the limits with Digital?

Your imagination and creativity are your limits.

Again , thank you.

You're welcome.


So, why did you get into photography, and what do you hope to accomplish with it?

 

[I X L R 8]

Get a new subject, please. Stop wallowing in failure and making a joke out of it to lessen the impact of your mediocrity, get a new subject that's actually interesting and improve.

I didn't try to insult you :meh: I gave you genuine advice. Find an interesting subject.

Can you honestly sit there and live with yourself after you cower down like this?
Knowing fully well your intentions?
Are you going to actually sit there and pretend you didn't write this allegation highlighted in red?

You're a joke. Someone needs to tell you that you're a joke.
Someone just did.

 

[I X L R 8]

get a better host.
Thera not much to discuss or work with as far as composition goes, with this image. Have you search for and read about composition on the internets?

Umm, well,,,,,,no.
Well , you see, I thought you had many of the answers. And I thought my question was simple.
You were quick to give advice yet in the same breath you tell me to search the " Internet's".
How many Internets should I search?
One? More than one?

Also, as was said once, basically, find a more compelling subject, for starters. Present the subject from a different perspective. From this image, and your others, it seems nobody can figure out exactly what you are trying to show us.

I'm trying to have " us " show me. Not the other way around.
You got it backwards.
All subjects are compelling. A good photographer can make a toothpick look good.
I'm a beginner image taker.
You speak like you're a professional. Are you?

 

[I X L R 8]

How would that help?

All lenses are the same??????????
Old Sigma is as good as new Ziess?

Am I to take you seriously?

 

[LaFoto]

As to this photo and the way I see it after you worked on it in post, I must say that apparently you overdid the noise reduction at first (I hope I remember right that noise reduction was applied :shock: :scratch: !?!?), to then regain sharpness by overdoing the sharpening process. This rendered you a photo that is on the brink of looking like a painting. You lost quite a bit of information on the way, that's what I see.

Though I do appreciate the focus on the leaf and its hairs!

But after you told us your lengthy story of the spider, I feel that precisely THAT spider ought to have been in the light and in focus in the end. After your story, your photo is a bit of a let-down, an anti-climax...

And while I defended your "epics" yesterday, my advice today is to maybe only offer "short stories", and not to be too defensive of your photos, as you keep calling them "failures" all the time, too. Which many now take as very active fishing for compliments - and many don't take that too well, I'm afraid.

 

[I X L R 8]

It looks like a painting to me.

Composition?

No. When blown up to full size, it seems to have been painted. Whatever post processing done is quite extreme.

Do you know anything about distortion or what happens when you blow an image up on film or digital, to the sizes you see here on large files?
Seriously....

Do you?

The image separates.
It doesn't GET BETTER

 

[I X L R 8]

As to this photo and the way I see it after you worked on it in post, I must say that apparently you overdid the noise reduction at first (I hope I remember right that noise reduction was applied :shock: :scratch: !?!?), to then regain sharpness by overdoing the sharpening process. This rendered you a photo that is on the brink of looking like a painting. You lost quite a bit of information on the way, that's what I see.

Though I do appreciate the focus on the leaf and its hairs!

But after you told us your lengthy story of the spider, I feel that precisely THAT spider ought to have been in the light and in focus in the end. After your story, your photo is a bit of a let-down, an anti-climax...

And while I defended your "epics" yesterday, my advice today is to maybe only offer "short stories", and not to be too defensive of your photos, as you keep calling them "failures" all the time, too. Which many now take as very active fishing for compliments - and many don't take that too well, I'm afraid.

Trust me, I'm not fishing for compliments.

 

[LaFoto]

Trust me, I'm not fishing for compliments.

Well, I can't help feeling that you sound it, though, being very defensive about a photo that you call a "failure" in the first post, and keeping a thread busy and going on and on and on with individual quotations and replies, trying to prove you how active and "important" (and popular?) you are on this forum... it's just that you do not come across as "modest" --- but you try in words to let us think so, which you don't succeed in. Too many words for that, I'm afraid.

 

[Raizels]

Dude, what? just - what?

I hope you're kidding,
I just visited your gallery.

I wasn't commenting on your photo, genius. Paranoid, are we? I was referring to the whole introduction you wrote that I just don't get. Now, tell me, What do my gallery or photographic skills have to do with the show you're putting on?? And why are you attacking my gallery? Did you see me claiming to be a good photographer anywhere? ugh. Go buy some self confidence.

 

[LaFoto]

Go buy some self confidence.

Raizels: don't entice him!!! :gah:

 

[Raizels]

Go buy some self confidence.

Raizels: don't entice him!!! :gah:

You're right. *humbly hangs head*

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Ignore list!