Yellow Tulips

[poker]

Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL
1/100Sec.
F1.8
Evaluative metering
Exposure Compensation:+1/3
ISO Speed:800
Lens: 50mm

Unfortunately, the ISO was set to 800. I don't remember why I felt I needed that high an ISO. There is so much image noise, I wouldn't print this for more than a 4x6.

I felt the color worked really well on their new antique coffee table. The living room wall is a bunch of french doors so I had window light in combination with the house lighting.

[swmdrayfan]

Nice DOF, though. I think the colors are right. Ahhhh that pesky ISO. Been there---done that.
John

[Anbesol]

im sorry but to me there is nothing about this shot that makes it anything better then ordinary. there is nothing unique about it, and the composition seems a bit below par. On the good side you captured the color accurately with decent looking DOF.

[Ronnoco]

im sorry but to me there is nothing about this shot that makes it anything better then ordinary. there is nothing unique about it, and the composition seems a bit below par. On the good side you captured the color accurately with decent looking DOF.

OK, why is the depth of field decent? Please explain, because I do not see your point.

Ronnoco

[Anbesol]

i said decent, not good - i wasnt trying to eat him up or anything. The bokeh looks decent, thats what i meant by that. come on ron - nothing wrong with being nice...

[Ronnoco]

i said decent, not good - i wasnt trying to eat him up or anything. The bokeh looks decent, thats what i meant by that. come on ron - nothing wrong with being nice...

No, but how about helping him out and making a suggestion as to how he could have improved the shot. That is what I am sure, he wanted.

Just a positive thought!

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

i said decent, not good - i wasnt trying to eat him up or anything. The bokeh looks decent, thats what i meant by that. come on ron - nothing wrong with being nice...

If you want to be positive, you also need to be accurate and honest in your compliments.
That is certainly what I would want if I were posting a photo? On the other hand what is the problem with being honest enough to indicate that a centre of interest with more impact is really necessary?

Ronnoco

[greghalliday]

Dude, Ronnoco.

Since when are you the critique critiquer?

Did PJ make you the new critique moderator?

I know what you are trying to do based on your Critique Standards post, but why be so passive aggressive? You don't need to shoot people out of the air and then give them the "smiley face" on the down.

[poker]

i said decent, not good - i wasnt trying to eat him up or anything. The bokeh looks decent, thats what i meant by that. come on ron - nothing wrong with being nice...

Ah yes, Anbesol and Ronnoco, my toughest critics.

Reading your post is like taking bad tasting medicine...taste nasty but I have to take it.

What puzzles me the most is that Ronnoco tends to leave me ambiguously negative posts which are nothing like the standards he has been preaching. I've asked him in the past to "please elaborate".

Anyway, this photo was falling off the list and I assumed it didn't catch anyone's attention which is a lesson in itself.

I have a well centered version of this photo but it was very standard. Anbesol, I believe I just read your post stating, "if you want to take shots of inanimate subjects, get extreme about it." IMO, I consider this composition extreme but still following the rules of third although you state the, "composition seems a bit below par."

I will admit, after looking at the shot for a while now, the DOF is a bit too much. I get carried away with my F1.8 lens. Never the less, my subject is the TULIP and NOT the arrangement with the vase. I wanted the tulip to be in focus and I wanted the richness of the yellow to contrast the brown background. It is simple but not too simple via the composition.

Thanks for your opinion....except for Ronnoco who, once again, leaves me a post without leaving a critique.

Don't worry...I get it. Hopefully, no offense to anyone because the Internet stopped offending me years ago.

[Anbesol]

im not ronnoco - im not judging based on rules ;). if you break the rules and have an awesome shot i'll enjoy it and tell you how i enjoy it. What I would probably do to make this shot better is stop it down, firstly. you said you had it at 1.8 which is what it looks like, maybe try a 2.8 at the same angle. Also - get all the flowers in the shot in the corner, it looks like you just clipped off a single row of flowers up top. Then I think youd have more of the shot youre looking for.

[poker]

What I would probably do to make this shot better is stop it down, firstly. you said you had it at 1.8 which is what it looks like, maybe try a 2.8 at the same angle. Also - get all the flowers in the shot in the corner, it looks like you just clipped off a single row of flowers up top. Then I think youd have more of the shot youre looking for.

Yes, I will try 2.8 next time because I have a feeling I'm over doing the 1.8 on many of my photos. My next Sigma will probably be a fixed f2.8 which will stop me from going to 1.8 all the time

Not sure about "stopping down." Doesn't that mean less light? The shot doesn't have hot spots unless it's really bright on your monitor or too dark on mine. It might get too dark, no? I didn't feel I had enough light to begin with and that is one good reason I used F1.8.

I did take a bunch of shots but really didn't have the time to work harder at it. I was there for dinner

Thank you Anbesol.

And to you John....back in the 35mm days....you couldn't change your ISO on the fly....double edged sword! I remember rewinding film and leaving the leader out so I can change to a different ISO film....then putting back the other film and taking dark shots to move to the last recorded frame! Those were the days Hahahahah....

[poker]

IOn the other hand what is the problem with being honest enough to indicate that a centre of interest with more impact is really necessary?

Ronnoco

Hey Ronnoco, I'll assume this sentence is part of your critique for this shot. I see your point. Thanks.