Some random pics
Banned
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,319
Likes: 0
From: City
Well, you got fine pics of your basic tomato, flower, dog, and water drops lol. They're in focus I guess 
There's nothing wrong with them, really, other than being kinda boring despite being technically fine.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you suck just because the pics are kinda dull to me. A lot of people screw up macro shots with lens shadow or some other issue, and yours look great. And if the dog was mine, I'd probably be exuberant.
Re: the last four:
IMHO, if the survey maker was showing the elevation instead of the year, it would be a lot more interesting.
If the young tree next to the stump had leaves, or at least visible buds, sure, but as it is, it gets lost against the sky, and a person gets eyestrain looking for the reason the picture was taken.
Again on this next one, is there a bird or animal in there somewhere? It isn't a horrible picture, just not much going on except tree branches. It looks like a discard from a cropped photo - the interesting part is out of the frame.
I suppose the last isn't a bad shot of a particular segment of the flange on a teleconverter, but the combination of the shallow depth of field, the lighting, and the angle make it hard to really see any detail. Not that it's a very interesting part of the piece anyway. The electrical contacts further around the curve might have made a more interesting photo, especially since what it was wouldn't be immediately obvious.
There's nothing wrong with them, really, other than being kinda boring despite being technically fine. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you suck just because the pics are kinda dull to me. A lot of people screw up macro shots with lens shadow or some other issue, and yours look great. And if the dog was mine, I'd probably be exuberant.
Re: the last four:
IMHO, if the survey maker was showing the elevation instead of the year, it would be a lot more interesting.
If the young tree next to the stump had leaves, or at least visible buds, sure, but as it is, it gets lost against the sky, and a person gets eyestrain looking for the reason the picture was taken.
Again on this next one, is there a bird or animal in there somewhere? It isn't a horrible picture, just not much going on except tree branches. It looks like a discard from a cropped photo - the interesting part is out of the frame.
I suppose the last isn't a bad shot of a particular segment of the flange on a teleconverter, but the combination of the shallow depth of field, the lighting, and the angle make it hard to really see any detail. Not that it's a very interesting part of the piece anyway. The electrical contacts further around the curve might have made a more interesting photo, especially since what it was wouldn't be immediately obvious.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 6,647
Likes: 0
From: Fajardo
Originally Posted by no_really,Nov 30 2006, 02:17 AM
Well, you got fine pics of your basic tomato, flower, dog, and water drops lol. They're in focus I guess There's nothing wrong with them, really, other than being kinda boring despite being technically fine.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you suck just because the pics are kinda dull to me. A lot of people screw up macro shots with lens shadow or some other issue, and yours look great. And if the dog was mine, I'd probably be exuberant.
Re: the last four:
IMHO, if the survey maker was showing the elevation instead of the year, it would be a lot more interesting.
If the young tree next to the stump had leaves, or at least visible buds, sure, but as it is, it gets lost against the sky, and a person gets eyestrain looking for the reason the picture was taken.
Again on this next one, is there a bird or animal in there somewhere? It isn't a horrible picture, just not much going on except tree branches. It looks like a discard from a cropped photo - the interesting part is out of the frame.
I suppose the last isn't a bad shot of a particular segment of the flange on a teleconverter, but the combination of the shallow depth of field, the lighting, and the angle make it hard to really see any detail. Not that it's a very interesting part of the piece anyway. The electrical contacts further around the curve might have made a more interesting photo, especially since what it was wouldn't be immediately obvious.
There's nothing wrong with them, really, other than being kinda boring despite being technically fine. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you suck just because the pics are kinda dull to me. A lot of people screw up macro shots with lens shadow or some other issue, and yours look great. And if the dog was mine, I'd probably be exuberant.
Re: the last four:
IMHO, if the survey maker was showing the elevation instead of the year, it would be a lot more interesting.
If the young tree next to the stump had leaves, or at least visible buds, sure, but as it is, it gets lost against the sky, and a person gets eyestrain looking for the reason the picture was taken.
Again on this next one, is there a bird or animal in there somewhere? It isn't a horrible picture, just not much going on except tree branches. It looks like a discard from a cropped photo - the interesting part is out of the frame.
I suppose the last isn't a bad shot of a particular segment of the flange on a teleconverter, but the combination of the shallow depth of field, the lighting, and the angle make it hard to really see any detail. Not that it's a very interesting part of the piece anyway. The electrical contacts further around the curve might have made a more interesting photo, especially since what it was wouldn't be immediately obvious.
Hope you enjoy! As requested for a more interesting pic!
Trending Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post