Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Connect to User

loading

DRicherby's Activity

DRicherby > DRicherby's Activity

Quick Stats

Stats are refreshed every 24 hours
Photos:76
Forum Topics:7
Forum Comments:278
Photo Comments:10152
Competition Entries: 0
Modification Uploaded: 391
Talacre Sunset

Talacre Sunset by JamesFarley

The lean, by the way, is caused by angling the camera upwards -- it's the same perspective effect you get by looking up at a tall building. It's not caused by the lens per se, though it tends to be more noticeable in a wide-angle shot like this one because things lean more the farther they are from the centre of the lens and the wide-angle includes more stuff that's far from the centre. If there was something to balance it on the left, I wouldn't have a problem with the lean, but it looks a bit strange on its own.

Great work on the HDR processing. I always find it best when the controls are used gently like this.

Dave.

drops

drops by matasa

PinkK wrote:
> Wish I knew how to do this


EPZ's tuturial.

Dave.

view from islandmagee

view from islandmagee by williamsloan

I'm not sure a tripod would have bought you a huge amount. Are you sure that EXIF is correct? If so, the change I'd make to the way this was taken would be to decrease the ISO to 400, giving a more than adequate shutter speed of 1/250s. The reason I ask if the ISO is correct is that I'd expect a lot of noise at ISO-3200 and I don't see any.

The second version is a big improvement as it has much more punch. I think it would be improved further by moving some distance to one side to move one of the farmhouses to the left and one to the right, to avoid the very central composition.

Overall, though, I just don't find the photo very exciting. It's a nice view but that doesn't necessarily translate into a strong photograph: I can't hear the birds singing or smell the flowers or feel the warm sun on my back so you need to work extra-hard to convince me that I'm interested in this place. In fact, you have to work super-hard because it's just as easy for me to look at your photo as it is to look at a photo of somewhere really dramatic like the Grand Canyon.

OK, so how do you compete with that? Of course, really, you can't but, on the other hand, it should be much easier for you to convince me to spend a long weekend in Northern Ireland than to make the treck to Arizona. You also have the "hidden gem" factor in your favour, because most British people don't know the first thing about the landscape of Northern Ireland, beyond maybe the Giant's Causeway. Try to find compositional elements that will lead the viewer through the scene. Something like a road moving from somewhere close to somewhere in the distance can often help a lot. Maybe shooting along the valley, rather than across it. Somewhere for the eye to rest can be useful: put the foreground farmhouse around the intersection of thirds (probably lower-right, as it's facing to the left) and the viewer starts to imagine that they live there and see the view from their own front window. Or maybe a well-placed and nicely lit group of farm animals so we can think, "Lucky them, getting to see this view all day." What's the tower on the horizon on the far right? Would you get a good photograph of the tower, with the landscape as a background?

Nice light throughout the shot would obviously help, too, but if we got to pick the weather, life would be much better. Wink

Dave.

general

general by shydallah

It's a nice enough shot and well composed. It has fairly good detail, though it's not super-sharp and a bit more contrast would help.

The best way to improve the photo would be to shoot in better light. When it's overcast and getting dark, you're forced to use slow shutter speeds, wide apertures and high ISO, all of which tend to hurt image quality. Here, for example, I think you've been lucky to get a reasonable shot despite the very slow shutter (1/80s when you'd ideally aim for something around 1/(6 x focal length) on this camera, i.e., 1/1000s or so).

By the way, in your description, the 35mm-equivalent range of your lens should be 24-840mm, according to Canon's specs.

Dave.

Happy Chappy

Happy Chappy by paulbroad

It's a nice enough shot but I don't get an awful lot out of it because it feels like he's too much in his bubble. Right now, he's on the phone and, as usual with mobile phones, that conversation is his whole world; the fairly tight crop here, just showing his upper body in his window, does nothing to dispute that. The shot needs something to contrast with what he's doing: he's happy but his customers are grumpy because he's ignoring them; he's happy but everyone else is grumpy because it's raining; he's happy because of his phone call and his customers are happy because they have ice-cream or because it's nice and sunny.

Street photography requires a lot of nerve and I don't have it. The classic shots, as I'm sure you know, are and were mostly taken with normal to wideish-angle lenses, in close, although the subject is often still not aware of the camera. This shot is the most timid approach possible: shot with a long lens and of a subject on his phone who's so unaware of what's going on around him that you could probably get his face full-frame with a 50mm lens without him noticing. This seldom works because there's so much distance between the viewer and the subject, both physically and metaphorically. (Indeed, I'd argue that the Doisneau works precisely because of the distance, as the woman appears to be in danger but we're powerless to help, even by shouting a warning.)

Be brave!

Dave.

squirrel

squirrel by kathrynlouise

Yes, I think this fixes the composition. Smile

Dave.

Prince Philip

Prince Philip by bigbob2

This one doesn't really work for me -- sorry. Sad On a purely technical level, you need more contrast, and the "visitor parking" sign is a huge distraction; it doesn't help that the prominent person on the right-hand edge is looking out of the photo, too. But the big problem is that I don't feel any "story" happening with the Queen and the Duke. They're not interacting with each other, they're not both interacting with the crowd, neither of them is interacting with you.

Mostly, I think you've just been unlucky: the stars of the show were actually starring in somebody else's show.

Dave.

Dockey Wood

Dockey Wood by mark2uk

Overall, this works very well and the symmetrical composition is natural and sensible. I have just a few little suggestions.

- A little more depth of field would be nice, to get the foreground sharp.

- The lead-in takes us to a point in the background that's very close to what seems to be a person standing in the distance. I find that person rather distracting as he or she doesn't really fit in. Best cloned out, I think.

- It looks like it's leaning to the left: the ground slopes that way and most of the trees are leaning. Although the ground may well be a gentle hill and trees don't necessarily grow vertically, especially if there's a prevailing wind, I think the photo would feel more relaxed if it was straightened.

Dave.

Night Shift

Night Shift by banehawi

Have another comment. Smile The Fuji skin tones do look very good. Thanks for all your comments in PM about such things, too -- they've been very helpful.

Dave.

SCAPE OF THE URBAN

SCAPE OF THE URBAN by youmightlikethis

Well spotted, Sue. Ther are certainly dust spots on this -- I've posted a mod with some definites ringed in red and some maybes in blue. Bryan Carnathan has a good sensor cleaning article on his site.

Dave.

L.

L. by MiaCarulla

A bit underexposed but I like the lines in this. Well seen!

(Near the Albert Hall, yes?)

Dave.

Oscar

Oscar by eeffbee

This is lovely but watch your exposure -- there's a big patch of pure white by his nose, where all the detail's gone. That's always a risk with animals that have white patches, because the camera exposes for the bulk of the shot and ends up blowing out the brightest part. There's probably an option you can set that will flash blown-out parts of the photograph and that's a really useful tool, along with the histogram. Dial in negative exposure compensation to darken the image and avoid the blown highlights; you can then use a curves adjustment or similar in your image editor to correct the resulting darkness of the image, while keeping the highlights controlled.

Dave.

general

general by shydallah

This is sharp and well lit photo of these rhododendrons, but it's not very exciting. The plant itself is unremarkable so it's not very interesting to see a straightforward shot of it. The shot is technically fine but, to improve it, you need to be more creative. Find an interesting angle; find a viewpoint that creates a good pattern of flowers. Perhaps use depth of field to focus in on a few of the flowers, with some out of focus ones as a background.

Dave.

bird

bird by brrttpaul

I think it's a female stonechat (Saxicola torquata), though I'm no expert. The RSPB Bird Identifier is really good for British birds. The Collins Guide to British Wildlife is also useful, if you want something to throw in the car so it's always there when you need it. Amazon are selling it for six quid at the moment, which is a total bargain. (Bleh. If you write "Amazon", EPZ turns it into a link. Good job I wasn't talking about the river...)

As for the photo, it's well exposed and looks decently sharp but the bird's too small for the shot to work as a portrait and the surroundings aren't interesting enough for it to be a photograph of the surroundings that includes a bird. I would definitely crop out the yellow highlight in the bottom left because it draws the eye very strongly out of the photograph.

Dave.

Bluebells in the Rain

Bluebells in the Rain by teocali

MossyOak wrote:
> Remember the closer in the less dof you get, hyperfocal distance.


I think you're confused about what the hyperfocal distance is. The hyperfocal distance for a particular aperture and focal length is the distance to focus at to get the maximum possible depth of field. Specifically, focusing at the hyperfocal gives sharp focus from half that distance, out to infinity. Also, the hyperfocal distance on an 800mm-equivalent lens at f/5.6 is nearly four miles away. Not gonna work.

With a fixed focal length lens, the distance you shoot from is entirely governed by the composition you want. Getting in closer would crop the image tighter.

Dave.

Old friends

Old friends by mommablue

The greens look a bit over-saturated to me but this is a lovely shot and the letterbox composition works really well. I miss living near bluebell woods. :-/

Dave.

TopicDate Made
Reading photos left-to-right20/04/2012 - 12:57 PM
"Protected" photos19/01/2011 - 3:51 PM
Lost votes?19/01/2011 - 3:26 PM
TopicDate Contibuted
Reading photos left-to-right22/04/2012 - 10:14 AM
Image on Critique Gallery24/03/2012 - 4:38 PM
Being Vertically Challenged23/03/2012 - 11:41 AM
Probably being thick!05/03/2012 - 11:57 PM
Favourite Members15/02/2011 - 11:46 PM
EPZ TV item....14/02/2011 - 9:57 AM
"Protected" photos03/02/2011 - 1:08 PM
Day 28 Jan 2011: We want to see images with vignettes28/01/2011 - 1:40 PM
NEW Photography Choice Gallery & Voting System (BETA)23/01/2011 - 6:59 PM
Lost votes?19/01/2011 - 3:30 PM
What is a good first-tome DSLR camera?10/12/2010 - 10:17 PM
Boots Printing26/11/2010 - 5:38 PM
Which Eye?22/10/2010 - 3:16 PM
Any tips for me about manual focussing please?17/09/2010 - 6:09 PM
4x Lomography Colorsplash Chakras Edition Cameras - FREE PRIZE DRAW - winners announced02/09/2010 - 3:01 PM

No portfolios comments on yet.