Potentially superb but the eye should be the most demanding thing here, and it is rather dark. Try a bit of judiciuos dodging of the eye and under the chin. Care though, soon looses contrast and that would be worse.

Paul

This is very well done and a fine composition. macro is one of the most testing areas of photography to do well and your comments show you understand that. You have the right gear and are using a tripod, so you know where you are going. You are very close here and could have done with f22 as you know. Your macro lens is designed to work well at such small apertures unlike 'normal' optics. Depth of field is too tight giving the effect of unsharpness when you actually have a very sharp plane.

Ideally, macro should be at the lowest possible ISO for quality, have adequate depth of field to cover the subject - depends if you are going for record r effect though. The image MUST be pin sharp where it matters, so you need a fast enough shutter speed for a potentially moving subject. Most of these factors do not go together.

So, cleft stick. Sharp and grainy is better than blurred any day, so up the ISO if you must. If you want background detail rather than black you need ambient, or a complex flash set up. Look in text books - almost all insect shots have black backgrounds because to achieve a sharp technical record you almost always need flas unless the sun is very bright.

I use a Sigma ring flash and 1/200 @ f18 to 22 usually. A tripod if possible, failing that, a monopod. If I have time, then I might put a second flash at about 45 degrees behind the subject - my Sigma ring flash will fire other Sigma guns and Canon (I think Canon) by radio frequency. A great help. That would make your droplets twinkle and put a bit of back light on the fly.

Enjoy your course. Hope it is of a decent standard.

I have a training disk that runs in a browser which has a section on macro. It can be Emailed - about 8MB. If you want to have a look, let me know.

Paul

This is a nice basic image. It is a bit dull, and that is some under exposure and the effect of using such a high ISO. I think your camera is a bridge camera, so you are likely to have some control. You need a bit stronger lighting or a tripod, preferably both. Then shoot a number of images at different settings on manual. You are likely to have about f8 as the smallest aperture, so use that to get maximum depth of field.

This will mean a longer shutter speed and hence, without a tripod or some support, camera movement. Set ISO100. Pocket tripods are very cheap and will do for this type of thing. TRy and focus manually on a suitable point, then release the shutter with the delayed action timer setting so you are not touching the camera. Check the result on the LCD, looking for a bright, sharp vibrant image.

Image too dark, longer shutter speed, try again. Image too bright, shorter shutter speed, try again.

You can learn a lot from this exercise and the ability to shoot in this way is one of the huge assets of digital.

Paul

A decent result from the gear. The lens is just not designed to do this and close up lenses always degrade the image slightly. F29 will not be a good aperture for such a lens in terms of quality but you have a reasonably sharp plane, so have done well.

Possibly slightly under exposed. Your -1/3 was not needed. You will not get more depth of field but I would have expected more from my 150 Sigma macro at f18, so the physics is difficult to understand. ISO200 Would be rather better, so why not try an off camera flash?

Paul

Generally quite good, but just a touch dull and some of the outline lost. Brightening up is easy, but have you tried a weak light placed behind the figure facing the camera. I have a feeling that faint rim light would make an image like this rather special.

Paul

There is a lot to talk about here. First, wait until the Bee, or whatever, is in a better position compositionally. You needed the head in view, not the rear end. Macro is a very difficult field and, ideally, you need some special gear. You can get away with standard equipment but it makes the job a lot harder.

Very little is sharp here. Just a tiny plane. Some macro shots work with shallow depth, but most need tiny apertures to get enough sharp and critical initial focusing. f16 to f22 are best, but standard equipment, lenses, do not work well at such tiny apertures. So, problem there. You need enough light to get that tiny aperture and a fast enough shutter speed. Or a tripod. But a tripod effects speed of operation and insects don't wait.

Up the ISO, but that reduces quality in other ways. However, sharp and grainy is better than blurred.

So, here you needed a better composition and much smaller depth of field on the face of it. But, not that easy.

Keen macro photographers use a dedicated macro lens and possibly a ring flash but the cost is high. Try a set of extension tubes. Available under £100 and will get you very much closer, but still a significant outlay. I do have a training program that does quite a few things including setting out details of macro photography. if you are interested, let me know. It's free and can be Emailed.

Paul

Goo idea and well seen. Not sure you needed the negative compensation as it is a touch under exposed. You didn't need f11. It hasresulted in a very slow shutter speed and that is why the image is slightly soft I would think. F8 or even 7.1 would do and ISO200 to give a rather faster shutter speed.

Paul

The content will not let you get a decent mono. Everything is a similar tone and converts to similar grey. You need a better subject. Mono is not as easy as many believe. You are going, in effect, from millions of colour tones to 256 tones of grey and you must have a suitable tonal range in colour to make a good mono.

The trick is to recognise such a range.

Here you just have foliage and a rather insistent boat bow.

Paul

Impressive view with square crop which works. It does have a quite heavy blue cast which is easily corrected. There seems to be an opinion that you must shoot in RAW format to correct colour casts. Not so. At least, within a range you can use the channel mixer to correct colour casts. Even better if the primaries and secondaries are all available as in later CS variants.

Here, try adding yellow or removing blue as a start point.

Paul

Get in a bit closer and reduce the exposure a bit to increase drama with a possible flash fill. That would reduce the detail in the surroundings and emphasise the welder. The background is a little distracting.

Now, important this. You are taking precautions against weld flash I hope. The UV from the arc can PERMANENTLY damage your eyesight. I'm not joking. You need to set the camera on a tripod, frame up, turn your back and ask the welder to start work, then release the shutter remotely. Welding is very dangerous in many ways and you should be extremely careful.

Do not use liveview either. The arc can burn your sensor if in the same position for extended time.



Paul

You are under exposed quite a bit, so you need to correct that at the taking stage ideally. Auto metering without compensation will read the sky and you then have under exposure. At least +1 stop needed here.

The head looks reasonably sharp, but you have a lot of movement blur in the body and especially the wings as you would expect. Some like his as ffect is such images, but you cannot sharpen movement blur with software. Very little at least. If you want all sharp, then fast shutter speed and careful focusing.

Paul

I fear you simply had no chance. You cannot hand hold at 4 sec and you have actually done quite well. You must either use a tripod or have the camera sat on a solid object, releasing the shutter with the delayed action feature. You cannot get away with blur and this will not sharpen.

The only other way is a very high ISO and faster shutter speed. Grain/noise and sharp is always better than blur.

Paul

I had commented on this, but my comment is not there now? Nothing strong in it? Nice shot originally I think and I like landscape portraits. More impact usually. You scanning is a bit astray I think, hence the blue cast with a hint of magenta. Could be over exposure of highlights by the scanner.

I set almost all scanner software settings to zero, but do use the auto exposure and minimal sharpening. As this is 35mm, the can will have been at a high res which will increase any problems. Always better to do adjustments later in software meant for the job.

I note she has blue eye shadow. We had a lecture once from a pro make up artist who worked on films. They said it was rarely a good idea for models to use 'night out' make up for photo shoots. No blue eye shadow unless part of the theme. Better use pastel warn tones.

I see the film thing keeps rumbling on. Great if you want the hassle associated, and depending on your end use. I have a T90 outfit in my false roof and film EOS bodies. Not used for some 10 years. If you are supplying a market, particularly publishing, they scan anyway, so you might as well use digital. The advantages of digital out way film in so many ways and account for the huge upsurge in photography as a hobby.

Film still does have those little quality points, but what do you then do with the images. Do you still project them? They get put away or scanned. I still have prints for clients, or did when I was doing jobs, printed on silver halide paper for guaranteed logevity, but thank heaven my darkroom is no more!


Paul

You are advertising your photography, but you need to crack the technique before you do that. The image is very unsharp with neither boys eyes clear. You must focus on the eyes with a shot like this and I suspect, due to the EXIF that you are using a compact and are trying to work outside it's capabilities.

You are also a long way under exposed. Better to set a much lower ISO, then use a flash fill to light the faces.

This could have been a superb dual portrait but technique has let you down

Paul

Prefer vw, but your mono conversion is very heavy and grey with even heavier tones towards the top. Something not quite right. Might be under exposure in the first place or might be the conversion. You did use the channel mixer i hope. Almost looks like an ND grad was used, but then under exposed?

Paul

V1 is a fine image and shows how good the 150/500 Sigma can be when used correctly. The other two shots are spoilt by the other birds. They are pulling the eye from the main bird in each case.

Look how many comments there are here. A good shot, but why don't people comment on other images too?

Paul

Nice group, but, although difficult to tell at this size, despite your fast shutter speed, doesn't seem too sharp and you are not at a long focal length. Are you supporting the camera. It is possible to shake at this shutter speed, but you would be better at f8 or 11 for the best from the lens and remember, even at short focal lengths, your lens is physically a 250 mm, thus rather heavy.

Paul

You give us no info to go on. There is great potential here, but it needs to be pin sharp with all that detail crisp. I think you have some shake as nothing is fully sharp. Faster shutter speed, higher ISO, a monopod? Something to get that resolution.

Paul

I rarely like HDR, but this shows how it should be done. Excellent image in the Ashley Jackson Yorkshire painter style. Tones very well controlled. All you that aspire to HDR, look at this one.

Paul

Two things. If you are after a record image, shoot this type of thing from above, not from one end. That causes distortion. Second, lighting is critical with shiny metal surfaces and the light you are using is not polarised. With care, you can get away with a heavily diffused flash, preferably two, one placed equi-distant each side of the subject, above and at 45 degrees.

That will give even soft lighting from each side. The correct method is a light tent. A come of thin white material or paper. lit from the outside, placed completely over the subjects. You need a hole at the apex of the cone to point the camera through and a tripod. The very soft light correctly illuminates the metal without hot spots and shine.

Paul