Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

PortraitPro 17 SITEWIDE 50% off sale + EXTRA 15% OFF code EPZR18

Activity : Photo Comments



Hope you like the variety I have tried to bring in my portfolio. Most of the images have been put here for comment and that is always appreciated. I spend quite a bit of time in the Critique section and I know many visit my portfolio because I have passed comment on their work. Hope you think my work is of a reasonable standard.

I know that, even with 50 years experience there are still things to learn and that technology changes quickly.
...Read More
  • Cardinal female

    Very nice. Once more, those who do such shots should look at this - it shows what a sharp image should look like.

    • 23 Mar 2018 9:15AM
  • Out to dinner

    They will sit still if you feed them the right food in the same place every day but not easy at all. A Goldcrest I think, but not easy to tell. In the conditions, definition is adequate.

    • 23 Mar 2018 9:13AM
  • A Wooden Embrace

    I think I would have upped the contrast a bit, it's mostly mid grey tones.

    • 23 Mar 2018 9:10AM
  • Blue Tit Down

    Nice! This is what a sharp image is all about, others should look and learn.

    • 23 Mar 2018 9:08AM
  • Some of the Part Golden Gate Bridge

    I would have cropped the burnt out sky at the top. Brightest highlight on the frame edge is not the best idea compositionally.

    • 23 Mar 2018 9:08AM
  • female kingfisher in the snow

    It is generally impressive but the definition is slightly off. May be the high ISO, the lens at f7.1, the conditions or compression effects. I had a Sigma and it had to be at f8 or 11 to get the best results which I think you could have managed with that shutter speed. I realise you are at 900mm - a supported lens or hand held?.

    • 23 Mar 2018 8:16AM
  • My Toddler Cuddling His Toy

    Nice family stuff. The face is a touch flat due to the lighting and would respond well to some work with the dodge tool. The problem, often with family 'at home' shots are things like skirting boards in the background. You do fully understand how spot metering works? The area you meter from MUST equate to 18% grey or you will need compensation.

    • 22 Mar 2018 11:47AM
  • "Lady in Black"

    Algimantas - is this your only comment?

    Very heavy and high contrast. I find the result quite threatening? Total detail loss in many shadow areas too. I would rather prefer a less contrasty image and a less vicious look - could be a bloke - you never know!

    • 22 Mar 2018 11:43AM
  • Bee

    Bumble bees are notoriously difficult to photograph well. Ideally it should be facing you and a little larger in the frame. The background on the left is a touch over powering.

    • 22 Mar 2018 11:39AM
  • Roof

    With Willie. You seem to have an issue with processing. This is very heavy and grey - possibly poor conversion but I suspect considerable under exposure due to pointing the camera up.

    • 21 Mar 2018 8:31AM
  • Bandhage Saree Rajasthan

    I have to differ on the colours. There is something very in-natural about them giving a very strong pastel yet over saturated effect. The content is first class, but the colours are wrong.

    • 21 Mar 2018 8:28AM
  • Bananas

    As above. You did need to think this through a bit and produce some interesting and directional lighting. However, two fairly ripe bananas are difficult to make interesting.

    • 21 Mar 2018 8:27AM
  • Peas

    Williy's mod is a considerable improvement. You needed more depth of field, a sharper image and some back light to illuminate the frost. The general effect of food photography is usually to flatter the food, even in it's raw state. Does this?

    • 21 Mar 2018 8:25AM
  • Flotsam

    You need to use 'save as' after resizing.

    • 20 Mar 2018 2:51PM
  • Tree line

    End products can be very personal. It depends what the image is for. If it is just for yourself, you o what you want, if it is for general consumption by others, then this site can be useful. I use it to get a consensus of opinion before submitting to libraries - if few or none like it, or it needs mods, then I subscribe o general opinion, not my likes.

    This is unlikely to be accepted at an agency due to the tones. A bit more impact is the norm- image this reproduced on news print.

    • 19 Mar 2018 8:10PM
  • Oh, Joy!

    They are generally unaware of others and I'm just intrigue by the expressions. By high ISO, I'm going to 3200 or even 6400 on occasion for some weather.

    • 19 Mar 2018 5:55PM
  • jackson

    It's good family stuff, but the quality is not so good I fear. Blur is not effected by cropping, it is already there. Just looks more obvious on a bigger image. The snow has caused heavy under exposure and I suspect focus issues caused the blur.

    You needed to get the exposure right, trying for about f8, then use tracking autofocus keeping the dog in the central focusing area.

    • 19 Mar 2018 9:31AM
  • Azure Kingfisher

    Have you processed this a lot?

    • 18 Mar 2018 12:03PM
  • Ready for breakfast

    Nice - I can smell the bacon! Good shot.

    • 18 Mar 2018 12:01PM
  • Feeling blue

    The lighting is, unfortunately, very much against you.

    • 18 Mar 2018 12:01PM
  • Fox

    Very nice! Not often I say that.

    • 18 Mar 2018 11:59AM
  • Bullfinch

    Difficult conditions, but, for me, the bird's body needs to be a lot sharper for general viewing.

    • 18 Mar 2018 11:59AM
  • Brimstone & Bumblebee

    Again, I struggle. Not very sharp where it needs to be and all those awards?

    • 18 Mar 2018 11:57AM
  • Red Tailed Bumble Bee

    It looks like you have sharpened this rather a lot?

    • 18 Mar 2018 11:55AM
  • Tanks for the Memories

    I like the subject and viewpoint, but not sure about your texture. My immediate thought was HDR.

    • 18 Mar 2018 11:54AM
  • Watching

    This is where I struggle. All those votes and it's not sharp and very over processed.

    • 18 Mar 2018 11:53AM
  • Stairs

    Again, an adequate record. You are suffering from a little flare from the windows and this shows as a slight milkiness and as a lighter patch in the roof. Not too bad, and nothing the burning in tool couldn't deal with, thus increasing the image strength.

    You are getting decent sharpness at such low shutter speeds but I think I would be at 400 to give a bit of help.

    • 18 Mar 2018 11:50AM
  • Rift Valley

    I think colour might well be rather better. This gives the impression of a large number of mid tone greys and thus looses impact. A polariser would have given that sky a punch too, thus giving more impact again. The bird, top left, is a bit of a distraction so near the corner.

    So, a good memory booster, but lacks strength for the casual viewer.

    • 18 Mar 2018 9:17AM
  • Knickers to You!

    I don't think she knew I had taken a shot - just gave me a look. The camera was aimed by guess with the silent electronic shutter set. I try and look elsewhere as I shoot.

    • 18 Mar 2018 9:13AM

    This, I fear, is not sharp enough anywhere.

    Macro is very difficult to get right and you simply cannot do what you are asking - the depth of field, even at f32 this close will not be enough to get the whole insect and flower in focus at the taking stage. Not possible.

    The only route would be by focus stacking, a specialist technique that requires a tripod and a subject that does not move - at all!!!!!!!

    You take a number of exposures, several dozen possibly each at a slightly different focus, then combine them. You would need to read up on the technique.

    You need a fast shutter speed, a small aperture, f16 or smaller, a macro system and the lowest possible ISO for quality. Thus you need A LOT OF LIGHT and that is why most serious macro photographers use flash - usually a dedicated system. See Johns link to my gear, above.

    • 17 Mar 2018 5:32PM