DSLRUsers.com

Popeye - these guys were on Australia's got talent..

wow, now that is sharp! What lens were u using?
Great shots, i love the facial expressions.

Oh my god, that first one is bizarre!!

Virgs

That first image is a wonderful capture. Not so sure about the last one though - rather than tell a story it makes me wonder what I'm supposed to be seeing, if that makes sense.

The first one is an excellent catch. Well done!
Alex

stubbsy wrote:Virgs

That first image is a wonderful capture. Not so sure about the last one though - rather than tell a story it makes me wonder what I'm supposed to be seeing, if that makes sense.

how about an enormous left external jugular vein??

He was play acting that he was dead.. just thought it funny that he layed there for so long. These guys were really funny and very talented at their acrobatic/balancing routine..

The first two definitely grab me. Good composition and subjects.

If you can, I would suggest opening the lens up a little to soften the background. The first one I would have been tempted to shoot at f/2.8 or faster and focus on the face (or the butt, your call). But not everyone has that option, I realise - possibly you could fake it with an image editor. Hmm, a quick play in PSP says it does make a subtle but IMO useful difference.

The second one I wonder about cropping a bit to bring the focus onto their faces a little more. Possibly just a symmetric crop at the belt of the lower guy. Hmm, above the navel so you lose the three spectators might work better, just so you don't cut them off at the nose. Being a complete b'stard, I would also have used fill flash

2 - превосходный - for obvious reasons

I would love to be able to use f2.8 but on my lens, at 400 I am restricted to 5.6, that is the trade off for a convienent lens as a 80-400. Now if the Sigma 200-500 2.8 was affordable....

Big V wrote:I would love to be able to use f2.8 but on my lens, at 400 I am restricted to 5.6, that is the trade off for a convienent lens as a 80-400. Now if the Sigma 200-500 2.8 was affordable....

You're a stronger man than I am, then. That Sigzilla seems like a good candidate for one of those video-type tripods that have castors on the bottom.

That's also why I suggested a bit of background softening to fake the limited DoF. I did a quick cut trying to stay within 10 pixels of what I was outlining, then feathered the selection and softened the backgound to get this:


Doing it for real I'd trace the actual outline, shrink the selection by 8 pixels then feather back in by 10 before softening or blurring.

Oh, and I also brought out the face a little with brightness and contrast.

sirhc55 wrote:2 - превосходный - for obvious reasons

Very good!

Alex

Moz, I struggle internally with photoshoping my photographs. I have always viewed myself as a photographer and never really been happy with manipulating them in photoshop as for me personally - it takes what I originally did and turns it into something else. I guess my style is more of a journo rather than an artist - that is just me. As such, I accept the limitations that this puts on what I can produce and that equipment limits some results but I can accept that and it provides a stimulus to save for the 2.8 lenses!!! Maybe I should spend some time with photoshop on my images but who I am I trying to kid, I have no time and I am too lazy.. As you can see for these I did not even put my usual border around them. I like the effect you have produced and it does improve the image. Would one have to admit to massaging the photo in photoshop when posting? or could I pretend that I was using an 2.8 in the future? This is what I struggle with, however I am more than happy for you and any other person to improve my photos with your photoshop skills because I can then learn what is possible, so thanks for doing that...

Big V wrote:Moz, I struggle internally with photoshoping my photographs... Would one have to admit to massaging the photo in photoshop when posting?

I normally would if I'd done something selective like this, just because I'm a bit of a purist. On these forums, it's also a chance to say to people "you don't need to use a $5000 lens to get these shots", and explain what I've done to the image. Photogeek boards are like that

For commercial use I'd not say anything in most cases (because most of my photo sales are art not documentary). I do balk a bit at some of the glamour and landscape work where the original photo acts as more of a template, and hours of work go into the editing to produce a final "photo". That was discussed here a while ago too.

Big V wrote:I am more than happy for you and any other person to improve my photos with your photoshop skills

Thanks, glad you didn't mind.