gardenhelper Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
e6filmuser wrote:
I came across this scene in September 2012, at the brook bordering my garden. I had to run the round trip of two hundred yards, grabbing my camera and changing the lens, hoping I would not get back too late. There was only one shooting position (viewpoint), due to reeds which would have spoiled the composition. I had to crouch down and shoot downwards at quite an angle. Even so, I captured no dorsal characters.
The lens was my Tamron 180mm Anniversary edition (apochromat) but it was not able to perform to its best here. The picture was not very sharp. I have done what I can with it and have converted to monochrome to optimise detail. This was in the days before I did all my PP with TIFFs and the JPEGs have suffered considerably in the conversion. Having further processed the JPEG of the coloured image with updated software (the RAW files cannot be found) I have made a slightly improved version of it, such that the original reason for converting to monochrome is not so clear. (The BW conversion was not with the updated BW software).
Some damaged JPEG remnats can still be seen in both images.
The original reason using this image, the dragonfly having flown away before I could take another, is that it shows the ovipositor (in the shadow under the tip of the abdomen) inserted in the rotten piece of wood. Now that there is discussion in the forum about creativity I wonder how such use of monochrome might be considered.
Harold
...Show more →
I don't know that it is exactly a creativity issue, but I think this post does raise a somewhat related issue that along with creativity plays into the "maximum sharpness and detail" question. Namely, can content trump image quality? (with "image quality" as often defined in terms of composition, sharp focus, suitable placement and depth of focus etc)
My answer would be unambigous - "Yes". And here is an example. You grabbed what you could get given the circumstances, and it contains enough detail to illustrate a phenomenon which is, I imagine, rarely captured, and is educational when supported by explanatory text, as is is here. The fact that it is not an image with good image quality, as conventionally defined, does not alter this argument for me.
However, I think there is another issue arising from this - despite the fact that I believe this is a worthwhile image to display, if suitably explained, is this a suitable place for doing so? I am a newcomer here and I have no view as to what this forum should most appropriately encompass. But I do have the impression that the favoured emphasis here is on image quality as conventionally defined, with some possible adjustment/extension for photographic creativity, but I somehow doubt this image, in either its colour or black and white version would be seen to fall within that extended range.
Or perhaps, on my basis of very little evidence as yet, I have misread the situation?
From a purely personal point of view I should like to know what the drift of thinking here is on this issue, as it (and perhaps more important the reasons put forward to underpin that thinking) may be relevant as to which images I think it appropriate to post, or not post, here. I imagine the same may be true for other new and potential contributors who are not very familiar with the culture here and are as yet unsure about posting here. In the context of (if I read it correctly) a desired revitalisation of the forum, this may matter.
|