MarkB1 wrote:
Nice shots but when there are so many none get the attention they require. It's a fast paced medium.
Mark
Thanks, Mark. I never really understood that thought process though...when I click on a thread whether its a set of one or two images or twenty I still see each image for what it is. In fact the more the merrier, I like to see a variety of subjects. I guess that's just me Anyway, I shoot day to day and post what I feel are interesting shots. Rather than splitting them up into three or four threads I post them in one--one day, one thread. For that reason, I try to keep image numbers down to one or two per subject.
orionmystery wrote:
Nice set Matt. Esp like #5. Light seems a little harsh esp on the last few..not sure if it's my display though.
Thank you, Kurt--you're right about lighting. The process of figuring out flash is still on going. Exposure wise I seem to have trouble with a lot of smaller subjects, specifically hoverflies and the like in low(er) light. Seems I either get an overexposure on the lights/white's or underexposure on the dark's/blacks. I have no idea how to rectify the situation but I'm working on figuring it out.
M Vers wrote:
Thanks, Mark. I never really understood that thought process though...when I click on a thread whether its a set of one or two images or twenty I still see each image for what it is. In fact the more the merrier, I like to see a variety of subjects. I guess that's just me Anyway, I shoot day to day and post what I feel are interesting shots. Rather than splitting them up into three or four threads I post them in one--one day, one thread. For that reason, I try to keep image numbers down to one or two per subject....Show more →
For me it's a matter of time spent on the computer, I am already at the limit of what's good for me before fried brain sets in. Another consideration is feedback, smaller numbers are more easily considered in depth. It's a question of personal resource management.
LordV wrote:
Lovely series of shots.
Light a little harsh in some
esp like the conopid fly shots- they are so weird looking.
Perhaps a few too many pics- I tend to stick to 8 shots max as that's a limit on some forums.
Brian V.
Thanks, Brian. I wish I had another shot at the conopid fly which I found my lighting to be too harsh and the conditions a bit too breezy for my liking
M Vers wrote:
Thanks, Mark. I never really understood that thought process though...when I click on a thread whether its a set of one or two images or twenty I still see each image for what it is. In fact the more the merrier,
Well, if there are more than about three in a post I don't bother because it will take several minutes for them (very large files in this forum) to download across my dial-up. So I often don't see them at all, as with this thread.
I've just edited this reply to say that it took several minutes before I could read the original. This thread is utterly indigestible for a dial-up connection.
e6filmuser wrote:
Well, if there are more than about three in a post I don't bother because it will take several minutes for them (very large files in this forum) to download across my dial-up. So I often don't see them at all, as with this thread.
I've just edited this reply to say that it took several minutes before I could read the original. This thread is utterly indigestible for a dial-up connection.
Dial up...what's that? Kidding aside I don't post threads to accommodate dial up connections because I honestly don't think of it--I think it's fair to say a good majority have a quicker connection. I do apologize if I've inconvenienced you, though. Thanks for the comments on my work.
Anyway, I shoot day to day and post what I feel are interesting shots. Rather than splitting them up into three or four threads I post them in one--one day, one thread. For that reason, I try to keep image numbers down to one or two per subject.
. Light seems a little harsh esp on the last few..not sure if it's my display though.
