The author posted a question in Photography, Videography
I'm learning to take pictures of flowers with a DSLR, aren't I? and got a better answer
Response from Антон Владимирович[+++++]
Normal - the site eats up the quality - just right?
Response from 0[+++++]
Normal - the site eats up the quality - just right.
Normal - the site eats up the quality - just right.
Response from 0[+++++]
prettier if the background is clear.
prettier if the background is clear.
Response from 0[+++++]
blurry background!
blurry background!
Response from 0[+++++]
Interesting little flower, but only for florist botanists. It needs a composition for everyone.
Interesting little flower, but only for florist botanists. It needs a composition for everyone.
Response from 0[+++++]
Well done, for a student. Keep daring. Work with photoshop programs there are a lot of them on the Internet and free.
Well done, for a student. Keep daring. Work with photoshop programs there are a lot of them on the Internet and free.
Response from 0[+++++]
I've got nothing to put in my answer: I mean a picture, so I'll just say: I don't like it! And no offence, please _ ADDENDUM _ but in your case, the second option is better!
I've got nothing to put in my answer: I mean a picture, so I'll just say: I don't like it! And no offence, please _ ADDENDUM _ but in your case, the second option is better!
Response from 0[+++++]
slightly over-sharpened is there but in general the first option is better. In general, I like the picture.
slightly over-sharpened is there but in general the first option is better. In general, I like the picture.
Response from 0[+++++]
You can clearly see the noise on the WP. You don't need sharpness for macrophotography all over the frame, that's why there are a couple of special methods of sharpening for makroshnikov. Look it up on the search engines.
You can clearly see the noise on the WP. You don't need sharpness for macrophotography all over the frame, that's why there are a couple of special methods of sharpening for makroshnikov. Look it up on the search engines.
Response from 0[+++++]
the first one is better.
the first one is better.
Response from 0[+++++]
let's leave the background, it's not the point, it's not needed here as a distraction, but the clover itself, isn't it? - The impression is this: the sharpness is not enough stripes captured the leaves and the tips of the bud, and the flower itself in a light soft focus - if you were to focus on the plane passing in the point where the stem is attached to the flower would be better. i once photographed an onion it's probably bigger than clover will drive an ant on it so he got out to the right side, and he creepy even inside the flower crawled. In any case, never mind. conclusion made the following - to texture and details showed up, you need to take the exposure in black, a couple of divisions depending on lighting, the hole is the minimum of the need strip, and then post-processing sandpaper. my opinion - 1 option is better.
let's leave the background, it's not the point, it's not needed here as a distraction, but the clover itself, isn't it? - The impression is this: the sharpness is not enough stripes captured the leaves and the tips of the bud, and the flower itself in a light soft focus - if you were to focus on the plane passing in the point where the stem is attached to the flower would be better. i once photographed an onion it's probably bigger than clover will drive an ant on it so he got out to the right side, and he creepy even inside the flower crawled. In any case, never mind. conclusion made the following - to texture and details showed up, you need to take the exposure in black, a couple of divisions depending on lighting, the hole is the minimum of the need strip, and then post-processing sandpaper. my opinion - 1 option is better.
Response from 0[+++++]
the second one is great!
the second one is great!
Response from 0[+++++]
oh I like it
oh I like it