- This topic is empty.
Come fly with me…
-
Excellent Madra :D great colours and lovely presentation – i’ll probably get shot for saying this but maybe the shot could do with a tiny bit of a rotation CCW. ? (for the airplane)
*runs for her life*Excellent Hauke. I really like this shot. It is really well captured and very interesting to my eye.
Just wondering how long did you have to wait for the plane to come by… :wink:
Robbie
8)Is this 2 shots combined? your exif data is missing, but this is why i ask, it would have to have been taken on about 300-400mm focal length and need a very small aperature possibly f16-22 to give that kinda depth of field, which would give a pretty slow shutter speed for the focal length unless you used a high ISO and a tripod.
The image is pin sharp and perfect, too perfect me thinks, so the most likely conclusion i come to is that this was a PS job, please tell :D .
If not a PS job it was one hell of a shot, if it is a PS job, well done :wink: :DThanks for the nice feedback everyone. Glad you like it :D
It’s all one shot. No tricks or extra potatoshoping.
I have only adjusted levels and colours a little and cropped the original to have less of the sky and bring the plane and the bird in a closer context.
In fact, I didn’t realise that the seagull seemed to look AT the plane when I took the photo.Ali wrote:
… i’ll probably get shot for saying this but maybe the shot could do with a tiny bit of a rotation CCW. ? (for the airplane)
Ali, I just tried that (never accured to me before…) and it makes the bird lean to the left too much in my opinion.
In any case the plane is landing, so maybe the little angle is appropriate :wink:
BTW the photo was taken on Ireland’s Eye and the plane was actually flying towards the left, but it looked better IMO flying from left to right.John Griffin wrote:
Is this 2 shots combined? your exif data is missing, but this is why i ask, it would have to have been taken on about 300-400mm focal length and need a very small aperature possibly f16-22 to give that kinda depth of field, which would give a pretty slow shutter speed for the focal length unless you used a high ISO and a tripod.
John, thanks for the detailed analysis. I think you might be in for a surprise.
For some reason that specific image has the exif data missing, but I will post the one for an other shot out of the series.
Here comes: Powershot A80, 23.41mm, f4.91, 1/636s :lol: :lol: :lol:
It was only a handheld snapshot with my wee compact camera. :mrgreen:Thanks for the ‘it was one hell of a shot’.
:wink:Its a mystery to me how compacts achieve what they do on the settings they show on their exif, obviously it means something totally different to what an SLR would. Must try figure out what these settings would be in relation to an SLR camera. It’s interesting what can be achieved with a compact at times. But how big could you print it in your opinion? Is there much noise in it, how does it look at 100%?
John Griffin wrote:
But how big could you print it in your opinion? Is there much noise in it, how does it look at 100%?
Good question John. I’ll have a look at my processed tiff and the original jpeg tonight and will post the results here.
I DO wonder how big I could print it?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
