Commons:Photography critiques/March 2019

Trial shot with 50mm 1.8D

@Ikan Kekek, Code, Basile Morin, Poco a poco, and XRay: Just got a new 50mm 1.8D for my camera, tried out this artsy shot. ;) ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that. I don't think it would pass at QIC because of this site's taste, but I like it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I like the idea. In particular, I like the composition with the knife acting as a pretty strong diagonal, cutting the frame in half (no pun intended but happily embraced). Some people at FPC would maybe complain about it being B&W, but it totally makes sense here, imho. How did you do the conversion – anything beyond straight de-saturation?

@El Grafo: used the B&W feature @ the colors tab (Lightroom) :) ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 08:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you pretty much nailed the focus on the meat and knife but due to motion blur the hand behind is much sharper (and much brighter). Same for the patterns on the cutting board to the right of the meat. As the human mind naturally tends to be drawn to areas of sharpness and light (among other things), these two areas distract me from the actual subject. I've spend much more time looking at the patterns on the cutting board (which I initially mistook for polished stone, which made me cringe ;-)) than looking at the meat or knife. I think for me it would work much better without the motion blur. If, on the other hand, the motion blur was added deliberately as part of your creative concept, then I would suggest to maybe try much more of it to drive the message home.

@El Grafo: was actually deliberate haha ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 08:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

On a technical note, the file's EXIF data says your aperture was set to f/1. That's weird given you were using a lens with a maximum aperture of f/1.8. Might hint at a problem with camera-lens-communications … --El Grafo (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@El Grafo: Yup, I'm using the 1.8 on my D3400; they are not fully compatible and the lens must be tuned manually ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 08:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I was suspecting something like that. My K-5 uses f/0 as a fall-back for old lenses with purely mechanical camera-lens interfaces … --El Grafo (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@El Grafo: Woah f/0 is rather inane hahaha. Can't imagine how a real f/0 should would be possible though ;) ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@GerifalteDelSabana: If you think about it, it actually makes kind of sense, as division by zero is undefined ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@El Grafo: or, depending on how you decide to interpret it, it can mean infinity :d ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 15:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I like images like your example. May be it pass QIC. I'm wondering about the EXIF data: f/1. An image isn't only sharpness everywhere, it has to have a good message. Your image has a good message. It's a pity we do not have an award for these kind of images at Wikimedia Commons. --XRay ^talk 09:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@XRay: Thanks! :P per above my D3400 is not fully compatible with the lens, therefore the weird f/1... haha ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 08:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Basile Morin: Thanks! :) ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 08:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)