What do you think about this photo?Do you have questions or curiosities about this image? Do you want to ask something to the author, give him suggestions for improvement, or congratulate for a photo that you really like?
You can do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 252000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
| sent on January 14, 2017 (13:29) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
I understand the motivation of the shot (and how not understand them considered the beauty of the place) but can not find a real center of interest. Maybe a pdr closer and moved to the left would make a nice Christmas tree lit protagonist, without taking away much of the beautiful setting. Capisco le motivazioni dello scatto (e come non capirle considerata la bellezza del luogo) ma non trovo un vero centro di interesse. Forse un pdr più ravvicinato e spostato a sinistra avrebbe reso protagonista il bell'abete illuminato, senza togliere granché alla splendida cornice. |
| sent on January 14, 2017 (23:24) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Hello Raffa, I find it close it wide, or I would have gone more 'near the tree to make it the subject or more' far away to take one piece, otherwise well done ... Ciao Raffa, la trovo ne stretta ne larga, o sarei andato piu' vicino all albero per renderlo il soggetto oppure piu' lontano per prendere il tutto intero, per il resto ben fatta... |
user81257 | sent on January 15, 2017 (12:13) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Good the lines between tree game, the pillar and the Church, but in a picture like I expect to see the Church in its entirety, uncut top ib that way.
It also seems to me that the falling lines are not perfect.
Good light, handled well. Buono il gioco di linee tra albero, colonna e Chiesa, ma in una foto del genere mi aspetto di vedere la Chiesa nella sua completezza, non tagliata in alto ib quel modo.
E mi sembra anche che le linee cadenti non siano perfette.
Buona la luce, gestita bene. |
| sent on January 16, 2017 (11:13) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Hello and thank you all for passing
welcome back Richard
in effect for the falling lines I did not understand how to straighten
I try to see the glass half full and I am glad that many of you have said that light and colors can go!
;-)
R.
Ciao e grazie a tutti per il passaggio
bentornato Riccardo
in effetti per le linee cadenti non ho ben capito come fare per raddrizzarle
cerco di vedere il bicchiere mezzo pieno e sono contento che in molti avete detto che luce e cromie possono andare!
R.
|
| sent on January 17, 2017 (11:02) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
In the picture of architecture are several things to be taken into account. In my opinion it makes no sense to resume a building in half. He had been street and you were taking the stage with people, ok. But sawing in half the dome, what is the point?
It was enough to get away a bit '. The lines are crooked, Ps can assist in correcting them.
F9 are already enough diffraction, for me 5.6-7 are the optimum, but much depends on optics.
Then, if the main subject are the lights, so it was worth approaching. Nella foto di architettura sono diverse le cose di cui tener conto. Secondo me non ha senso riprendere un edificio a metà. Fosse stata street e stavi riprendendo la scena con le persone, ok. Ma segare a metà il duomo, che senso ha?
Bastava allontanarsi un po'. Le linee sono storte, Ps può essere di ausilio nel correggerle.
F9 sei già abbastanza in diffrazione, per me 5.6-7 sono l'optimum, ma molto dipende dall'ottica.
Se poi il soggetto principale sono le luci, tanto valeva la pena di avvicinarsi. |
| sent on January 17, 2017 (11:15) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Hello Maserc,
I, keep in mind your instructions through
but why do you say F9 diffraction?
I find it strange, I knew that this perspective the optimum is F9 to F11
there is also a dedicated topic! Ciao Maserc,
si, terrò a mente le tue indicazioni grazie
ma perchè dici F9 in diffrazione?
mi sembra strano, sapevo che per quest'ottica l'optimum è da F9 a F11
c'è anche un topic dedicato! |
| sent on January 17, 2017 (12:34) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Not knowing the optical I answered you in a generic way. Generally speaking since f8, diffraction begins to do harm. Non conoscendo l'ottica ti ho risposto in maniera generica. Genericamente parlando già da f8, la diffrazione comincia a far danno. |
| sent on January 17, 2017 (13:39) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Gasp!
I'll have to experiment
But here you see?
I do not seem, if you see her you'd know I explain? Gasp!
dovrò fare delle prove
Ma qui ne vedi?
a me non sembra, se la vedi mi sapresti spiegare? |
| sent on January 17, 2017 (14:09) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Diffraction begins at full aperture, worse at each reporting date aperture. But the effect is compensated by the increased depth of field that mitigates. Up to a certain point where the damage produced by the diffraction exceeds, say, the benefit of increased pdc. Eye I think it is difficult to determine, especially if the image is not a tiff. If you want to enjoy, you should take several pictures at different openings, obviously of the same scene and check the differences. La diffrazione comincia a tutta apertura, peggiorando ad ogni chiusura di diaframma. Ma viene compensata dall'aumentata profondità di campo che ne mitiga l'effetto. Fino ad un certo punto, dove il danno prodotto dalla diffrazione supera, diciamo, il beneficio dell'aumentata pdc. Ad occhio penso sia difficile da stabilire, soprattutto se l'immagine non è un tiff. Se vuoi divertirti, dovresti scattare diverse foto a diverse aperture, ovviamente della stessa scena e verificare le differenze. |
| sent on January 17, 2017 (18:25) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
but to the eye, it is perceptible flow naturally, you should see a disintegration of the contours and lines, right?
Due to the fact that the light wave is multiplied.
Why it seems strange that with large holes and diaphragm blades "intact" already occurring.
Anyway thanks,
evidence I make the time! ma ad occhio, se è di portata percepibile naturalmente, si dovrebbe vedere uno sfaldamento dei contorni e delle linee, giusto?
Per via del fatto che l'onda luminosa si moltiplica.
Per questo mi sembra strano che con fori ampi e lamelle del diaframma "intatte" già si verifichi.
Cmq grazie,
prove ne faccio continuamente! |
| sent on April 25, 2017 (18:50) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Beautiful glimpse Raffa :-)
What a wonderful city Florence!
Greetings
Nicholas Bello scorcio Raffa :-)
Che città meravigliosa Firenze!
Saluti
Nicolò |
| sent on April 26, 2017 (11:45) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Thanks Nicholas,
really fascinating glimpse into effect,
and then even more fascinating night,
Sin was not able to make it as I wanted: - /
R. Grazie Nicolò,
scorcio davvero suggestivo in effetti,
e poi in notturna ancora più affascinante,
peccato non sia riuscito a renderlo come avrei voluto 
R. |
|
Publish your advertisement on JuzaPhoto (info) |
![[retina]](shared_files/layout/retina_badge.jpg){kind=icon}
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
14.7 MEGAPIXEL
Resize to fit window
