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 242000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
| sent on October 28, 2012 (8:25) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Having regard to the diaphragm used I assume that the blur was your intent, but a point of reference the observer would have to create it. For example the petal in the foreground. In this way, he concludes with a focus inaccurate, or are you and me I apologize for not seeing what was your point of interest. Visto il diaframma usato ne deduco che lo sfuocato era il tuo intento, ma un punto di riferimento all'osservatore avresti dovuto crearlo. Ad esempio il petalo in primo piano. In questo modo se ne trae la conclusione di una messa a fuoco imprecisa, oppure sono io e te ne chiedo scusa a non vedere quale fosse il tuo punto d'interesse. |
| sent on October 28, 2012 (9:10) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Thanks pigi47 intervention, and this was one of the first photos I took with the macro, without knowing exactly what I was doing, in fact, the only thing I was worried about was the composition, the intention was to have the first flower in focus and the other with a blurred background as homogeneous as possible, I only recently the talk of the point of interest is your opinion of me has made it clear even more ;-)
What would you have done in this picture? Grazie pigi47 dell'intervento, questa e stata una delle prime foto che ho fatto con il macro, senza sapere di preciso quello che stavo facendo, in realtà l'unica cosa di cui mi ero preoccupato era la composizione, l'intenzione era quella di avere il primo fiore a fuoco e l'altro sfocato con uno sfondo il più omogeneo possibile, capisco solo da poco il discorso del punto d'interesse è la tua opinione me lo ha chiarito ancora di più 
Cosa avresti fatto tù in questa foto ? |
| sent on October 28, 2012 (14:42) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
“ What would you have done in this picture? „
What would I have done, has very little because each of us has his own personal taste and what is not discussed.
Generally opt for maximum pdc possible, so in this case I would use a smaller aperture, partly because of what you see the background is messed up. Many others prefer to play on the focus, in this case, as I wrote previously I focused on the petal in the foreground with a wide aperture to let then gradually fade under the same pdc of the working aperture. I hope you have not created too much confusion. " Cosa avresti fatto tù in questa foto ? "
Quello che avrei fatto io, conta molto poco perchè ognuno di noi ha il suo gusto personale e quello non si discute.
Generalmente opto per avere la massima pdc possibile, quindi in questo caso avrei usato un diaframma più chiuso, anche perchè da ciò che si vede lo sfondo non è incasinato. Molti altri utenti preferiscono giocare sullo sfuocato, in questo caso come precedentemente ho scritto avrei messo a fuoco il petalo in primo piano con un diaframma aperto per lasciare poi gradatamente sfumare in base alla stessa pdc del diaframma di lavoro. Spero di non aver creato troppa confusione. |
| sent on October 28, 2012 (15:02) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
No, no, you were very clear! No, no, sei stato chiarissimo ! |
|
Publish your advertisement on JuzaPhoto (info) |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
8.4 MEGAPIXEL
Resize to fit window
