Butterfly

[darin]

From the Seattle Science Center.

Now - the disclaimer: I'm not showing this picture because I think I'm Ansel Adams, OR because I feel my shit don't stink, OR because I have an expensive Camera - I'm showing this photo because I put a little thought and effort into it, and I happen to think it's neat. :) If you want to critique the photo, GREAT! If you want to talk crap, save your reply for another thread.

:)

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=456&stc=1&d=1186298454

[Jon]

What did it look like before adding the blur? IOW, was it necessary to draw attention to the butterfly in this manner instead of simply utilizing a shallow DOF?

Also, it looks like the stem the butterfly is hanging from is a bit blown out.

That said, I like it! Nice composition.

However, I think I'd like it more if you told me you got the zoom blur the old fashioned way. ;)

[PostmodernProphet]

Wow, I never even knew butterflies DID chinups......

[Trinity]

I like the photo a lot, it turned out very nice!

But I do have one question for you. Seriously is that how it turned out when you took the photo or did you photo shop it at all? and if it turned out like that from just taking the pic AWESOME! If you photo shopped it then please explain to me how you did it, cause I am still trying to lean how to do everything on photo shop. :coffee:

[Abbey Marie]

Jon & D: Do you use a digital camera for these great shots you post on here?

[darin]

Thanks!

Jon: I wasn't neccessary - but it I tried the radial zoom and really liked it! :)

Trin: Radial zoom layer in Photoshop - Copied the original layer, used Radial zoom on that one; then a Layer mask and cut out the zoomy areas on the butterfly.

Ab: Digital.

[Trinity]

Thanks!

Jon: I wasn't neccessary - but it I tried the radial zoom and really liked it! :)

Trin: Radial zoom layer in Photoshop - Copied the original layer, used Radial zoom on that one; then a Layer mask and cut out the zoomy areas on the butterfly.

Ab: Digital.

That turned out awesome!

[darin]

Without the radial blur - and a slightly different crop:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=461&stc=1&d=1186347865


fwiw, according the histogram, nothing is blown-out.

[darin]

Couple more:

[Jon]

Without the radial blur - and a slightly different crop:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=461&stc=1&d=1186347865


fwiw, according the histogram, nothing is blown-out.

I like this one better. Although the other one has more of a 'gee-whiz' factor I suppose. The colors are more subdued in this one though. Different post processing besides the blur layer?

I guess 'blown out' was a poor choice of words. I meant that the foilage looks too bright. Is the histogram really heavy on the right? It's probably my work monitor.

Which lens did you shoot these with? Crops?

[darin]

I like this one better. Although the other one has more of a 'gee-whiz' factor I suppose. The colors are more subdued in this one though. Different post processing besides the blur layer?

I guess 'blown out' was a poor choice of words. I meant that the foilage looks too bright. Is the histogram really heavy on the right? It's probably my work monitor.

Which lens did you shoot these with? Crops?


Actually, the histogram shows very nice mid-range curve - think "rotary torque line on a dyno" - I tried messing with the curve to tone the brights down, but nothing worked.

70-200 f/4 @ f/5.6 - about a 75?% crop.