Mostly Lurking

Lives in United States Silver Springs, FL, United States
Works as a retired
Joined on Aug 4, 2010


Total: 18, showing: 1 – 18
On photo blue eyes in the - Captivating - (Indoor colour portrait of a woman) challenge (4 comments in total)

Impressive; very well done. I'm expecially impressed that the skin was not 'placticized' in post processing. The eyes are extremely well done. The only aspect of the shot I would have liked a bit different is a bit more sharpness in the rest of her face. Regardless, a really good shot. Congratulations!

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2012 at 17:37 UTC as 4th comment
On photo IMG_9412_s in the Mopar challenge (6 comments in total)

Cyan color cast, over-exposed, over-sharpened, over-saturated, poor composition. Otherwise, a great photo! ;^)

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2012 at 00:44 UTC as 3rd comment | 3 replies
On article Compositional Rules (120 comments in total)

There are no rules in composition, only the good and bad.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2012 at 00:39 UTC as 28th comment | 2 replies
On article Evolution of an image (123 comments in total)

Sometimes great photos DO just happen.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2012 at 10:45 UTC as 17th comment
On photo "The Afghan Girl" in the Flattery: Imitation challenge (33 comments in total)

Desecration! I hope the Photographer sees this and sues.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2012 at 01:32 UTC as 1st comment
On photo meshlatex_5019 in the Latex challenge (9 comments in total)

It's easy to see why this one was voted into 1st place, and it has NOTHING to do with photographic or atistic ability. That this photo is not a nude is debatable. I don't know the photographer, and if this 'non-nude' is representative of his or her thinking, then I'm sure we'd disagree on many subjects.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2012 at 01:03 UTC as 5th comment | 2 replies
On photo Stains in the Stain challenge (3 comments in total)

The photo shows artistic talent and technical ability. For that I have to say 'Well done!'.

To each his own of course, but the subject is not to my taste. 'Strains' (on the eyes) would have been a more appropriate title for me.


Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2012 at 02:18 UTC as 3rd comment
On photo Loch Tummel sunset in the HDR challenge (13 comments in total)

I see someone likes large amounts of over-saturation!

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2012 at 09:34 UTC as 3rd comment | 3 replies

Yes, but does it get rid of pimples, warts, etc.?

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2012 at 01:12 UTC as 57th comment

USD $199.00 for an upgrade from CS5 to CS6 that really provides little is a bit pricey for me. I might as well wait for CS.X when I'll have to pay $600 for the whole thing and all the updates in-between. Then it may be worth the price. That's what I did when I had CS---wait for it to be worth-while even though I had to pay the whole CS5 package price.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2012 at 18:05 UTC as 23rd comment
On photo Japanese drawing in the > Olympus's best tales ( I ) challenge (14 comments in total)

Photograph? No way unless it's a photo of a drawing. A poor composition as well, though the drawing is first class work. I'd give it a zero as a photo, 2 as a drawing.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2012 at 06:39 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

tkbslc: I think for point and shoot and simple travel photography, the "cloud" and instant facebook/blog of photos is becoming more and more important. I don't think anyone trying to produce fine art or higher end photos is ever going to want to post unedited instant shots to the web.

But will it provide the same capabilities and speed of programs like Photoshop? Not in this lifetime. This idea will certainly not satisfy those who want quality photos, just those who want snapshots of Uncle Herbert and Baby Jane.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2012 at 01:09 UTC
On article The 15 Minute Makeover: Photoshop Beauty Retouching (169 comments in total)

I'm certainly glad this article was posted and I' sure it's of value to many photographers / post-processors, especially to commercial photography. So thank you for doing so.

However, as an amateur, I prefer to touch-up blemishes individually and allow the 'character' of person to be seen. No 'plastic' skin for me, thank you!

Link | Posted on Dec 9, 2011 at 02:04 UTC as 71st comment | 1 reply
On article Macro photography: Understanding magnification (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

Maxim Ge: I think that the claim "Sensor size does not alter magnification" is arguable. To be more exact magnification definition itself does not quite fit the "real world".

You define maginifcation as "simply the relationship between of the size of the (in-focus) subject's projection on the imaging sensor and the subject's size in reality". I think it has to be coupled with crop factor.

Consider an example. You have a frame 24x36 and make a photo where subject size = 18mm, projected size is 36 mm, so maginification is 2:1, that's correct, but remember - we see that 18mm subject takes the entire frame.

Now we take a tiny camera with crop = 18 and make a photo where subject size = 18mm and projected size is 2 mm. Magnification = 1:9 ? But we continue to see that 18mm subject takes the entire frame.

So 2:1 and 1:9 give same result - strange, isn't it?

I think that crop factor should be added to magnification definition, in this case both considered pictures would have same magnification.

That 'crop- factor' provides magnification is a fallacy, perpetrated by statements such as 'on an x crop factor camera, it's th same as a x mm lens.' If isn't the magnification they're talking about, it's the Field of View. The magnification is the same.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2011 at 21:50 UTC
On article Macro photography: Understanding magnification (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

ptodd: I understand what magnification is; reassuring to have this knowledge consolidated.

What I don't understand is why '1:1' is so special? Using a smaller sensor, lower magnification ratios will yield essentially similar results (in terms of subject size relative to captured image, of course other variables like DOF will be different).

For example, why is it useful to the poster with an HS10 & close-up filter to directly compare the magnification ratio of their system to a user of a 35mm SLR? It seems to have little direct bearing on the subjects they will be able to capture or the images the will be able to produce. The magnification may be useful as an intermediate value for calculation, but why insist that only 1:1 is 'true macro', when for practical purposes the capacity of the system is so dependent on other factors?

I suppose the answer is that it is useful when comparing lenses of different focal length for use on the same size sensor (which in the old days was more fixed).

Why 1:1 is so special is because that is the minimum magnification that can truly be called a 'macro'. Here are the definitions:
>10:10, normal photography.
10:1 to 1:1, close-up photography. (Yes, there are over-laps.)
1:1 to 1:10. macro photography.
1:>10 micro-photography.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2011 at 21:46 UTC
On article What we want in a macro shot – Background (69 comments in total)

The author might do well to look up the definitions of 'Macro Photography' and 'Close-up Photography. Some of the so-called 'macros' he's included in his article are decidedly close-ups, and perhaps more of them are as well. Macros require that the size of the subject image be equal to or larger than it is in real life; i.e. a size ratio between 1::1 and 10::1. Close-up photography is where the subject is between 10 times larger than the captured image to the same size; i.e. 10::1 and 1::1. in Micro-photography, the captured image is more than 10 times large than the subject. Everything else is simply 'plain' or normal photography. With that in mind, it's really a stretch for lens manufacturers to term their macro lenses as such; they're really just close-up lenses (1::1).

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2011 at 22:49 UTC as 7th comment | 3 replies
On Article:7262838870 (6 comments in total)

Littered with assumptions and presumptions.

Posted on Oct 16, 2011 at 09:08 UTC as 4th comment
On article Photo Tip: Five for Five (111 comments in total)

Common sense.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2011 at 01:28 UTC as 37th comment
Total: 18, showing: 1 – 18