Couldn't resist the pun, fairly basic equipment, Pentax Z1 with 28/80 FA" lens set at 80 mm macro with 25 mm extension tube, F11 at 1/60th (I think), hand held, Fuji Sensia 100 asa rerated at 200 asa. Scanned on a flatbed UMAX scanner with photo adaptor - (could be better quality resolution with a real film scanner) Oh yes subject is common blue damselflies, on River Kennet in Berkshire UK at some ridiculously early time of day - 5.30 am'ish.

-- Mike Smith (Msmith8741@aol.com), July 27, 2000

Answers

Don't know why this is being compressed by so much, file size on my web space is 42K, but is displaying at only 8K with horrible jpeg compression. should be much sharper than on my screen at present? - any suggestions as to whats going on?

-- Mike Smith (msmith8741@aol.com), July 27, 2000.

Very nice.

Regarding the file size, it is the 42k file & not 8k as you believe. Anyhow, the only thing that I'd consider doing would be to lose the top 1/2" or so just to get rid of that blade of grass in the upper right corner.

Nice & sharp considering it was handheld.

Well done.

-- Paul Youd (pauls@deathsdoor.com), July 27, 2000.

Shows up ok at 48k over here. My guess would be AOL is doing some kind compression to save bandwidth.

-- rob dalrymple (robd13@erols.com), July 28, 2000.

Oh yes forgot to mention that the catch-lights are natural, no digital manipulation here.

Agreed that the grass stems to upper right are distracting, but I thought if I cut down/crop the photo that the overall dimensions/composition becomes compromised, I suppose the answer is to digitally remove the offending items, but then does this not then incur the wrath of "hands of man". I am not fully conversant with the views on digital manipulation to remove extrenuous detail. I suppose that in the dark room the item could be masked off....

I suppose that removing said items does not affect the image "per se" is this therefore within the unwritten rules?

Previous posting suggested removing the central image, the moon, tantamaount to the same thing? - not in my view, the photographer has a set image in mind, removing that element is surely beyond the scope of manipulation, whether or not it makes a better photograph?

Perhaps I am too much of a purist, is digital manipulation now part and parcel of the Nature photography scene? Where is the line drawn?

-- Mike Smith (msmith8741@aol.com), July 28, 2000.

I consider digital manipulation to be completely different from cropping. Cropping just chooses where the photo ends; although smaller, it is still a true representation of the image you originally captured. Manipulation edits the image itself, so the image is no longer the same. Here, I'd say cropping the grass out is fine, and would even suggest it; whereas I would draw the line at editing out the moon in the last post.

For digital manipulation in general, I basically agree with the FoundView standards. They've gone to lengths over there to establish standards, so I won't try to rehash them here. These standards are of course not for everyone, but I like 'em.

The "hand of man" rule is not that the hand of man can't be used in taking the photograph (otherwise we wouldn't have any photos here). Rather, it's a rule to keep man-made stuff out of nature photos -- no fences, roads, paths, etc.

-- Christian Deichert (torgophile@aol.com), July 31, 2000.

p.s. To properly view graphics on AOL, you need to do two things. First, open up "Preferences;" should be under the "My AOL" heading in AOL 4.0 and above. In Preferences, select "Graphics" and set JPG compression quality to 100. Next, select "WWW" and click on the tab for "Web Graphics." Uncheck the box that says "Use compressed graphics."

Or, just do what I do and run Netscape Navigator while you're connected through AOL. I think it just works better.

-- Christian Deichert (torgophile@aol.com), July 31, 2000.

First, there are many more important guidelines than the "rule of thirds", as is taught in any graphics design class. I really wish people would stop trying to make every photo conform to "rule of thirds" because they're only stifling their own creativity. Don't forget abot "point, form, harmony, contrast, line, texture" and all the other "rules" of compositon...

That said, I like it. :>

I don't find the blades of grass at upper right distracting, in fact I think they add an element of realism. However, if you choose to remove them, I have no objection to that either, so long as you label it as such.

As for "Found View", they're far too anal for their own good, and I don't know of very many photographers that would ever subscribe to their narrow minded "ideals".

Cheers, Keith

-- Keith Clark (clarkphotography@spiritone.com), July 31, 2000.

"Perhaps I am too much of a purist, is digital manipulation now part and parcel of the Nature photography scene? Where is the line drawn?"

For purposes of this forum the answer is on the rules page. On the opening page of "Nature Photography Image Critique," you will find a string of links across the top of the page. Click on "About." An information page will open. The last sentence of the first paragraph provides you with a link to the "image submission guidelines and rules" for posting images on this forum. There you will find that images should follow both "Foundview" and "PSA nature definition." Bob Atkins has provided a brief overview of these two rules and a link to "Foundview" page. Here is the link to the PSA Nature definition: http://www.psa-photo.org/nddef2.htm

-- Chris Varner (Johnny Pinto@msn.com), August 01, 2000.