It’s one of my favorite wildflowers, here in New Mexico. The root systems are known to track up to 150 feet to find water – though that’s not a problem with these.
This is at the bottom of our back meadow, the water table is about 4 feet down, the Santa Fe River is about 50 feet away.
Mostly, I’m still settling in to my new camera: Panasonic Lumix FZ50. The ergonomics are the best ever.
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 4346 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Hey, that’s my camera! Welcome to the club.
Pros:
Excellent photos in good or moderate light
Great 12x zoom lens
Excellent OIS
Good flash photos
Good video
Cons:
Noisy or overprocessed photos in low light (it’s a good idea to set noise reduction to “low” in settings menu).
Slower than an SLR.
It’s the best sub-SLR camera I have used. Compared to an SLR it is slower with less picture quality, on the other hand it is cheaper, lighter, more compact, takes video, and has a much longer zoom range.
wait for an overcast day. Makes for better colour saturation and shadows.
Stop buying cameras and buy some lessons…. That is one ugly photo…
I liked seeing this. Brought some beauty to this site. Refreshing. No criticism for a change.
4 – you must really be hardup because washed out and boring is anything but beautiful.
so FU. Mmmm that’s more like it :p.
That sure is a nice camera. I like looking at pictures. Wunderground shows up on the screen of my computer very soon every morning.
Everybody is a critic!Maddog,Green….cheap shot we don’t need it here.I prefer a couple of boobs in my picture not in the comment section.
7 – was wrong billa.. you a shitty photographer too?
Not meant it to be a cheap shot but people keep running out an buying bigger and better cameras thinking it will make their photos better… Instead next time you are thinking of upgrading your camera invest some time in a local photo course. The difference you see in your pictures may make it worth holding off on the new camera… I bought my first digital SLR about a year and a half ago. I really didn’t start to get really good pictures from it until I started hang out with other picture takers who I thought took really nice shots and seeing what they did and how they framed things etc. A lot of photography is not technology but art…..
Nice picture. Makes me homesick, I grew up in Colorado.
Baddog, Would you care to have us critique your abilities and end product, Huh?
#9, Maddog,
So you bought yourself an SLR. YAY for you.
I’ve been using and owned SLRs for thirty years now. Yet at no time have I decided that someone else couldn’t take good pictures because of their equipment. Some of the best shots I’ve seen were done with P&S (point and shoot) film cameras.
Ed’s picture is a good shot. His focus is well balanced plus he makes good use of the background to highlight his subject. I’m not sure what you would consider faults. Does it need extra contrast? Not in my opinion. Is there too much “busy” in the shot? That is subjective but here it contributes to the shot, it adds perspective and location. Should he have used a polarizer/yellow/blue/ or whatever filter? No. Any color changes can always be done later, but in my opinion, none is needed.
Not meant it to be a cheap shot but people keep running out an buying bigger and better cameras thinking it will make their photos better
This year I did several photo shoots of sports. I purposely used wider angle than the action so as not to miss any action. I think every picture ended up being cropped, some by 2/3s. Yet, because of the high resolution, I can still present a good picture. (Try catching a batter hitting the ball and you will see what I mean). In many cases bigger is better.
A lot of photography is not technology but art…..
Ahh, but most isn’t. Your superior attitude might give you some great pictures, but >99% of photography is the recording of the moment. If Aunt Betsy can take a better picture because she can zoom in / out and get the whole family without cutting off heads or leaving giant areas of air around the subject then good for her.
ED,
Like the shot. Please know that you do have several readers that know what a good picture is.
Eideard,
I would like to publicly apologize for my initial comment as it was in no way constructive and was as some one pointed out a cheap shot. I was overly critical and sorry. While it is technically a good photo I just wish you got a more interesting angle or perspective of the flower. Where it could feel more like the subject. But on the positive side I like that you did center it and gave it some depth by not shooting it straight on.
I sent three links above but only one seems to have come over.
[Fixed it for you. When you post a URL, you can just type it in. You don’t need any extra HTML code. – hhopper]
I like the pic and the story behind the plant. Nice post…
It is nice to see someone act in a humble way on a thread.Maddog I will go back now and read your other criticism because of your apology.Well done!
Nice photo.
Some of the responses are correct in pointing out that this is not really a great photograph. We can provide some tips to make it better, and it can certainly be improved with whatever hardware the shooter is using.
But give the shooter a break! He likes the subject. It has meaning to him. It appears to have been shot in the early morning or late evening, which is always the best light. So he was getting close to the right stuff.
I think he posted it to share his enjoyment of the flower. Let’s all take a deep breath and realize that is what he meant. Nothing more. Nothing else is necessary.
#19, Mike,
Some of the responses are correct in pointing out that this is not really a great photograph. We can provide some tips to make it better, and it can certainly be improved with whatever hardware the shooter is using.
This is more than a little disingenuous. Tell us what a “great photograph” is. Tell us how it might be improved. Then tell us why your interpretation of what makes this less than great is more valid then us mere mortals who do appreciate it.
I don’t care if it was Yousef Karsh, Ansell Adams, or whomever, there will always be room for some critical improvement. Shit, even the Mona Lisa has flaws in it to the point where da Vinci painted over sections at least twice.
This is a good photograph. It displays the subject well, the meaning is clear, the flower is crisp, the focal length is well mastered, The depth of field perfect in my opinion, the color contrast is well defined, and the whole composition is meaningful. What is there not to like? What is there to improve?
Just suggesting there is room for improvement only makes matters worse. It suggests elitism and superiority on your part and confuses the audience as to what those improvements might be.
*
NOTE: Morning / evening light is only the best light when it is a requirement to the picture. If the flower bloomed mid morning and shriveled early afternoon there would be no sense taking the picture at any other time. If a rock, tree, or other object blocked the sun when it is low then again, there would be no sense taking the picture without time consuming reflectors or artificial lights. If the photographer wasn’t there early morning or late afternoon, he couldn’t take the picture.
You take the picture as it is and make the best of it. If you want your picture to look studio perfect, then do it in your studio. Flash Memory is cheap; take lots of pictures from different angles, focal lengths, depths of field, etc. The odds are that none else will ever see that picture. Of those that do see it, the odd are even greater that no one will give more than a passing note.
Hey not to give up on this but I downloaded the picture and rotated it 90 degrees which I think was the way it was taken and it looks way way better. Perhaps it was the fact the ground seems to be on the right hand side of the image that was putting me off. Does the image so in Landscape to everyone? I think it looks way better in Portrait.