technical: Nikon FM2n Tamron 90mm f2.5 at f4 Handheld Nikon Coolscan LS-30

(Moderator, please delete my first attempt. Thanks.)

-- Steven Daniels (stevedaniels@hill.com), October 03, 2000

Answers

Steven,

This isn't a bad shot, particularly for hand-held. I like the composition very much. The main distraction for me is that the frog's front eye isn't in focus (it looks like the back is). I know rules are made to be broken but I think this shot would have been more effective had the eye been in focus. Again, very good for hand- held.

Regards,

Sean www.stnphotography.com

-- Sean (stnoonan@stnphotography.com), October 03, 2000.

Steven-- I agree with Sean's comment about the eye- that first caught my eye. It would help to get a little more depth of field on the frog but part of this images appeal is the sharp & unsharp giving it a jungle like look. I was wondering how you were able to capture this frog with a 90mm. Was he in a transparent container? I like the contrast, cool rendering,(great scan) and I like the tight cropping. Was this shot with TMAX? The twig near the frog's nose looks like something from Jimmy Buffet's pencil thin mustache song. I would like to see more.

-- gary przyborski (garyprzy@crosswinds.net), October 03, 2000.

Sean,

I agree that the eye's not being in focus is distracting. I have an image with a more in focus eye, but somewhat of a looser framing. I'll add it after this message.

Gary,

If I wasn't clear above (sounds like me), the lens I used was a macro lens. I was pretty close to this critter (as close as the lens allowed, pretty much); it took a while to sidle up to him. No containers involved. :) I used TMAX 400CN. Thanks for the encouragement re: contrast, scan (new toy!), and cropping. I had a few decent shots to choose from, and the "eye out of focus" one edged out the "not as well cropped" one (see below).

-Steve

-- Steven Daniels (stevedaniels@yahoo.com), October 04, 2000.

Looser crop, more in focus eye.

-- Steven Daniels (stevedaniels@yahoo.com), October 04, 2000.

Second shot is better for the frog, but not for the picture. The leaves below and beside the frog are more distracting for me in the second shot; they keep drawing my attention away from the frog because they're so much brighter than the rest of the picture. [They're not as obvious in the first shot.] Unfortunately, they're in the same area of the frame as the frog, so you really can't crop them out.

-- Christian Deichert (torgophile@aol.com), October 04, 2000.

Christian,

Thanks for your input. I agree with your assessment about the leaves, now that you point it out.

-Steve

-- Steven Daniels (stevedaniels@hill.com), October 05, 2000.

Steven-- When I said it's amazing you could capture the frog with a 90mm, I was thinking of how physically close you must have been. My own experience with chameleons shows me that it is difficult to get too close to them; I've been thinking of getting a 180mm macro for such purposes.

I like the original crop better. Christian's comment is good about the leaves. I suggest making the leaves a little lighter than the one on the lower left. The effect is to make the edges of the image a little darker, which leads the eye more toward the center. I know how to do this in a real darkroom but am less adept doing this with a digital image.

-- gary przyborski (garyprzy@crosswinds.net), October 06, 2000.

Gary,

In my experience, when I find a frog that doesn't hop away at my first movement in his direction, I have a fairly good chance of getting this close, as long as I don't make any sudden movements.

I guess the tradeoff with the 90mm is that it's easier to handhold than a 180mm or 200mm.

I was planning on digitally darkening (you did mean darkening, right?) the bottom leaves in the second image, and seeing how that goes.

Thanks again.

-- Steven Daniels (stevedaniels@yahoo.com), October 06, 2000.