HOME | DD

tpenttil In reply to carlosmaximus [2013-10-09 15:43:43 +0000 UTC]

Nice work!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

carlosmaximus In reply to tpenttil [2013-10-09 17:32:02 +0000 UTC]

glad you liked

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Faerlyte In reply to WilderGothica [2012-10-05 21:42:19 +0000 UTC]

I'm pretty sure it's some species of wild sheep.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

WilderGothica In reply to Faerlyte [2012-10-06 10:15:37 +0000 UTC]

Maybe!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Faerlyte In reply to SkullTormentor [2012-10-05 21:38:59 +0000 UTC]

Looks like a wild sheep with cores that big.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

gdpr-703373 In reply to Faerlyte [2012-10-06 12:10:23 +0000 UTC]

Possibly. Else it's a male goat. The males get fairly big horns early on.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

gdpr-703373 In reply to SkullTormentor [2012-10-05 18:01:34 +0000 UTC]

That's actually a fairly decent looking skull. It could have the actual horns, rather than the bone core, but otherwise, I can see a number of uses for the image.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SkullTormentor In reply to gdpr-703373 [2012-10-05 20:36:25 +0000 UTC]

Decent? Really?
It's weathered and incomplete.
And I'm not meaning lack of horn sheats.
On the other hand that photo...
Well let's just say that his not a good photograf.
For comparison I do my photos with Sony DSC-h3 without any lenses or anything.
Nikon is great if You don't like to think about what You're doing.
Have much more to say but no one will actually read it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

jadestone45 In reply to SkullTormentor [2012-10-05 21:30:47 +0000 UTC]

Can I just butt in to say that this is a stock photo, not a photo that's supposed to be for and about the skull?
The photo was taken so that it can be used in photo manipulations, and it's a perfectly good stock photo.

Just because you are also a photographer, doesn't mean you know about every single field of photography.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

gdpr-703373 In reply to SkullTormentor [2012-10-05 20:48:35 +0000 UTC]

Most skulls you're going to run across are weathered. Not everyone can get a hold of a fresh animal head to clean it. Bottom jaws also usually fall apart, depending on the age of the animal and overall health.

The photograph is fine. It shows appropriate depth of field, and your camera does have a lens: the one that's built into it. If it didn't have a lens, you wouldn't be able to take pictures. Pretty much, your camera is a very expensive point and shoot. While they're great for taking quick pictures, they're an absolute nightmare for taking specialized pictures like macro shots.

Your photos aren't honest that great, either. They focus on one small portion of the skull and leave the rest of the skull blurry( [link] ). With your pictures, especially the ones showing the lower jaw, I would expect to be able to see both of the skull pieces.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SkullTormentor In reply to gdpr-703373 [2012-10-05 21:19:39 +0000 UTC]

I meant any OPTIONAL lenses,tripods and so on.
You probably knew that but trying to do idiot from me.
That's not nice.
I'm not a profesional photograf and never had oportunity to work in studio so my photos aren't great.
That's true.
They are just for commercial purposes.
When I see profesional photografer I want to see some good work.
If that photo and many more of "tpenttil" are actually considered as good ones then...Nah. No place for hard words.
Honestly my camera is worth about half of that Nikon rubbish and it IS great for taking macro shots.
I specialize in macro of insects.
But still. I'm just an amateur who has his own opinion.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

gdpr-703373 In reply to SkullTormentor [2012-10-05 21:30:11 +0000 UTC]

You don't need to be a professional, nor have a studio to take good pictures. I doubt that most of the people here are professionals.

Sorry, but a camera where you rely on autofocus does not make for a good macro camera.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SkullTormentor In reply to gdpr-703373 [2012-10-05 21:47:13 +0000 UTC]

You don't have to be a profesional.
But if you name yourself a profesional, then you have to be good.
And one more time. If You know your camera and know few things about photografy then even my little and cheap camera can take good macro of tiny insects outdoor.

As for You "Jadestone".
Yeah I know that this is a stock photo.
But when I see coments like "impressive" or "I see a rabbit there"
then something is boiling inside of me.
It's funny how only THAT single photo of whole set has comments,75 downloads so far and for sake 2000 views!
Does others from that series aren't any use?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

gdpr-703373 In reply to SkullTormentor [2012-10-06 02:52:44 +0000 UTC]

;D I knew my point and shoot quite well. It had to be at a certain distance on the macro setting..But only with certain lighting, otherwise it wouldn't work.

Why does it matter to you what other people comment, or how many views a picture has? Bones simply aren't something that people search for a lot, that's why the rest of them don't have many views/downloads. Hell, I have had stock up for several years that barely have any views.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SkullTormentor In reply to gdpr-703373 [2012-10-06 07:55:05 +0000 UTC]

And does it matter to anyone that I have a different opinion?
It's just incredibly stupid and I can't get it that this specific stock photo of whole series of 14 has any comments and so many downloads.
Is it any more use because was Daily deviation?
For example number 7 has worse light but better angle.
Why does it have 6 downloads not 110?
If people doesn't search for bones they don't need them.
And here comes DD! In matter of one day they ALL need them?
I would't care if that was a nice,artistic photo but no.
It's stock photo which you don't really need everyday.
As for the camera:
Yes it needs certain distance as any other I presume.
Light isn't really Your enemy. You can make quality macro photos in any light.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

gdpr-703373 In reply to SkullTormentor [2012-10-06 12:12:27 +0000 UTC]

...You must be new here. DD's always get more views/downloads because they're brought to the attention of the community. That's what they're for. The image might be downloaded for a variety of reasons: for stock, as a background image, or even just for the hell of in.

Ok, so you wouldn't care if it was "nice", but because it's stock, you do? You have no idea how jealous that makes you sound.

For my particular camera, certain light was needed for it to do a macro shot. Not enough or too much, it wouldn't focus correctly. Either it would end up focusing on the background, or it wouldn't focus at all.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SkullTormentor In reply to gdpr-703373 [2012-10-07 19:45:41 +0000 UTC]

Yeah I'm "new" here and I don't really care about others as my gallery is for commercial purposes. I did mentioned that before.
So DD brings attention only for particular photo not whole work of artist,photografer or whatever?
Are people so dump or just don't want to see anything more?
I'm not jealous. I just don't understand why DD photo no matter how it's looks or what it is actually, have so many downloads,replys and so on.
Why for sake others don't have even single?
Why no one care about other works of photografer/artist and do only about DD?
It's like iphone. Every one like it so I can't be any worse.

As for macro:
Just sit with your camere for few days and get know of it and it's capabilities. Your camera can take quite good macro shots without any aditional lenses.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

gdpr-703373 In reply to SkullTormentor [2012-10-07 22:25:57 +0000 UTC]

The artist does get more attention and the image gets so much attention because it's a site wide recognition of sorts. Others don't have DDs because their work either hasn't been suggested or it didn't meet the gallery director's criteria.

Lol. I knew the camera quite well. Had it for several years and it did take good macro shots, with the correct conditions. Regardless, it doesn't really matter because that particular camera has long sense bit the dust.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SkullTormentor In reply to gdpr-703373 [2012-10-10 15:16:07 +0000 UTC]

It leads us to nowhere as You just don't get my point.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0