# A walk in the park.



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

It was a bit overcast in Glasgow today with just an odd glimpes of sun now and again, not great for photography but i went for a walk in the park anyway. Here's some of the better ones.​
























































As SXI said last week using VSO image resizer robs some sharpness now and again to a greater or lesser extent depending on photograph despite only using it to add borders and watermarks. Anyone got a better program for doing this, please let me know.​
Anyway I hope you like them ​


----------



## mteam (Dec 8, 2007)

Nice mate :thumb:

the one looking up the steps and the 2 waterfall ones for me

1st one looks a bit blurry could be my eyes 

I haven't had the camera out for a couple of weeks  I'll try and get out at weekend you've just given me a bit of inspiration


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

mteam said:


> Nice mate :thumb:
> 
> the one looking up the steps and the 2 waterfall ones for me
> 
> ...


Yeh, I didn't notice it was blurry until I posted it up. I'm blaming VSO for that one

In fact, that's so bad I'm removing it  In fact I'm gonna repost without using VSO


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

Not only had some of the photos lost quality but some of them had resized to the wrong size so the pics without borders above have been replaced.

Thanks for being patient.:thumb:


----------



## V8burble (Jul 3, 2007)

mteam said:


> Nice mate :thumb:
> 
> the one looking up the steps and the 2 waterfall ones for me
> 
> ...


From the Exif, the aperture on #1 is only f/4 so only a small portion of the wall is in focus (near to where the first step to the capping is) which leaves you thinking the shot is soft. You might have been better either focusing closer to you so that the nearest wall portion is in focus, or stopping down the aperture to increase the DoF. But wow! that's moss :doublesho


----------



## buckas (Jun 13, 2008)

think #1 is the best technically, also would definitely benefit from higher dof (need tripod for f/22)


----------



## ryanuk (Jun 22, 2007)

some nice pics there mate!


----------



## V8burble (Jul 3, 2007)

buckas said:


> think #1 is the best technically, also would definitely benefit from higher dof (need tripod for f/22)


TBH he needs a tripod (or other support) way before that, although there was still a bit of room to stop down from f/4 without raising the ISO even more, not sure how the D60 performs over ISO800. At that focal length of 22mm you should be able to hand hold a lot slower than 1/100"... in fact at least a whole stop lower, but f/8 and smaller would def need a tripod or support, unless you are made of stone .


----------



## buckas (Jun 13, 2008)

V8burble said:


> TBH he needs a tripod (or other support) way before that


of course, was giving him the suggestion of using f/22 due to the depth of the subject involved


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

Thanks for the comments guys. I didn't take the tripod with me. I didn't fancy lugging it around the park. Lighting was poor and I was a little unimpressed with what I managed to capture but it was a nice walk. I got rather excited when a kingfisher flew up the river, but it didn't stop and despite looking for it for the next half an hour, I left with no shot of it.  I really need to spend more time on planning my shots. I tend to get carried away and just shoot for the sake of it. DSLRs are so much more complicated than my old OM2n. I need to do better.


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

V8burble said:


> From the Exif, *the aperture on #1* is only f/4 so only a small portion of the wall is in focus (near to where the first step to the capping is) which leaves you thinking the shot is soft. You might have been better either focusing closer to you so that the nearest wall portion is in focus, or stopping down the aperture to increase the DoF. But wow! that's moss :doublesho


My fault, that wasn't the original #1. I removed that one compleatly.


----------



## buckas (Jun 13, 2008)

spitfire said:


> I got rather excited when a kingfisher flew up the river, but it didn't stop and despite looking for it for the next half an hour, I left with no shot of it.


Nice! that's my aim this year, to capture a kingfisher.......next on the order list is a 1.4 extender :thumb:


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

I'm just wondering, do you guys still take pics if there's flat lighting or wouldn't you bother?


----------



## buckas (Jun 13, 2008)

yeh, sometimes it can help - using grads could help contrast the clouds a bit and create a bit more of a mood. 

also porttraits of things, birds/statues/animals etc can be better to shoot as there's a global illumination like a giant light box so there isn't a set strong light direction 

also, nearer sunrise/sunset you might get a break in cloud which could make a mega sky or rays over a land/seascape 

drew


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

Thanks Drew, I just find my pics are better when there's good contrast and flat lighting is a bit uninteresting.


----------



## 'Buzzkill' (Jan 16, 2009)

Never seen moss looking so good


----------

