* Wednesday C&C "No Theme" Thread #851 / Revived #071 on 2024 08 07 *

They are spectacular cars in immaculate condition and presented in non traditional colours. A wide angle lens as you have used is great for vehicles like this, especially when used from the front of the car. The wa lens distortion emphasizes the forward thrust of the vehicles and gives lots of dof to bring out the fine lines and chrome work.
Which brings us to the bars. I wouldn't want to remove them but I think you might have chosen your angles differently. Image one is different to the later images. Here the V of the angle isn't a barrier, it complements the lines of the car and suggests the same forward movement that the wa lens gives to the vehicles. Here, the bars frame the vehicle and for that reason I like this shot best of the group. That's one possibility.
Another approach might be to go closer to avoid the bars and use more dof. From the exif I see you used F5.6. I know it is a fixed lens camera but I'm not familiar with the lens so my suggestion might not have worked. F11
F16 might have made my suggestion possible while using even more of the wa distortion possibilities of the lens.
With an ILC camera a wider angle lens might have been another approach.

I like watching bird behaviour and I like birdsong but I have rarely worked on photographing them. Extra long teles have never been part of my gear but I get the attraction. Looking at the shadows, that's strong directly overhead light and its tough light for white plumage detail on a black and white bird. Plumage detail is part of the Holy Grail of bird photographers. All the little background highlights further suggest you are dealing with difficult light.
I don't know the bird but I reckon minniev is correct is guessing this is nesting behaviour. The middle shot is especially appealing- probably because it reminds me of a kid with a dirty face.

Personally, I think Kumsal has done a good job in the limiting circumstances. For instance, in picture 3, changing the position of the camera to avoid the bar would not show us the underside of the mudguard.

In my experience with the Q3, f/5.6 is quite a small aperture and promotes more dof than I get with my Canon R6 lenses at the same aperture. I have never needed anything smaller than f/8 on the Q3.

David

Technik Museum Sinsheim is packed with a variety of motor vehicles, often very close to each other.
The number of exhibits is overwhelming.
Often the bars are very close to the cars, which is hard to avoid in the photo.
I was very close to the cars, if you take the length of the car into account, the distance of the car to the bars is easy to estimate.
When I go to the museum, I know that the exhibits are well protected from careless visitors. Not necessarily advantageous for photography, but I don't mind showing this in my photos.

Why someone likes or dislikes an image and to what extent is a matter of personal preferences and taste and so is a matter of opinion.

The grey bars in Kumsal's images are not difficult to remove resulting in images with noticeable more impact for me.

For Kumsal, he prefers to leave the grey bars in the images and that's fine. It is his opinion and preference.

Thank you Mike.

For the sake of clarification this wasn't a macro shot, at least to my understanding of macro photography, which I'm not really in to.

I don't know why the exif is not automatically displayed beneath the image but if you look at the exif in the image file it shows I used 250mm focal length. I was also standing a few metres from the bee.

I also cropped in on the bee in post.

The red color overwhelmed the camera, it looks totally overexposed and unnatural.
Under the hood it looks terrible.
Only the protruding parts look normal.

I welcome the fact that you have posted such a photo of your beginnings here.
I don't want to judge this photo, but see it as a basis for your further development.
And this development is clearly enormous!

Agreed. By technical definition it isn't a macro shot. However, once an image is showing close up detail that I couldn't see without optical assistance, I regard the image as macro. The gear and technique and cropping you used enabled fine detail to be seen in the crop that I couldn't see with the naked eye. We are discussing the image rather than the lens etc. So from that point of view (pun alert) it might be regarded as a macro. Whatever. I liked the shot.

OK. We will get back to this. It will be lengthy. For example, in your original response to the image you said "better." I'll argue that "better" and "right" are very different things, especially when connected to "opinion." Semantics, philosophy and aesthetics intrude. It's a rabbit hole but I want to argue that there is more to it than an acceptance that we all have different opinions and that's the end point of the discussion.
While I now have a bit more data available, it's still limited and so is my time. It will probably be mid October before we can return to this.

Check the response I just posted to Dan about "opinions." For the same reasons, I can't do it now but sometime in the future we will have to have a discussion about the nature of reality, photographs and images. As a starter, your use of "looks" is arguable. "Looks" to who, or what? What a human sees and what other species see can be quite different. Where is "reality" in this. Ansell Adams is good on the subject. Or consider the following.
www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm
I like your shots but a 28mm on FF sensor is already a considerable distortion of reality if your definition of reality is what the human eye sees. I have no problems with that.
Arguably, the moment a lens rather than a pinhole is gathering the light, the image is no longer natural. Bokeh and dof can also be argued to be not natural.

It depends on what aspects of photography Roel was referring to when in his second post he said:

"C. There is no right or wrong, just differences of opinion."

I interpreted that to mean aesthetics.

In the discussion you propose you will need to be clear about which aspects of photography you are are referring to.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

Kumsal is clearly speaking on his behalf and posting his opinion on how your image looks to him.

Other people might or might not agree with his opinion to various extents.

Unlike in some of your posted opinions where you use plural pronouns which could be interpreted in some situations as you speaking for everyone else.

As Roel said earlier, there is no right or wrong, only differences in opinions, especially with aesthetics.

I'm begging you Mike..
Many of Roel's photos are wide angle photos and you are full of praise.
My photos with 28 mm are supposed to have so much distortion that they shouldn't be posted here like that?
I can't believe that!

I am talking about what we mean by normal and natural and the nature of photographic images. This gets into the same territory as our the other current discussion I have postponed. It can be left as you think this and I think that (and I find that position superficial) or we can probe into the meanings of things like "natural" when such statements are made.
Re my use of a plural pronoun when discussing an image. Yes, one might choose to regard it as speaking for everyone but that is not the way it is correctly used in the context and most people would recognize it as such. This kind of nuance is one of the glories of the English language. I thought we had already dealt with it.

As long as it is clear people are speaking only on behalf of themselves then it is very clear that the something does not look natural to them.

It still might or might not look natural to other people.

But not all of us agree with your opinion.

Ambiguous use of "we" allows people to interpret for themselves whether you are speaking for yourself only or attempting to speak for everyone else.

"Overwhelmed" and "totally overexposed" are very much an exaggeration imo when I look at the histograms of the jpeg data.

I doubt you have a copy of the raw file so I assume you are not referring to the raw data for which you would need something like RawDigger to look at the histogram of the actual channels' raw data.

Yes, a tiny number of pixels in the red channel in the image's rgb data have been clipped but the reds certainly did not overwhelm the camera.

Of the 2,567,600 pixels in the red channel only 110,087 (4.29%) are in the 253-255 range on the histogram.

The luminosity histogram also shows there is very little clipping of data in the image.

Of the 2,567,600 pixels in the image only 8601 (0.33%) have a luminosity in the 253-255 range.

I suspect most, if not all, of those 8601 (0.33%) pixels are from the blown out background behind the glass or doorway behind the car.

So there is very little clipping of data in the image.

What data are you basing your opinions of "overwhelmed" and "totally overexposed" on?

You are misunderstanding me Kumsal. Let me try to explain it further.
I have no argument at all with your use of wa. As I said in my first reply to this image, I like the wa and angles for the cars you have used in these pictures. The wa distortion emphasizes the lines of the cars. That's a photographer's choice made with good reason. What I am saying is that photography is not reality. I'm responding to your thoughts that my shot doesn't look natural. What photographic images show is always a distortion of reality. A photographer can just press a button and accept whatever they get or a photographer can control the variables to produce the result they want.
Or think about the car I photographed. It isn't meant to be a real car. It may have begun as a real car but now it is an art object making a statement about cars. The maker is exaggerating some aspects of cars for the point he wants to make. My photo tries to deliberately play with what I felt was the concept. Whether I succeeded or not depends on how the viewer sees my photo. Incidentally, the colour isn't an exaggeration. The artist wanted the red to be as red as possible.