I really like the second one best because the colors are fantastic, but the 3rd one is probably a little artsy-er. The colors, man (or woman), the colors! The one in the front has his antennae?/feelers? on full display, and the 2nd little guy in the background is great. Sorry, I'm not really up on my snail anatomy.
Furthermore I think the background content in the 3rd photo is the most visually interesting - there are a variety of shapes and textures, much more so than in the first photo. The second photo is very natural looking, but I'd definitely say #3 if you can only enter one into the contest.
Oh, and in the first photo, I think the fact that the snail's antenna?/feeler? thing on his right is coming toward the camera at an odd angle that sort of hides it from view kind of detracts a bit from the overall completeness or feeling of the image.
Cool images. I like #3 for more variety, and it would probably have a better chance. #1 is my favorite though. It looks like the snail is like "I am the supreme ruler of all!"
Hey, guys. Quote me if you want me to respond. Otherwise I'll have no idea what the hell you want with me.
Friend Code: 1263-6258-8121 (Poison)
Friend Safaris: Poison: Swalot, Whirlipede, Seviper.
First and third have elements of both nature and man-made objects clashing in the setting. Third has a very complex background (comparatively) and draws attention away from the snail. The bokeh effect of the first is nowhere near as apparent or as smooth because the background elements are all disconnected from each other, and the bokeh effect of the third completely alienates the snail and whatever the snail is riding on.
Also, both in the first and the third, that thing that the snail is riding on could just as easily be the subject of the photo as the snail could be.
In contrast with the first and third, the second shows plenty of detail, has only natural elements in the setting, and the background is much more simple and fitting and really brings out the nature of the snail. Also, since the background is completely connected to the foreground, the bokeh effect is much smoother and more apparent.
They're all very nice pictures though. May I ask what camera and what lens you used to take them? And also what settings? (FYI, submitting the settings, such as aperture, shutter speed, and ISO, usually help your chances a bit.)
Canon Powershot, since it's a compact i used the lens attached to it... with a dollar store magnefying glass taped on to further reduce the DOF. f/2.4 because it had a cheap light sensor so everything was dark, 100 ISO, since anything above that looks absolutely horrible on that camera. It can make chroma noise like no other...
Never heard of that as a solution before. Do you have any issues with chromatic aberration?
I ask because I bought a set of dedicated macro diopters and most of them introduce a slight degree of aberration.
Here's one of the more extreme examples:
Maybe I would have been better off with a magnifying glass.
Then again, magnifying glasses aren't exactly known to preserve lens resolution.
Yeah, there was some issue with it. You can see it in the full size original, though it was a very weak magnefying glass, since my goal wasn't to magnefy anything, but just get a nice soft background.
no matter how strong of a magnifying glass you attach to a camera lens, nothing will be magnified because the glass doesn't work as a magnifier anymore, it works as a diopter. The only ways to actually magnify anything in a picture would be to get closer to it or use a longer focal length.
Anyways, you could look into using the camera as it is without the magnifying glass, maybe at a larger aperture if possible. Then again, there are plenty of times where f/2.4 is already too open for macro photography. I get plenty of shots where f/2.4 gives me a depth of field of a few centimeters, which isn't enough to keep my entire subject (usually a flower) in focus.
Or, i could start using the DSLR i recently bought. It's a Pentax k30. I've yet to find any snails to use it on.
See, personally I thought the first one had more of a sense of adventure, from the worn down manmade scenery elements. You have a slow and vulnerable snail curiously exploring a dark and unknown world.
I like the story that #1 seems to tell and the use of empty space. The clarity of colour is very nice in #2, however I am still more drawn to #1. Very nice work!
The use of empty space would indeed have made it an excellent shot had the OP positioned the snail towards the left and up a bit more, which makes the subject more energetic and dynamic and not anchored.
I agree entirely; to be fair, I was looking at these photos on a fairly small screen where I had to scroll to see the entirety. This, admittedly, is not the optimum condition under which to view any piece of art. Upon second viewing I see the subject is more centred than I previously thought. Very good point.
I'd say try picking between the first two.
Furthermore I think the background content in the 3rd photo is the most visually interesting - there are a variety of shapes and textures, much more so than in the first photo. The second photo is very natural looking, but I'd definitely say #3 if you can only enter one into the contest.
Oh, and in the first photo, I think the fact that the snail's antenna?/feeler? thing on his right is coming toward the camera at an odd angle that sort of hides it from view kind of detracts a bit from the overall completeness or feeling of the image.
Good luck!
Hey, guys. Quote me if you want me to respond. Otherwise I'll have no idea what the hell you want with me.
Friend Code: 1263-6258-8121 (Poison)
Friend Safaris: Poison: Swalot, Whirlipede, Seviper.
I'll do it for it.
RANDOM.ORG says (best 2 out of 3?)
First is 2.
Second is 3.
Third is 2.
Guess it's number two.
Canon Powershot, since it's a compact i used the lens attached to it... with a dollar store magnefying glass taped on to further reduce the DOF. f/2.4 because it had a cheap light sensor so everything was dark, 100 ISO, since anything above that looks absolutely horrible on that camera. It can make chroma noise like no other...
I can't recall the shutter speed.
Yeah, there was some issue with it. You can see it in the full size original, though it was a very weak magnefying glass, since my goal wasn't to magnefy anything, but just get a nice soft background.
Or, i could start using the DSLR i recently bought. It's a Pentax k30. I've yet to find any snails to use it on.
I agree entirely; to be fair, I was looking at these photos on a fairly small screen where I had to scroll to see the entirety. This, admittedly, is not the optimum condition under which to view any piece of art. Upon second viewing I see the subject is more centred than I previously thought. Very good point.
Then I clicked it, saw them, and now wish I could use them as wallpapers.
It's a tough call since they're all so nice, but I would say the second.
You can if you want. Here's a bigger one.
I have a Spoon. Your argument is invalid.