Running on Water* by Canon DSLR Challenge


05-DEC-2005	Gary Woodburn

Much more effective in a larger size.
IMG_2523.jpg

Canon EOS 20D
1/1000s f/8.0 at 280.0mm iso400 full exif

other sizes: small medium large original auto

Please do not delete, update, or otherwise edit others' entries
* Submitter retains all copyrights *

arminb		12-Dec-2005 22:41
Agreed, I like this version much more as well! Cheers, Armin

Canon DSLR Challenge		10-Dec-2005 08:15
sharon thanks for the positive comment...I liked the original better also.

elips		10-Dec-2005 04:40
Gary, I really liked your original image a lot. I think putting the individual images in frames breaks it up too much. I understood that it was a composite of one duck landing and I liked it that way. People are pretty sophisticated these days and know how to look at photography. I don't think anyone would be fooled by your stitched together photo. On the contrary I think most people would think it quite clever. I did! ~Sharon

Canon DSLR Challenge		08-Dec-2005 01:20
Armin thanks....does this work better or not...than the original image?

Canon DSLR Challenge		08-Dec-2005 01:11
Victor blowing up the last blended image shows careless blending, hence extra shadows from the duck in front methinks. Thanks. Lesson learned...blow up blended images and take a closer look before using them!

Canon DSLR Challenge		08-Dec-2005 01:06
Victor, just a sec and will look for the ghost in the other blended picture. does this rendition work better, original images as seen by camera. lens used was canon's 70-200 2.8 IS plus canon's 1.4 tc.

Canon DSLR Challenge		08-Dec-2005 00:57
OK. I suppose regular waves could have caused that. I just noticed something else peculiar about the middle duck. It looks like it's following its ghost. Can you see the ghost of the duck about a bill length and a half ahead of it? This makes me curious about the lens and/or teleconverter(s) you used. Or do you have another explanation for the ghost? -- Victor

Canon DSLR Challenge		07-Dec-2005 23:36
Victor thanks for your comments, perhaps 3 frames with in a frame would have been better, the reflections below each duck belong to the duck and were not touched in blending the images together..I shall redo this later this evening as three separate pictures with in a frame Gary

Victor Engel		07-Dec-2005 22:04
I realize the whole point of the challenge is to have multiple photos, but in this case, you're essentially creating a composite. At first glance it looks like either a strobed time exposure or a single frame of three ducks. On closer inspection, it seems clear that it is a composition of three shots of the same duck. The question then becomes what do you want it to look like. Since you've blended the images together, I presume you want it to look like a single shot. I see some significant cloning artifacts, including some that is objectionable. The objectionable part, IMO, is the multiple reflections of the head of the center duck. Can you explain why so much cloning was necessary? Maybe there's a better alternative. -- Victor

arminb		07-Dec-2005 19:19
:o) Lovely! Cheers, Armin