Another side of Floriade

If you want close up shots of tulips the tulip farm on the federal hwy is the place to go. It costs 10.00 so is far less crowded than floriade, and you can get a whole bed of tulips to yourself.

Where’s the image gone?

Asp, you know this isn’t a specialist photography forum. You get the criticism that you get, you can’t complain if it doesn’t suit.

You might want to look at the DRM issue again if you’re spending money. I don’t know any that hasn’t been cracked. DRM will stop the uninformed amateurs who want to pinch a shot, but it won’t stop the dedicated who want the image.

I prefer to degrade the image. A computer monitor can’t come close to a print, so degrade it to the best a monitor can handle, but that won’t print well. Personally I look at it like putting a flyer on people’s windscreens — people get to see it, but the real quality stays with the original.

???

Yep, you’re definitely a lady-man.

Boasting?
This shot is on a number of forums and has attracted both praise and constructive criticism. General, nonconstructive negativity and cynicism is just annoying. As Danman said, RiotACT isn’t what it used to be. Think I’ll stick to forums which aren’t so low-brow.

I prefer Danman’s shots … and he doesn’t tend to boast while posting them.

correction: “Though I agree” = though i disagree.

Can’t take shots, take lots. That’s my motto.

JD114,
According to the meta-data, the shutter speed was 1/250. Though I agree, I think it was faster and the meta data is wrong. I think it’s more 1/500 or even higher. The lens was a Canon EF100mm Macro f/2.8. Meta-data indicates it was taken at the focal length of 100mm.

Apologies for spelling, I was lazy and had Firefox spell check my post, not realising it changed cygnets to signets.

Sadly, I believe the watermark is nessesary. Last year, someone took an image of mine off a forum and entered it into a photo competition on another website I look at regularly. It won $50. Not much, but that was my $50 and prize credit I should have gotten. I don’t think anyone on here would do such a thing, but many photographers will watermark images. I am about to invest in a digital copy protection system that uses near invisable watermarking and DRM embedded in the image so that images can be protected without unsightly watermarks.

Swaggie,
I bracket shots and due to wind, often use burst mode because the wind can move a shot out of frame often. So there are many multiples. I took 423 shots in four hours. Poor exposures were delated when the images were downloaded into Adobe Lightroom. I then ranked the images, resulting in around 10 images rated 5 stars (great/unique) and another 30 rated 4star (very good).

350 shots??? Hoping a couple turned out right were you? LOL

(Canon EF100mm Macro, 1/250, ISO 200)(Copyright 2007)

Are you sure it wasn’t taken at 1/200 at 98mm non macro? Sure looks like it to me. It just doesn’t quite have thqat 1/250 feel about it…

And why destroy the integrity of the image with a senseless watermark? It’s not like it’s such a world-beating image that your status as a future millionaire would be compromised if someone were to use the image somewhere sometime for some purpose…

“Cygnets”.

I’m a little worried that the photographer appears to have drawn a crosshairs watermark over the cute little creatures.

It’s cygnet.

ABC Floriade Gallery…
So you can win $30 of Bananas in Pyjamas or Gardening Australia DVDs?
Or have your photo shown and talked about by the disasterously provincial weatherman they’ve put on recently?

Score!

You should upload some to the ABC’s floriade gallery.