Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Vincent" data-source="post: 176142" data-attributes="member: 15675">Thanks for the DOF examples and tricks (being square), it will help if I remember.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite9" alt=":eek:" title="Eek!&nbsp; &nbsp; :eek:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":eek:" />Exif data : was on auto: F/1,8&nbsp; 1/800s&nbsp; ISO-100&nbsp; 50mm(prime) 1,6 Maximum opening* the focus seems to be off somehow =&gt; was also auto, it looked good in the viewer, it is certainly a point I need to train on.* seems a tad overexposed.. to be able to see the finer details on the petals of the folower etc, it's better to be slightly underexposed=&gt; it was PP, where I normally do not do that, I just liked how it turned out, but have no clue what I was doing. I agree though: contrast improved but details were less clear.[ATTACH]44971[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vincent, post: 176142, member: 15675"] Thanks for the DOF examples and tricks (being square), it will help if I remember.:o Exif[COLOR=#000000] data : was on auto: F/1,8 1/800s ISO-100 50mm(prime) 1,6 Maximum opening [/COLOR] [COLOR=#000000]* the focus seems to be off somehow => was also auto, it looked good in the viewer, it is certainly a point I need to train on.[/COLOR] [COLOR=#000000]* seems a tad overexposed.. to be able to see the finer details on the petals of the folower etc, it's better to be slightly underexposed => it was PP, where I normally do not do that, I just liked how it turned out, but have no clue what I was doing. I agree though: contrast improved but details were less clear.[/COLOR] [ATTACH=CONFIG]44971._xfImport[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]

Verification