Your edit (and the link) do show how lighting can be used to create separation from the 'negative space', as it is sometimes called. Your 1/80th shot is of course another way of doing it. Separation is a huge factor. In my UW work, I always tried to keep in mind 4 "S's": Subject, Sharpness (not so easy underwater), Separation and Surroundings.

why are you laughing ? my picture was good and you made it look horrible.

whoosh

That's what I get for treating this like a photography forum. My bad.

Did you not want a critique? Getting a bunch of seemingly out-in-left-field ideas for things like photographs and bike race reports from people experienced in that area can be productive.

"Good" is in the eye of the beholder. The photo is good from a technical standpoint. Properly exposed (a little clipped), in focus, and composition is fine. Note that this can be accomplished with most phone cameras in bright light.

I'm suggesting that next time you could do more with light and implied motion and grow a bit in the hobby.

**** all y'all I can take awesome nudie pictures with this...

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=322840

You want seperation? Look at my guads...

Polaroid is safer, depending on how edgy your subject matter is.

Is it waterproof?
Things can get messy you know...

No, but if you bring a couple spares...

They aren't too expensive

:d:d

I guess the stupid smiley doesn't work all by itself..

:D:D

I'm more than happy to get critique. I just prefer its from someone who knows what they are talking about. Are you fast on a bicycle ?

I'm sorry you got offended when I offered an opinion to your photos where you managed to make a DSLR capture images like a phone camera .

We cool now?

:fight:

And you never answered his question...
Should I send him some of your low lighting work?

You have to be careful with this. Your eye has its own limitations and light response which is quite nonlinear. Cameras capture light linearly. So... many edits (including HDR) could be argued to bring the photo to what is actually observed.

keep your pants on (taken on a moonless night, outdoors, one flash with three handheld pops, single exposure)

http://waterrockets.smugmug.com/Othe...IMG_9920-L.jpg

This true for exposure and white balance. It's amazing how we see correct color in some of the screwed up light we find ourselves. Truly, every digital image is "edited" in some form, just to get it off the sensor with the Bayer filter interpolation -- what is captured is not a quality image in its initial digital form.

That said, the kind of editing done in the race above is not how I handle my own images - it really was just to demonstrate a lighting possibility. In my own editing, I rarely move a pixel, sometimes I'll roll a gradient across a wide shot to even the lighting out a bit -- especially for outdoor team portraits. For sports photography especially, I just hone the contrast a bit, sharpen things, get the WB looking right, and crop it if needed. I shot a swim team last week, individual action shots, and I'm finally getting to where a significant number of straight-on fly and breaststroke (easy rk, easy) shots don't need any cropping. It's taken me a while to get to that point. Came home with ~1500 keepers in the four-hour shoot.

I guess opinions are like most of the pictures you take.

clever

http://mylifeyoga.com/wp-content/upl...yInTheWell.jpg

I would argue "correct color" is quite the falacy. There's quite a range of cone responses (genetically determined in almost all instances) The "average" human cone response.
http://www.chm.davidson.edu/vce/coordchem/cones.jpg


Cameras, with their CCD's built from? silica, have their own color responses, which are typically heavily weighted to IR.
http://www.scss.com.au/family/andrew...de/ccdresp.png

Then there's the spatial disparity in human vision. Each cone is not weighted equally in space. Hence the fovea and reduced discriminability in your peripheral vision and blind spots.
http://www.skybrary.aero/images/thum...x-Vis_Fig2.jpg

Then there's intensity normalization (HDR replicates this to a degree) performed cell-by-cell and in small networks of rods and cones, which can't easily be replicated in consumer devices.

So much more. I spent a few years studying vision (from the brain's perspective, not the eye's). I'm not saying there's a right and wrong way to any photography methods/elements, just that I wouldn't think about photos as capturing a scene as a person's eye would.

I'm out gunned here now...

I'll just talk about farting...

True. much more color "normalization" than correction.

Cool info above

<edit - added quote>

calm down.

Yes, it's useful to know that waki will only contribute comments about flatulence.

It's because I'm usually the Star and people are taking pictures of ME, not me of them...
It's all about perspective...

knowing is half the battle... editing that for clarity (written on my phone, so a really delayed response for some reason)

grow up

Dude, if you can't see why the edited picture looks better, you need a lot of work.

And FWIW, I'm not a professional photographer, but I've won a number of contests, sold photographs for publication, and have photos in a number of magazines, newspapers, and Corporate publications.

:popcorn