i been trying to get the jumping spider rom this area but they r sooo bloodly aware they turn and follow me from like 4-5 feet back
and man they r fast!
PHOTOS PLEASE
Re: PHOTOS PLEASE
Some HDR attempts from a local cemetery.
Wish I could have avoided the blown highlights in the middle here.
Wish I could have avoided the blown highlights in the middle here.
Re: PHOTOS PLEASE
#1 & #3 are nice w/o being overdone 
Re: PHOTOS PLEASE
Those are dammed good tnf.
Now I have a challenge for you using that style.........and if you succeed, your results will be awsome.
It's called stereo photography or 3D if you will.
an excerpt of a how to......
"3-D or stereo photography is shit easy. Those of us with both our eyes functioning already have stereo (or binocular) vision. Your right eye sees things at a slightly different angle than does your left eye. Try this little experiment now as you sit at your PC. Sit back about 2 feet from the monitor and hold up a finger about 12" from the monitor. Look at the finger with only your right eye open. Now change eyes. Do it repeatedly - L , R , L , R etc and see how the details on the screen jump from side to side. Now focus on the monitor and do the left, right, left, right etc again and see how your finger appears to go from left to right and back again. Now, if you had 2 photos side by side in front of you that had been taken from slightly different positions (about the same distance apart as your eyes) you would have the same picture 'separation'. Here comes the difficult part, and not everyone can do it. When you have the 2 photos or the 'Stereo Pair' in front of you and you cross your eyes to merge the images, YOU WILL HAVE A 3-D IMAGE. See, I told you it was easy.
You can take 3-D photos with 1 camera, simply by taking 1 photo then taking a second after shifting the camera about 4 inches to either the left or the right. (See - left, right again.) This is okay for static scenes like landscapes, buildings or inanimate objects."
I for one would love to see the first shot this way as it would add more realism to it.
And the Sun Dial would absolutely rock ass. Give it a whirl.
Now I have a challenge for you using that style.........and if you succeed, your results will be awsome.
It's called stereo photography or 3D if you will.
an excerpt of a how to......
"3-D or stereo photography is shit easy. Those of us with both our eyes functioning already have stereo (or binocular) vision. Your right eye sees things at a slightly different angle than does your left eye. Try this little experiment now as you sit at your PC. Sit back about 2 feet from the monitor and hold up a finger about 12" from the monitor. Look at the finger with only your right eye open. Now change eyes. Do it repeatedly - L , R , L , R etc and see how the details on the screen jump from side to side. Now focus on the monitor and do the left, right, left, right etc again and see how your finger appears to go from left to right and back again. Now, if you had 2 photos side by side in front of you that had been taken from slightly different positions (about the same distance apart as your eyes) you would have the same picture 'separation'. Here comes the difficult part, and not everyone can do it. When you have the 2 photos or the 'Stereo Pair' in front of you and you cross your eyes to merge the images, YOU WILL HAVE A 3-D IMAGE. See, I told you it was easy.
You can take 3-D photos with 1 camera, simply by taking 1 photo then taking a second after shifting the camera about 4 inches to either the left or the right. (See - left, right again.) This is okay for static scenes like landscapes, buildings or inanimate objects."
I for one would love to see the first shot this way as it would add more realism to it.
And the Sun Dial would absolutely rock ass. Give it a whirl.
Re: PHOTOS PLEASE
Thanks for the compliments and info form , much appreciated.
Going to look into that 3D thing.
Going to look into that 3D thing.
Re: PHOTOS PLEASE
Some bird shots - lots of wild turkeys up at that cemetery.
Saw three families of them. A few falcons too.
Young turkey, a bit tentative about jumping off a ledge.
Bad focus here, moving and shooting at the same time with a non-IS zoom lens is not a good technique for sharp images.
This guy's feet don't seem to fit his body.
Another falcon shot - I am pretty sure this is a Prairie Falcon, but one person said it might be a Merlin. Form, any ideas?
This car was parked up there too...the owner was standing over a grave next to it. Wanted to take some good pics of the car but figured it might be in bad taste to ask someone standing over their parents' graves if I could snap a few shots of their Ferrari.
Saw three families of them. A few falcons too.
Young turkey, a bit tentative about jumping off a ledge.
Bad focus here, moving and shooting at the same time with a non-IS zoom lens is not a good technique for sharp images.
This guy's feet don't seem to fit his body.
Another falcon shot - I am pretty sure this is a Prairie Falcon, but one person said it might be a Merlin. Form, any ideas?
This car was parked up there too...the owner was standing over a grave next to it. Wanted to take some good pics of the car but figured it might be in bad taste to ask someone standing over their parents' graves if I could snap a few shots of their Ferrari.
Re: PHOTOS PLEASE
What lens(es) did you use for those shots?
They're all great, the pool one is really cool.
They're all great, the pool one is really cool.
Re: PHOTOS PLEASE
i used a 24-105, saves me having to lug lenses around with me in hand luggage. it's the best lens I've ever bought.
Re: PHOTOS PLEASE
I've been looking at the 17-40L - I've seen a few new for around $650-$700.
Considering a 100-400L as well when the funds are available. At this point, I can only justify about 1 L series lens a year costwise. The 24-105 seems like it would be the ideal walkaround lens.
So my next one will either be the 17-40, 24-105, or the 100-400.
Considering a 100-400L as well when the funds are available. At this point, I can only justify about 1 L series lens a year costwise. The 24-105 seems like it would be the ideal walkaround lens.
So my next one will either be the 17-40, 24-105, or the 100-400.
Re: PHOTOS PLEASE
OHHHH BEAUTIFUL, FOR SPACIOUS SKIES, FOR WHAT DOOMBRAIN TOOK PHOTOS OF........
those look really nice man
those look really nice man
Re: PHOTOS PLEASE
You can just see on the right lower side that I didn't quite crop right when I rotated the image 1 degree to level the horizon out a bit (tripod I have is a POS).
Re: PHOTOS PLEASE
is that HDR? that's shit-hot
Re: PHOTOS PLEASE
yes that is one GREAT sunset photo!!!
Re: PHOTOS PLEASE
whatandyman wrote:OHHHH BEAUTIFUL, FOR SPACIOUS SKIES, FOR WHAT DOOMBRAIN TOOK PHOTOS OF........
those look really nice man
Re: PHOTOS PLEASE
amber waves of grain, etc.
Re: PHOTOS PLEASE
Lyrics to america the beautifulDoombrain wrote:whatandyman wrote:OHHHH BEAUTIFUL, FOR SPACIOUS SKIES, FOR WHAT DOOMBRAIN TOOK PHOTOS OF........
those look really nice man
Re: PHOTOS PLEASE
Thought the dark and light clouds were interesting.
Re: PHOTOS PLEASE
Now I lay me down to sleep...............
Re: PHOTOS PLEASE
No matter how close I get I can't get that 100mm lens to produce shots with the insect this big. Was this with tubes?
Re: PHOTOS PLEASE
Occasionally, I get retarded and add that info in the properties of the file for geeks and nerds.
Ok so I actually add that info to every file I upload. Does that make me a geek or a nerd? (pushes glasses up and smiles)
It was tubed with a 36 mm on the 60 mm Macro with full flash retarded buy stuff. Or for the geeks and nerds.......diffused, but not diffused enough as one can see from the blowouts along the nose/facial ridges. Still, friggin decent for the "Cost Effective" shooter.
My grand daughter grabbed my Ring flash off the table and broke it. So I'm with out a decent ring flash. Stupid kids. I wont go into the details of how and why, but kids are kids.
So another one..... Long have I waited to get "Close" to a Dragonfly, and this one lazily looped around after I scared it off it's perch....it landed and I started with the 70 300 IS tubed. No need to say those results were disastrous but as I got closer it stopped flying lazily away as if it was just ready to relax. So I backed off some and replaced the lens with the 60 mm with the 32 mm tube and started getting closer. It sat there as I popped shot after shot, getting closer till I reached in and got 2:1 in its face. Sometimes a higher ISO noise can be accepted for the details.
This shot is Unadulterated. Straight from cam.
It's a back lit shot, as evident buy the blow outs in the left side of the eye from the late evening sun and showing blowout on the right side (or center) due to my cost effective Diffuser. I don't know, This shot might actually suck.
ISO 800 shows the noise in the background but not in the face.
This file is highly compresses as my ISP sucks at present time, which is resulting in the banding in the lower part of the eye.
Ok so I actually add that info to every file I upload. Does that make me a geek or a nerd? (pushes glasses up and smiles)
It was tubed with a 36 mm on the 60 mm Macro with full flash retarded buy stuff. Or for the geeks and nerds.......diffused, but not diffused enough as one can see from the blowouts along the nose/facial ridges. Still, friggin decent for the "Cost Effective" shooter.
My grand daughter grabbed my Ring flash off the table and broke it. So I'm with out a decent ring flash. Stupid kids. I wont go into the details of how and why, but kids are kids.
So another one..... Long have I waited to get "Close" to a Dragonfly, and this one lazily looped around after I scared it off it's perch....it landed and I started with the 70 300 IS tubed. No need to say those results were disastrous but as I got closer it stopped flying lazily away as if it was just ready to relax. So I backed off some and replaced the lens with the 60 mm with the 32 mm tube and started getting closer. It sat there as I popped shot after shot, getting closer till I reached in and got 2:1 in its face. Sometimes a higher ISO noise can be accepted for the details.
This shot is Unadulterated. Straight from cam.
It's a back lit shot, as evident buy the blow outs in the left side of the eye from the late evening sun and showing blowout on the right side (or center) due to my cost effective Diffuser. I don't know, This shot might actually suck.
ISO 800 shows the noise in the background but not in the face.
This file is highly compresses as my ISP sucks at present time, which is resulting in the banding in the lower part of the eye.
Re: PHOTOS PLEASE
Amazing.
What is the 60mm capable of without tubes? 1:1? The highest my 100 goes to is 1:1. And about the info in the uploaded files - the exif data doesn't take tubes into account, right?
I just don't feel like I am getting the most out of that 100mm. You've got the magic touch with those insect shots Form.
What is the 60mm capable of without tubes? 1:1? The highest my 100 goes to is 1:1. And about the info in the uploaded files - the exif data doesn't take tubes into account, right?
I just don't feel like I am getting the most out of that 100mm. You've got the magic touch with those insect shots Form.
Re: PHOTOS PLEASE
1:1 is correct. Info wont show in EXIF data about tubeing. I put that in the properties if one chose to save and right click.
