http://lh4.ggpht.com/_WpjZ6QdCK0Q/TG...SC01951b-1.JPG
Printable View
Found this little gal earlier this summer and have watched her grow. Lives in an evergreen by the back deck.
Learning about the macro function. Still a long way to go.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...n/IMG_9635.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...n/IMG_9637.jpg
http://www.tgrmedia.com/i.ashx?i=htt....jpg&w=640&h=0
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...n/IMG_9662.jpg
Between Lonnie and chainsaw willie on the last page, I'm not so sure I should post these...
C&C appreciated. Will remove the blurry stick from the foreground in #2 next time.
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/a...1&d=1282365754
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/a...1&d=1282365754
I see these guys eyeing the gophers everyday on the way to work, seems like they are less and less spooky.
http://stk.tetongravity.com/forums/a...1&d=1282373093
http://stk.tetongravity.com/forums/a...1&d=1282373093
http://stk.tetongravity.com/forums/a...1&d=1282373093
http://stk.tetongravity.com/forums/a...1&d=1282373093
http://stk.tetongravity.com/forums/a...1&d=1282373093
http://stk.tetongravity.com/forums/a...1&d=1282373093
Thanks manQuote:
Originally Posted by outabounds
http://stk.tetongravity.com/forums/a...9&d=1282393544
I like 'em. I'd like them more with a little more saturation and a little more contrast (read blacker blacks)...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiilbert
Nice shots Wilbert. I really like the first one. Did you try different angles on the second one? I'm no expert on these kinds of shots but a slightly faster shutter speed on the second one might give a little less blur on the drop.
Hey Wilbert I like em. Did you have a circular polarizer on at all? This sounds really trivial but for whatever reason the veiling reflection in the bottom right is more distracting than the stick you wanted to remove (in fact the blurry stick is kind of nice, blurry things in foreground can give your frame context and depth). It's because the transition from the shadow is so contrasted that even though the reflection is not too glarey it's still distracting, and I don't know if it was worse and you put on a CP to minimize or if a CP would totally cut it out. Something to play around with.
I think four seconds (the shutter speed in #1) is better suited to slow water. This water is moving pretty fast, so you can expose it for under a second to get good blur while retaining some interesting detail within the blurred water. Good job getting something in the foreground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiilbert
I always shoot this kind of thing with a range on shutter speeds (from about 1/8 through a couple seconds) and pick the one that works best for me later.
edit:
I agree with the CPL comment above. Great filter for water. I like to be able to include the cool looking stones in the creek bottom and the CPL can give you that.
My pics are constantly outclassed by all the other, better photogs around here. Don't be afraid to post just because others might have something you think is better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiilbert
I like your two shots but agree with comments already made about #2 - a little more contrast and saturation would be good as well as trying a little slower shutter and a CPL. Looks like you were shooting on a cloudy day and it's hard to get good contrast and color in those conditions.
Thanks for the input all. I did shoot with a CPL, it's brand new and these are part of the first 20 shots I've ever taken with any sort of filter. I had a couple hot french chicks waiting for me, so I didn't have time to play around as much as I'd liked with the filter and various angles. I'll try to get back there in the next few days.
I'll play with faster shutter speeds next time. The biggest issue I'm having is trying to keep from blowing the water and still get some detail in the shadows. Here are the 2 unedited shots for reference.
Lonnie, interesting to hear you ask for more saturation. I felt I was on the verge of overdoing #1, but I see what you mean with #2.
Here are the raws if anybody is bored and wouldn't mind showing a photo jong what's possible. Always good to be reminded of how great this place is. Thanks all.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6720244/_DSC0221.ARW
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6720244/_DSC0226.ARW
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/a...1&d=1282430235
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/a...1&d=1282430235
Trying to "see" shots in unlikely/boring places. These are from a trip to Dallas this past week...
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4079/...ea792911_z.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4098/...1d267b1c_z.jpg
I was bored
Wilbert, I took the liberty of tweaking a few things with your second shot for my own practice. The water is still blown out a bit.
Edit: worked on the water some more
http://stk.tetongravity.com/forums/a...1&d=1282437153
My first time photographing the Milky Way from Mammoth Lakes during the recent August New Moon
http://gebster.smugmug.com/Events/Mi...13_SUQtC-M.jpg
Are you stacking images to do that? I just got a cable release and want to do some night photography but my initial attempts have not been great.
Goats on Timp
http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL160.../391105448.jpg
It's just one photo with a 30 second exposure. I guess I need to learn about stackingQuote:
Originally Posted by JimLad
To capture the faint lights of the Mily Way you'll want a large aperture and/or high ISO. Stacking is used more often for star trails.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimLad
While your first statement is correct, the second one is not. Stacking is absolutely used for faint objects. Almost without exception, all astro-images use stacking, and all night sky images can benefit from stacking.Quote:
Originally Posted by outabounds
This a single 60-sec frame of Andromeda:
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/a...0_000246-1.jpg
This a stack of 200 of those 60-sec frames:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4141/...acea9a60_z.jpg
This is a single 2-min frame of the Milky Way:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4137/...cacb8b92_z.jpg
This is a stack of 10 of those 2-min frames:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/...38b1b1bd_z.jpg
Notwithstanding the trees moving through the bottom of the last image, stacking will always improve night sky shots by adding more detail and reducing noise (noise = square root of total signal, so the more frames you add, the higher your signal-to-noise ratio).
For very easy stacking, try DeepSkyStacker -- it's a free software that aligns and stacks all images automatically (you can also add darks, flats, and offsets for calibration if you have them).
Very cool stuff Fuzz. Very cool indeed.
My wife is puppy sitting for our neighbors, so I decided to take some pictures in the backyard this morning.
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g4...kan/Emmy-1.jpg
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g4...an/Emmy-12.jpg
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g4...an/Emmy-16.jpg
The other night there was finally a really clear night in coastal San Diego that coincided with a bright moon. This has a been a very rare occurrence this summer along the coast so I took advantage of the opportunity and ran down to the coast by "downtown" La Jolla to take some long exposure "daytime at night" photos.
http://gebster.smugmug.com/Events/La...41_5gfoa-M.jpg
Holy crap, Fuzz, those images are sick. Thanks for straightning me out on the stacking.
Clearing up with a bonfire
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v83/JimLad/fire.png