Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Home | Photography Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Not logged in

You must be logged in to compose private messages. Please use the Login link at the top.

The Newest Discussions On Our Forum:
Wood Duck with 16 Babies
The sun was on the east side of the birds and I was on the west side of the birds. What is amazing about this picture is the 16 egg that this Wood Duck hatched. Amazing! I have not seen the male.


...continue reading this topic >>
Nature Again
Some worthy shots from yesterday at the park...

...continue reading this topic >>
Sugarcane by the roadside.
These were all taken within a few yards of each other--just different angles and/or different amounts of zoom. As can be noticed by the nearly dried up waterway, we could use some rain. Downloading is recommended.


...continue reading this topic >>
Stars and Emails
Hi Folks,
So I am fooling around with some star photography and getting some nice results following the suggestions of some terrific nighttime
photographers, both pro. The star shots look good on my camera monitor. They look good on my iMac desktop. However, when I shift the star photo into an email, as an attachment, the stars are barely visible. In my Photo of the Week (weekly photo and short essay via email), all other shots go out looking just fine. As I shot them. But these new, 15-20 second exposure star-scapes just don't have
the pop. The juice. The punch. You get the point. The landscape in the shots look fine. The foreground trees look fine. But the stars themselves are losing most of their light. Sometimes barely noticeable. I am wondering if this is because of the low-resolution of the email photos, usually reduced from 12-18 MB raw or jpeg files to kilobyte files, which all my other shots end up being reduced to, automatically, in my "photos" program on the Mac.
Any suggestions, explanations, solutions would be very welcome at this time, as I would love to get otherwise pretty cool shots into an
email format so my cyber-recipients can enjoy them also. Thank you very much for any and all help. Much appreciated.
Dennis D / Stevensville, Montana
...continue reading this topic >>
Water logged Camera!
While at Yosemite I fell into the Merced River while trying to get "that shot". I knew right away that my 24mm-70mm 2.8 II was a goner. But I had a lot of hope that my Canon 1DX would pull through. They were both in the water no more than 3 secs. I am covered by insurance. Phew! Two days in rice still water inside of glass of lens, sent both camera and lens to Canon, lens DOA and camera 1,800 to fix. I had 2 24mm-70mm 2.8 II lenses and the insurance is paying 1,800 to replace. $3600 total. My camera worked after I let it dry out. My question is I trust Canon to do a good job at fixing my camera, but it's been in the water. For 1,800 more I can buy a lDX mkII brand new, not replacing the lens since I already have one. Should I buy the Mk II and just have Canon send back the Mk I? Attached: 1st pic 3hrs after getting wet, then 2nd pic two days after. And if I do buy a new one, Canon, B&H or Adaorama or any other suggested places.

...continue reading this topic >>

...continue reading this topic >>
Alaskas Tracy Arm 2005
These were taken with my first digital SLR, a Nikon D100, 6 megapixels, so they might not be up to todays technical standard.

...continue reading this topic >>
Goooaaal !!!!!
My 2 year old grandson's first soccer practice and a great Father's Day outing.

...continue reading this topic >>
Just another hummer shot.
I just blows my mind what they can do with their wings.

...continue reading this topic >>
To any any every one who has or will help the HDR situation . As they say on Peg + cat problem solved.
...continue reading this topic >>
For more, check out Active Topics page.
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use - Forum
Copyright 2011-2018 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.