Regis wrote:
Yesterday, I shot some Bumble Bees and Honey Bees on our Cherry Tree blossoms on a bright sunny day. They were 10-14 feet in distance and using the 600mm focal setting on my Tamron 150-600mm lens. Hand held. I didn't get stung once because I was far enough away from the Bees.
Good grief, man! These are awesome! And you are making me quite jealous. This takes 'BIF' to whole new level! :mrgreen:
Trieast1 wrote:
Any opinions On Buying A new Nikon D7100 Body from AJ Richie for $709
You can no longer price shop for new Nikon equipment as Nikon has set the prices, at least in the US. If you can, it is is either used or gray market. Just go to Adorama, B&H or one of the other dealers you find on here.
mrgraphic wrote:
Dusting for gypsy moths in PA
Nice capture! But from the looks of things, you won't be infested with gypsy moths either in a moment... :)
GARGLEBLASTER wrote:
Wow, I really didn't expect this reaction. Hope I'm not duplicating but here are some more.
Yes, as far as I'm aware, the engine is still in its original location.
Ha! More goodness! :) Suggestion. Don't be afraid to get close-ups of the workings like springs and valves. Not a critique, just that I'm a machination junkie! :) And I got my fix today.
GARGLEBLASTER wrote:
For those who don't know, Tower Bridge in London is a masterpiece of Victorian architectiure and engineering. The centre section of the bridge is in two halves and elevates to allow ships to pass.
The power oin those days was supplied by steam power and these are some rather disappointing photos of one of the the furnaces and part of the engine room. The engine has been beautifully restored and wpould be still capable of working but today the mechanism is powerd by electricity.
"disappointing"?
Nah, sometimes a photograph does it job educating or bringing us images of things that are difficult to get to. These have character and aren't like so many of those soulless 'postcard' shots. Many thanks for sharing.
vicksart wrote:
I just showed this to my husband. He said "It looks like the Phyllis Diller of the bird set." :-D
LOL Every time I go back to that picture, I see her. Someday people are going to say, "Phyllis? Phyllis who?" 'Till then, funny!
treadwl wrote:
This is an update on the tricolor heron chicks I recently found. This youngster seems to really have an attitude.
Thanks for looking.
Wonderful capture! Good lighting and sharp. Poor guy looks to have gotten up on the wrong side...
gtwhogger wrote:
Caught NKP 765 operating employee special heading east from Elkhart, IN. to Bryan, OH. and back. Caught her crossing the Elkhart River Saturday May 3, 2014
Then her westbound return trip in Millersburg, IN. about 4 hours latter.
Hey! Love these! Well, what's not to love? Kind of like taking pictures of puppies or kittens. I guess you need to be a train freak! :)
Seriously, well, done. I can't decide if I like #1 or #2 better. #1 has that old B&W feel going for it, where as you can't do better with the decrepitness of the bridge in #2. Got more? ;)
MtnMan wrote:
I'd appreciate any advice or experiences with backing up image files. I am now using Windows 8, and just became aware of the "File History" tool for backup. It seems very neat!
Here's a different perspective from someone that uses Linux, Windows and to a degree Mac OS, in different flavors. I never use an OS builtin function as I never know if it will always be there or changed in some dramatic way in the next version.
I have three external drives, one I use at home, one that shuttles with my photography laptop and a third that I keep off-site. Every night changes/additions that are made are brought to the 1st external drive. Once a week, those changes are brought over to the shuttle external drive. On a different day, the shuttle drive is backed-up off-site. These drives are multi-TB that are all USB based and cost less than $100 each.
Oh, and that 'off-site' is my mother as I have dinner with her once a week. That's when I back up her devices. I'm her 'off-site'.
Generally, I use rysnc, but have found a nice free Windows based GUI from Microsoft called Synctoy.
Nikonian72 wrote:
One guideline of hand-held photography is for shutter duration to be shorter than lens length. Your exposure looks fine, but a higher ISO would allow a shorter shutter duration, which could have eliminated camera movement.
Thanks for looking at this old thread. I've discovered since then that a change in ISO from 800 to 1600, doesn't increase the noise that much, and I would have been at 1/80. Although, I've been told that with a half-crop camera, one should go with the 35mm focal length for that rule. In this case that would be 1/105 (odd SS) or better.
Nikonian72 wrote:
Also, A-F does not work well in low light, or low contrast situations.
Yeah, a lesson learned the hard way. I really need to learn how to focus manually without benefit of a split-prism focusing aid. I've been practicing in good light by focusing manually and comparing it to what AF 'says'. Funny, a couple of times, my focus was better than AF.
CHOLLY wrote:
Yeah.... :(
DEFINITELY something to consider.
So... do we hire a bunch of Feds to inspect these drones from time to time similar to what is done with civilian aircraft? Periodically check them for "airworthiness?" Does the FAA serve that function... or is a new "agency" created to handle this new industry?
Why create a new agency? We have enough government BS. If someone thinks the FAA is broken, then let's get it fixed.
Jerry started an very interesting thread, I just don't think that this is a Freedom of the Press issue, any more than had this been a small aircraft flying over the area. Both flying devices; plane or drone, need to be controlled in the same manner.
In the dark ages... I mean darkroom days ( yeah, I do miss them ), would you have considered developing the film and exposing that image on to paper part of the photography process? And what about all the decisions you made; D76 or Microdol-X, border or no border, matte or glossy, plain or rosin coated paper, dry or wet mounted, ad nauseam. Those things were all part of the photographic process.
I think it is a bit disingenuous to dismiss post-processing on a pc with software as something less than desirable and to be avoided.
Photography is the entire process of composition, choosing a medium, picking a camera and/or lens, determining an exposure, shining light on some film or a sensor and producing a final image.
skingfong wrote:
Seems as though Post Processing with software can really give you quality images as long as you have a shot in focus. What are your opinions as far as PP and spending several thousands on gear?
PP will not do you any good if your image is out of focus. That's why the most important feature in a camera to me is it's auto focus system. In a lens, it's IS or VR along with speed. If the lens doesn't have these features then a tripod comes in handy. Everything has to start with a well focused shot.
With high end lenses you get more pop in sharpness, color and contrast. But all these things can be tweaked in PP.
I've been shooting for a year now. I've been going back and forth contemplating better gear or PP. Yeah, it's nice to have both but very expensive and time consuming. I understand all of this is only going to be as good as one's skills in shooting and PP. Just like a musical instrument is only as good as the musician who plays it.
Seems as though Post Processing with software can ... (
show quote)
I've seen better pictures come out of a D3000 with a 18-55mm kit lens than a D4 with 24-70/2.8. It always come down to the person behind the gear, not the gear in front of the person. And if someone can get a better image with PP, then all the more power to them. PP ( PC and software ) is just another piece of gear.
MT Shooter wrote:
I have recently bought the Tamron in both Nikon and Canon mounts to add to my rental inventory. I find them as sharp if not just a touch sharper than the Sigmas, but the VC is slower than the OS on the Sigmas. Other than that I like them. I don't rent the Canon or Nikon 70-200mm F2.8's for the simple reason that they are just too over-priced. None of my customers have complained yet, and I doubt they ever will.
A side question, MT. If I were to rent something from you and found that the copy I had in my hands was really good, would you have an issue selling it to me? A local place said no, I'd have to buy one of their 'used' lenses. I have not asked at one of the larger nation-wide places.
CHOLLY wrote:
The F.A.A. wants to control them because they could present a hazard to aviation.
:thumbup:
CHOLLY wrote:
I think they should be regulated like R.C. Model airplanes and helicopters.
:thumbup:
CHOLLY wrote:
Hey... that's a good question! If I put a GoPro on my R.C. model Helicopter and take pictures, can/will they fine ME $10,000?!?! :D
:thumbdown:
Seriously, though, I would have no issues with you, Cholly, doing this, if you had proof that you knew what you were doing, like having a drone aviation license and flew the RC device ( drone/chopper/plane ) responsibly.