Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Check out Software and Computer Support for Photographers section of our forum.
Posts for: bawlmer
Page: <<prev 1 ... 35 36 37 38 39 40 next>>
Apr 13, 2012 20:28:43   #
It seems to me that you can print on 8x10 but the picture will not reach all 4 edges evenly without losing something. If you shrink the picture to fit onto 8x10 paper, you can get the whole image in but it will have a border. Think of how you would project a slide photo onto a screen. If you move the projector further away, the picture size will increase. Move closer and the size will decrease. If you don't mind the border, you CAN get the whole photo onto 8x10 paper.
Go to
Apr 12, 2012 21:55:13   #
tomk wrote:
Try a Tamron 90-mm macro. Great macro for a reasonable price. Its also good for portraits especially head shots.


Thanks for the suggestion. I will certainly keep this in mind. In fact, Tamron is pushing their rebates on quite a few of their most popular lenses. This might be a good time to pick up what I need(pronounced want). :D
Go to
Apr 11, 2012 21:20:46   #
dundeelad wrote:
Hi all.

I have been judiciously adding Sony shooters to my buddy list wherever I see them. I now have 82 in my list. We are growing. :thumbup:


Feel free to add me to your list.

Alpha 55, DSC-R1, and DSC-F717(infrared capable)

Thanks :)
Go to
Check out AI Artistry and Creation section of our forum.
Apr 11, 2012 20:55:57   #
GDRoth wrote:
I've been thinking of the best way to "deliver" photos to my friends every once in awhile. I have accounts on Flikr and Zenfolio but I don't really want to upload to those and then tell my friends to go look. It feels pushy to say "hey I've got some new pics, so go take a look".....

What I'm trying to do is avoid emailing a group (3-10) of photos to people. That seems pushy also...

I've recently thought of creating a blog (something I've never done and would have to learn about) that would allow me to write a few paragraphs about what I've been shooting and where and then posting a group of new photos there.

What are your ideas?
Dave
I've been thinking of the best way to "delive... (show quote)


If you do a blog, then people would still have to go to where you post them to see them. I personally use Facebook. If my friends want to view them, they can. If not, it's their loss. :)
Go to
Apr 11, 2012 20:53:39   #
Swamp Gator wrote:
I'd be on board with a wildlife contest.
Birds, mammals, reptiles, fish, insects, all OK as long as they were wild creatures, living and photographed in the wild.
I'd like to see the images limited to basic, minimal post processing only however. No HDR, composites, severe filter effects, or other heavily processed images. Those could be a seperate contest.
Keep it a photo contest and not a photo illustration contest and I'm interested.
I would also like to make the capture date on images fairly recent. I would like to see what people have been doing lately as opposed to digging through the archives and pulling out a photo from ten years ago.
And also keep it light and fun as best as possible.

Those are my thoughts anyway.
I'd be on board with a wildlife contest. br Birds,... (show quote)


I would second this idea as well. A real contest of taking a photo, not post processing a photo or using special effects. :)
Go to
Apr 10, 2012 22:09:14   #
If it's in your garden and you didn't plant it there, perhaps it's a weed of some sort? Usually, those hairy looking stalks are weeds...pretty to look at but still a weed. :)
Go to
Apr 10, 2012 21:40:21   #
These are the most unusual looking birds, with a beautiful body of feathers, and a rough looking face and beak. Great photos and storyline. Thanks for sharing. :)
Go to
Apr 10, 2012 21:04:04   #
Nikonian72 wrote:
The sensor in your Sony Alpha SLT-A55V is 23.6-mm × 15.8-mm. Your image above (at MWD) is 46-mm wide. This is 1:2 (1/2 life-size), which is close-up range, but NOT a true macro of 1:1 (life-size).
Yep..thats what the lens said. :)
I have plans to buy a few other lenses before I get into a prime macro. Unless of course I can find one at a pawn shop or somewhere for cheap. I'm just glad to understand how the macro feature works finally. Thanks for all your help. And thanks to NGC for the kind words and guidance. :)
Go to
Apr 9, 2012 21:56:00   #
Nikonian72 wrote:
Which camera model are you using?


Sony Alpha SLT-A55V.
Go to
Apr 9, 2012 20:56:41   #
The flower was about the diameter of a dime, maybe a nickel. I'll try that with the ruler next chance I get. The markings on the lens indicate that at maximum, the ratio is 1:2.

46-mm Field-of-View at 300-mm

Go to
Apr 8, 2012 20:40:48   #
ace-mt wrote:
Here is a picture of my son working a double arm bar.


The guy on bottom appears to have lost his head. :mrgreen:
Go to
Check out Photo Critique Section section of our forum.
Apr 8, 2012 20:35:54   #
or you could sell this photo to the National Enquirer as a UFO photo. :)
Go to
Apr 8, 2012 20:10:04   #
Nikonian72 wrote:
First, please understand that a lens marked "Macro" does not necessarily mean that lens will capture 1:1 (life-size). It is often a designation used as a selling point, rather than a statement of true ability. 1:4, 1:3, and even 1:2 are close-up magnifications, not true macro.

Second, a zoom lens is already a compromise when compared to prime lenses of 70-mm, 150-mm, 200-mm, all the way to 300-mm. Prime lenses are usually sharper than zoom lenses of same lengths. Therefore, a prime macro lens will be sharper than a zoom macro lens.

Let us attempt to capture as close focus as possible with your lens:
1.) Set switch to MACRO;
2.) Zoom lens to 200-mm;
3.) Set focus to closest setting possible;
4.) Now move ENTIRE camera with lens, "in-&-out" toward subject, until focus is observed;
5.) Take photo and note your Working Distance (between lens front element & subject).

Set lens to 300-mm, and repeat. See which is best for you.
First, please understand that a lens marked "... (show quote)


First, I want to qualify these photos. This was hand held today and it was quite windy so they may not be quite as sharp as they could be. With that said, I was able to move in to about 2 feet from my subject when I switch the lens to macro mode. When I moved the switch, I was able to extend the lens out much further than I could with the switch in normal mode. This allowed me to shoot things that I otherwise couldn't get within 20 feet of, even at 70mm. Thanks for helping me figure this out Nikonian. :)

lens at 200mm


lens at 300mm

Go to
Apr 7, 2012 23:14:39   #
Are you using auto focus or multi point focus? It looks like the background is tack sharp in all 3. The camera might be finding the brightest contrast and focusing on that instead of her face and eyes. Try switching to a single point focus and let it lock in on her face. Otherwise, maybe even go to manual focus if your camera has that capability. Otherwise, great photos. :)
Go to
Apr 7, 2012 23:03:29   #
I purchased this lens last year and it's been a great lens for me. However, I don't quite understand the macro switch on the lens. It states it must be zoomed to 200-300mm to enable the macro mode, but I don't understand how to use the macro mode or what it is supposed to do. I've re-read the paperwork that came with it, but since it's written in a dozen different languages, translated from Japanese, there isn't a great deal of detail in the instructions. Can someone please explain the use of the macro mode and what I can do with it?
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 35 36 37 38 39 40 next>>
Check out Astronomical Photography Forum section of our forum.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.