Posts for: maren
Nov 15, 2017 19:13:03 #
Brucej67 wrote:
Was glad to see it was a 4 legged version. Too cute---and not ugly at all. Thanks for sharing. Maren
Nov 15, 2017 19:06:10 #
Hesmith wrote:
While Kayaking with my family,this past summer on ... (show quote)
D5100, 55mm 1/125 ISO 320. I really wish I had brought a better lens with, but fear of losing it in the lake deters my taking good glass in the boat.Nice pix. It is so fun to run across little creatures and get their pictures. Thanks for sharing. Made me smile. Maren
Oct 29, 2017 00:21:39 #
robertcbyrd wrote:
I've been using a Canon EOS 60D, 70D and, now, an ... (show quote)
I also am transitioning into manual mode, and I am convinced there is no magic time-saving process. Like everything in life, the time you put into it pretty much equals what you get out of it. I watched the video that d3200 prime recommended at "udemy.com" It is great for Canon users as that is what the guy demonstrates with. He goes over exposure, quite a lot on lighting, and a lot on the Canon camera settings and its menu's. I wish he had been a Nikonite like myself. I recommend the video, but it took approx. 4 hours to get through it all. Good luck and have fun. Maren
Oct 24, 2017 13:17:08 #
sailorsmom wrote:
What a fantastic shot, maren!
Thanks sailorsmom--I value your opinion and thanks for taking the time to comment. Maren.
Oct 23, 2017 17:19:15 #
Kalskag2 wrote:
I think it would be a better photo if there were more open grassland to the right of the bison, to give the sense that he is moving that way. I might also help if there were some more open grassland above the bison. Rule of thirds...
Thanks Kalskag2. You are right. I think I had to crop it off in front of him as there was another buffalo in the pix. I will look back at the original and see if I also cropped out some of the grassland above him and also see if the other buffalo was doing something weird or why I cut him out of the front of him. I will re-evaluate the original. Thanks. Maren
Oct 23, 2017 11:58:24 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Nice one
Thank you jerry41. I appreciate that from you. maren
Oct 23, 2017 00:49:28 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Well, what you want also needs to conciliate with the section purpose. Read the instructions. You have better areas for what you need. Check C&C and FYC by example as already suggested.
You know, Rong----, I don't know what C&C or FYC is, and I don't think I am the only one. So if you really want to help someone, explain what those things are and where they can be found. I realize it is daily lingo for you long-time members, but just abbreviations for new members. It takes more time to do that, so if you don't have the time, just don't post. No one will think the less of you. I got a very good explanation from a helpful hog and I now know where all the sections are found and all those that I am subscribed to, and all the rules associated with each section. I promise I will never post in the wrong section again.
Oct 23, 2017 00:34:50 #
jeanbug35 wrote:
I'm not a pro but I like it.
Thank you jeanbug35, I value the opinion of all photographers. Maren
Oct 23, 2017 00:32:41 #
R.G. wrote:
The Photo Analysis section is for photos that have specific issues. For general feedback, post in either the Photo Critique Section (for formal critique), or For Your Consideration (less formal) or in the Gallery (least formal).
Thank you R.G. I finally found out that I was not subscribed to the Photo Critique Section, so it never came up as an option for me when I would create a new topic. I appreciate your time and information rather than a condescending post. Maren
Oct 22, 2017 11:40:14 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Wrong section, do read the section requirements....
.
.
I wanted it under photo analysis and I put it under photo analysis.
Oct 22, 2017 02:29:20 #
tresap23 wrote:
I am not a professional photographer, only amateur. But if it helps, I think it is a great shot!
Thanks tresap23. I value the opinion of all photographers. I found the same pix that I edited out some of the shadow. I will include it.
Oct 22, 2017 01:11:01 #
I have never submitted a photo for analysis, so not sure how the process works. I thought I would try to submit this photo to see what happens. I shot this guy who was starting to pick a fight with another buffalo. I was probably 60-70 yards away and only had a woven wire fence to steady my zoom lens. It is by no means sharp, but wondering what the professionals think of this photo.
Oct 21, 2017 16:40:55 #
Leitz wrote:
https://physicssoup.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/why-does-a-small-aperture-increase-depth-of-field/
This was a great explanation of the physics of DOF and aperture. The visual aspect of the article made it easier to understand. Thank you Leitz for posting that website/article. You don't know how helpful you and other hogs are to those of us trying to learn more in the hopes of taking better pictures.
Those who post degrading or condescending comments really help no one. Thanks again. maren.
Oct 20, 2017 23:54:50 #
CO wrote:
I got the chart from LensTip.com. They usually test lenses in eleven or sometimes twelve categories. After you've selected your lens from the pop down boxes you'll have to click on "REVIEW" on the right end of the gray bar. I did a screen shot with a red arrow pointing to it. Once you're in the review, scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the different categories.
Thanks for the website and information about it CO.
Oct 20, 2017 00:34:16 #
CO wrote:
UHH members have given great explanations. Here is... (show quote)
I have never seen anything like that graph. I love numbers and graphs. I have that same lens and I love it--even on my D500. Thanks CO for that information. Maren