Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Nightski
Page: <<prev 1 ... 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 next>>
Feb 28, 2013 17:44:46   #
Nikonian72 wrote:
Your capture is quite good. The only suggestion I make is to be aware of reptile tails, bird wings, and insect legs, when close to edge of scene. In post processing, it is much easier to crop away extra background than to fix a partial limb.

We read left to right, so our brain likes to view subjects that are entering a scene L-to-R, or looking into the scene, L-to-R. I mirror-flipped your image to make my brain happy.

I also slightly increased contrast, color saturation, and sharpness, again to make my brain happy.
Your capture is quite good. The only suggestion I... (show quote)


What a great demonstration of post processing.
Go to
Feb 28, 2013 12:32:03   #
http://metobs.ssec.wisc.edu/aoss/cameras/hawkcam-flash.html Here is a link to where the hawk cam was. It's down now, but if you're interested I would start checking it around the end of March to see if the hawks come back. Also you can click on a link to view highlights of last year at this site.
Go to
Feb 28, 2013 12:23:55   #
Wonderful detail in these photos...and I was going to say that it's a good thing the hawk and the hummingbirds aren't in the same photo, as hummingbirds tend to be a tasty snack for hawks. I followed a hawk cam out of the University of Wisconsin last year, and I was really surprised that their favorite food seemed to be other birds.
Go to
Feb 28, 2013 11:39:37   #
Nature's Camouflage..I love it! Great photo.
Go to
Feb 27, 2013 13:53:13   #
OddJobber wrote:
Nightski wrote:
At Adorama it doesn't say which cameras fit on the Manfrotto 322RC2 Improved Grip Action Ball Head. Does any camera fit on it? Is it better to get a quick release head, or would this one be easy to use?


That setup does include a quick release plate, and I wouldn't be without one. That should be totally okay for your purposes, and mine. Please note, however, PhotoArtsLA's remark about the willowy nature of Manfrottos for heavy duty or extra long zoom use. Again, not a real problem for you or me. That's a good head, solid build and locks into place very well. Kinda slow to adjust with the three tilt knobs, though, so I would add another ball head for all-purpose shooting, such as the 494RC2 or heavier. http://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-494RC2-Release-Replaces-484RC2/dp/B002WN211Y

Oh, and yes, this tripod, like most, has a standard 1/4 inch mounting screw that will fit almost all cameras.
quote=Nightski At Adorama it doesn't say which ca... (show quote)


Thank-you for all the exact answers I needed. :)
Go to
Feb 27, 2013 13:13:30   #
At Adorama it doesn't say which cameras fit on the Manfrotto 322RC2 Improved Grip Action Ball Head. Does any camera fit on it? Is it better to get a quick release head, or would this one be easy to use?
Go to
Feb 27, 2013 12:22:06   #
Okay, I am going to quit trying to get moon shots with my kit lens until I get a tripod. I just can't decide which one would be the best for me without spending a fortune. Would something like this work for me? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0088Q20ZQ/ref=s9_simh_gw_p421_d5_i3?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0AXWQ43S7ECD9K8CQEBE&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1389517282&pf_rd_i=507846 or would that be way too much overkill for my ability and Rebel XTI? Any thoughts?
Go to
Feb 26, 2013 10:40:08   #
No, I have lots of time...I'm only 51. :D
Go to
Feb 26, 2013 10:39:12   #
Pepper wrote:
Okay so what that's telling you is that the largest aperture opening or the smallest f stop number you have available at 18mm is 3.5 and at 55mm the largest opening is 5.6. If you have your lens zoomed out to 55mm the smallest f stop you'll be able to use will be 5.6 regardless of what you do with your camera. The same is true at the other end, when you are at the 18mm end of your lens the smallest f stop you have available is 3.5.


Good information, thanks so much.
Go to
Feb 26, 2013 10:23:08   #
Bruce M. wrote:
Lots of comedians here, I think I like this place.


Me too, it makes learning fun.
Go to
Feb 26, 2013 10:15:24   #
Pepper wrote:
Nightski wrote:
Bruce M. wrote:
1/8 second @f2.8 should give you a good starting point depending on abmient light conditions. Light pollution will dictate from there.


Thank-you, Thank-you! I am going out to try that tonight...if it doesn't cloud up. The lowest f number I've ever seen on my camera is f4.5. Is there a way to make it go lower? I have been playing with it in manual, so I am the most familiar with that setting.


The minimum and maximum f stop is a function of the lens more so than the camera. Look at the nomenclature on the lens to see what the largest f stop (smallest number) your lens can achieve.
quote=Nightski quote=Bruce M. 1/8 second @f2.8 s... (show quote)


It says 18-55mm, and then there is a little flower symbol with0.28/0.9ft on the outside, and then under the lens cap it says ef-s 18-55mm and 1:3.5-5.6 with an outline of a rectangle after it.
Go to
Feb 26, 2013 09:39:38   #
Bruce M. wrote:
1/8 second @f2.8 should give you a good starting point depending on abmient light conditions. Light pollution will dictate from there.


Thank-you, Thank-you! I am going out to try that tonight...if it doesn't cloud up. The lowest f number I've ever seen on my camera is f4.5. Is there a way to make it go lower? I have been playing with it in manual, so I am the most familiar with that setting.
Go to
Feb 26, 2013 07:10:39   #
So everyone has the sillies this morning and it looks like there is no chance of a serious answer here. Even though there is a serious moon here, and I am wondering if it's even worth it to try again with my rebel xti & kit lens. I'm going out now for my morning snowshoe jog, maybe when I get back there will be an answer that I can use tonight when the moon rises. :)
Go to
Feb 26, 2013 06:22:12   #
Is it possible to get a clear shot of the moon with your kit lens? If not, what kind of camera & lens do you need to shoot the moon?
Go to
Feb 24, 2013 06:50:30   #
jerryc41 wrote:
BillyDuds wrote:
In the attic of an old New England home, I came across a photo album from the early 1900s. All the photos in it are a lovely shade of blue. Would this have been their original color, or is it the result of some chemical change to B+W pics over the century or so since they were taken? (As best I can understand from Wikipedia, color film wasn't readily available until somewhere in the 1930s, so I'm certain these photos are not the result of degradation of color photos.)

Quite a coincidence. I posted this recently.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-97755-1.html



http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/black-and-white-
and-blue/
quote=BillyDuds In the attic of an old New Englan... (show quote)


Wow, that second link really says it all. It did a nice job of explaining it, and I loved the images.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.