they're all good but number 3 came thru' the screen & bit me! Tops technique, admiration and well done to capture the breeding pair too.

grateful thanks from me in UK, much less than your age but I couldn't have managed that effort; kudos good Sir and thank you for great shots of a place I wished to see but now I can't get there.

Well done just extracting it from the fridge, let alone shewing us a snap of it!

nope, not if speed AND aperture are correct for it.

if you try manual, go manual everything
set ISO to (say) 200
set aperture to get the depth of field you like, perhaps f16
set speed to get a nice broad histogram (good exposure), which in sunlight would be 1/200 - 1/250th second
check the speed is equal to the lens in use, in this case OK for a 180mm lens but not any longer.
shoot

ISO 100, speed 1/100, F16 same exposure & OK for 90mm lens
ISO 400, speed 1/500, F16 same, OK for 250 - 400mm lens
ISO 400, speed 1/1000, F8, same, OK for 600mm lens

assuming hand held camera of course. On a tripod you can use slower speeds

see?

unless you're putting food down, nearly all cats look like that until they want something. Great Kitchen Sink drama shot, btw.

very appropriate treatment in this case, very well crafted too. Love the idea of a tail hanging out below the frame too. Not for over-use but really cute here.

first shot is not possible to improve.
second is valid because you & your mates are doing all our dirty work for us, besides, it's amusing!

thanks for the link!

Alderbaran have you noticed how many people don't read back over previous messages before advising you? Oh well, at least now we know you were positively right all along. Enjoy the better lens specimen and keep the faith.

kindest regards and sorry I'm so late back to this.

brilliant takes, like the captions too

what a sight thanks for shewing us - loved the one doing his own whirlpool.
cracking shots

Thank you Nightski, I, a mere bloke, actually followed what you said and agree.

However, even a centimetre off the top improves the shot, IMHO, leaving all the mystery but better proportion. I think - try it by scrolling the screen gently.

Lastly, I think crisper more contrasty cables where they start into the shot could accentuate the effect.

nude bridges, huh? still learning at my age......

it is a super composition of an alluring subject, well exposed in the right light.

it seems a little soft (not crispy sharp)

if you have a 'macro' lens it should give the same image size as the original, many do not because manufacturers over-hype their products. If it costs less than (say) $500 when new, then it cannot be computed and constructed to be a 'pro' macro lens. Nevertheless, software can make up some little bit of the difference, look at the programs that came with your camera CD's.

True macro means the picture is the same life size on your sensor/film as the real thing was: that way, the screen enlargement can be very contrasty/colourful/sharp.

A true macro lens is a start. An ordinary lens with extension tubes or bellows can give great results so long it is not a 'zoom'. An ordinary non-zoom lens, with close up dioptre lenses screwed onto the front, can manage fair results.

A really good 'prime' (non zoom) lens mounted back to front with suitable adapter rings can give very good results close up, but one loses all automation and it is very slow.

As you do indeed seem to have an eye for this, and you already have a 'macro' lens, consider the best option to be extension tubes. If you get the original manufacturer ones that keep full automation for convenience, these cost $150 plus. If you get a set of other makers' ones, with no automation, then work will be very slow but way, way, cheaper.

Read internet articles on it, learn and then choose. Personally, I'd avoid dioptre screw on lenses, too much quality loss for serious work.

under the circumstances (sorry for that), a nice set.
Console yourself that my last visit was in 60mph storms, I did no better due to foul weather.
We must both re-visit under happier skies!

its internal reflection amongst the many glass elements, OR, you had a front filter such as a UV, which flat planes of glass did a similar thing.
(don't use filters straight into a light)
Even highly expensive lenses do this, and of course the 'bleed' of intense light has misted the whole image too.
(intense light is not all transmitted thru the glasses, a little bit is reflected and bounced around no matter how good the glass coatings are - laws of physics)
Lens hood makes no difference here as you're straight on.
Moving left or right might have taken the 'blob' out of frame, but of course destroyed your intended symmetry.
Take consolation that even you spend another few thousand dollars, this effect would likely still have happened.

edit; Leica's 'Noctilux' is very good at not doing this (look up the price) but even that exemplar will do it in spades, if a filter is left on by mistake, plus it won't fit your camera!

extra edit; sorry to bang on but it follows that zooms, which have many more internal glass surfaces than a prime lens, will be worse at blobbing and veiling glare. If possible, use a top quality prime for this type of shot rather than a zoom.

so, have we proved that a big name costly lens in traditional (not extreme) zoom range with not too great an aperture can arrive in less than top condition?
Zeiss and Leica must be laughing on their way to the bank!
thanks for the education, and at least the OP frustration has been shewn to be well-founded..