I just realized that I had 300 pixels as the long side - yikes!
Here's the full size bird, along with a couple of new shots from the same spot with a Sony 200-600 that I just rented for a trip next week.
Alyn McConnaha wrote:
By the way--we may be distant relatives!!! On Mother's side. (she grew up and taught school in Northern Indiana.)
Alyn (McKenzie) McConnaha
It's a small world, isn't it? My dad's family came from Arkansas and Oklahoma. I'm not sure where they were before that.
I'm glad to be a camera owner again after a long time away. I didn't have to go far to find this goose, just down to the local park.I have to admit that I didn't notice the mass of flowers until I looked at it in Lightroom; I was focused on the bird.
----------------------
1/320 @ ƒ5.6 ISO 125
Sony A7rIV
Sony FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS
I'm getting back into photography after a couple of years away. I was going through my catalog of images, and found a few from Gettysburg that hit me in a fresh way. If we destroy every remembrance of what we fought for and why, we are at a far greater risk of having to fight again.
Hmmm . . . the general thinking is that the "cost" is what the individual pays. No, the cost is what is costs, period, regardless of who pays for it, regardless of the country you live in. 15 years ago I cut my finger on a trip to California. One stitch cost $2,500, around $300 for me, and $2,200 for my insurance. That's why I have superglue.
It obviously didn't COST $5,693 to treat the OP's injury, so the hospital gets blamed for blatant greed. But, the hospital HAD to bill that much to get more or less what it cost. Medicare "adjusted" more than $4,600 on the OP's bill - that means that Medicare told the ER to accept 22% of the bill and be happy. If Medicare (and insurers) would simply pay the bills as they were submitted, providers wouldn't need to grossly overbill in order to stay in business.
Nothing to be ashamed of in those shots. You've captured the mood and the lighting very well. Flash would certainly give you better light, but not a better image. A faster lens would give you more control over shutter speed and aperture.
I think I can see either John Wayne or Henry Fonda riding along down there - can't tell which. Wonderful image!
Got a great place for you right on the Snake River - look up 43.8566N 110.5535W - there's a decent dirt road to the river. Also, about halfway down the road is a gorgeous shot of the Tetons. WATCH OUT FOR BEARS probably doesn't need to be said, but when we were there a grizzly sow and cubs crossed the paved road (191, the Rockefeller Parkway) down to the river at the horseshoe bend.
Enjoy!
Bryan Peterson also has a truckload of short videos on YouTube that address all sorts of subjects. He appeals to me because he doesn't assume the viewer knows much, but he never talks down to people who don't know much. The only reason I can't reproduce all of his videos is that he often shoots in other countries. It's usually Bryan and his camera, not three linked speed lights and a professional model. (In fact, Bryan's "models" are often people taking his workshops!)
The tenth most traveled deficient bridge in Nebraska, in Madison County, is in our town of Norfolk, and they just started work on it this week. Glad to know we'll be off this list in a few months.
Just like going from an electric guitar with a massive rig to a top-level acoustic. I would hate to deal with film (my one and only film camera was a Kodak Instamatic I bought at Disneyland when I was 12 or 13), but I love the idea of a really high quality, SIMPLE tool. Maybe don't sell ALL the digital stuff right away . . .
There is no C&C, because your love for your friend adds incredible value to the shot. It is interesting, though, how the story behind the shot changes the perception of the shot. So sorry for your loss.
Oh, very nice, very atmospheric - reminds me of our area this past Tuesday!
Uuglypher wrote:
Yet once again, Selmslie, you are "hoist by your own petard".
Your own images provide the proof you seek , were you but to examine them more critically.
In the words of Robert Capa:"...you're not close enough!"
(or, in your case, simply ask someone with better visual acuity)
As always, check the fine detail in the left side of the histogram (the lesser exposed regions / anywhere in these crops of your images) before claiming "no difference"
Out of curiosity, I saved this image to my desktop, opened it in Photoshop, created two images, resized the smaller a percent or so, and then superimposed them. My old eyes (I'm 55) can't tell ANY difference.
Selmsie, or anyone, I would appreciate it if you would identify WHICH of the two below are your 2 second f/8 images, and which are the 1/2 second f/8. I swear on my father's eyes that I can't see ANY difference when I overlay them in Photoshop and toggle them on and off. It seems to me that they are exactly the same image. So I would like YOU to tell me, without a label, which is which, and point out the difference.
Well, as the OP I've learned several things. First, I need to really learn what my camera can and can't do. Second, RawDigger can be a useful tool for understanding what my camera is actually giving me. Third, people get pretty passionate about their favorite approaches. And fourth, Selmslie needs to stop beating around the bush and just come out and say what he thinks.