Posts for: SangerM
Aug 6, 2019 18:18:18 #
Thank you all for the nice comments. As for the grackle, angry is pretty much how they always look, as do a good many other birds (Cardinal, Goose, & Common Grackle below). In the bigger grackles, like the Great-tail, when they lean forward, they look like an angry guy with his arms behind his back (4th below). I think what really makes the difference, though, is the colored iris and black pupil. Many birds don't have that, just a uni-colored orb. Interestingly, grackles _really_ love water and will take splashy noisy baths in puddles, birdbaths, etc. Yet, even then they still look angry even though they are clearly having a great time..
And then there's the birds that are otherwise, and very appropriately named, as in the Laughing Gulls, during and just after.
BTW, the first 4 pictures below were taken in the vicinity of New Braunfels, TX. The gull photos were taken at Port Aransas beach, TX.
Cheers,
And then there's the birds that are otherwise, and very appropriately named, as in the Laughing Gulls, during and just after.
BTW, the first 4 pictures below were taken in the vicinity of New Braunfels, TX. The gull photos were taken at Port Aransas beach, TX.
Cheers,
Aug 5, 2019 22:53:52 #
Newly moved to Virginia from Texas, and it's nice to see some different birds at the feeders, though I didn't expect to see birds as far afield from home as the Shiny Cowbirds. If I identified them correctly, they are supposed to be native to the Gulf region and are increasingly seen along the Florida coasts.
Cheers
Cheers
Jul 28, 2019 20:51:08 #
SangerM wrote:
I recently visited the National Art Gallery (NAG) & the Hirschhorn Museum (HM) in DC.
Below are some more photos - low light, hand held, lots of post processing.
Cheers
Jul 28, 2019 20:43:29 #
I recently visited the National Art Gallery (NAG) & the Hirschhorn Museum (HM) in DC. Aside from the art, I wanted to try out some new lenses in low-light and see if I could figure out what was wrong with my year-old Canon 5D4.
The 5D4 was overexposing everything, regardless of settings, shooting mode, or lens, so I had to use a negative exposure bias of -1 to -3 EV all the time. I wasn't having the problem w/ my 7D2, so I thought it was me not knowing how to use the camera. It wasn't. It turned out the camera was indeed malfunctioning and has since been repaired by Canon and returned. Very quickly done and it works well enough now.
As for the images, normally I shoot everything hand-held, AI-Servo or one-shot in AV mode, using partial metering, spot-autofocus, and stabilization on. I adjust f-stop and ISO manually, keeping it below 500 when I can, letting the camera set speed. For handheld, anything slower than 1/60 can be dicey, but I've taken some nice shots as low as 1/20. Also, I tend to take 3-5 shots of everything, in multiple framing or zoom versions, with the expectation born of experience that at least one will look good and be really sharp. I'm rarely disappointed, though it happens. C'est la vie. Lastly, I take only large jpgs, and I do a _LOT_ of post processing in a number of different applications so I don't fret overmuch about getting the 'perfect' picture in the camera.
Heh. I suspect a lot of long-time photographers cringed at every bit of that, and some are already mentally composing corrective recommendations or commentaries, but I'm not asking for advice this time, I'm just sharing experience. I'm very aware of the limitations of what I've described above, but some of those are imposed by the environment or subject: tripods/monos & flash are not allowed in many museums (and they're a PITA anyway, most times), while birds, insects, snakes, and other critters require more active, rapidly varying exposure control, especially with the 100-400 lens I use most of the time.
So this trip, I was trying out new stuff. As expected, some photos were awful and some came out decent. More important than either, I learned a fair bit about the possibilities with the new gear. The National Art Gallery pics were w/ a 5D4 & Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Macro Zoom (this is an _excellent_ all-purpose lens). The Hirschhorn pics were w/ 5D4 & Tamron SP 24-70mm, f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 w/ circular polarizer on some. All of these were extensively worked in PaintShop Pro and Filter Forge.
So what did I learn?
1. A close-up of old paintings reveals a lot you really don't want to see, but does give a lot of insight into how the painting was made. What looks subtle and smooth to the naked eye from a couple feet away can look positively slap-dash and clumpy up close. The examples here are two detail shots of "The Abduction of Europa." I love the wide-eyed wonder in the cow's expression; but not so much the up-close view of the eyes, or Europa's ears or ribbons.
2. Lenses like the Tamron 2.8 and the Canon 50mm f/1.2 are great for low light, but you pay for that with really poor depth of field sometimes, especially for near shots of statues or other 3D objects. I've got some very good photos but I had to sacrifice speed to get better depth (duh!), but it wasn't as easy to find the best balance with the Tamron as it was with the Canon F/3.5-5.6. I think it'll just take time for me to get used to the differences. I hate learning curves. . . .
3. A circular polarizer filter isn't as easy to work with, nor are the transitions as sharply defined, as with the old regular polarizer, but it gets the job done. I need to play with this a bit more to really get comfortable with it again. Also, wearing polarized sunglasses while using a polarizer is generally a NoGo.
4. I need to try out and practice with the camera's built-in/loadable picture styles to take better advantage of the presets when shooting indoors (and maybe outside too). I've avoided those, but it would have helped at the museums, especially with the new lenses.
5. I REALLY like the touch screen functions of the 5D4! I still roll wheels and push buttons from habit, but being able to get at settings by touching the screen makes it a great deal easier. The hard part is going back to the 7D2 and having to revert to mechanical controls.
Anyway, that's it for now. I'll be happy to answer any questions about the images, lenses, or museums, though I expect there are lots of folks here who can answer Qs about any of those better than I can.
Cheers
The 5D4 was overexposing everything, regardless of settings, shooting mode, or lens, so I had to use a negative exposure bias of -1 to -3 EV all the time. I wasn't having the problem w/ my 7D2, so I thought it was me not knowing how to use the camera. It wasn't. It turned out the camera was indeed malfunctioning and has since been repaired by Canon and returned. Very quickly done and it works well enough now.
As for the images, normally I shoot everything hand-held, AI-Servo or one-shot in AV mode, using partial metering, spot-autofocus, and stabilization on. I adjust f-stop and ISO manually, keeping it below 500 when I can, letting the camera set speed. For handheld, anything slower than 1/60 can be dicey, but I've taken some nice shots as low as 1/20. Also, I tend to take 3-5 shots of everything, in multiple framing or zoom versions, with the expectation born of experience that at least one will look good and be really sharp. I'm rarely disappointed, though it happens. C'est la vie. Lastly, I take only large jpgs, and I do a _LOT_ of post processing in a number of different applications so I don't fret overmuch about getting the 'perfect' picture in the camera.
Heh. I suspect a lot of long-time photographers cringed at every bit of that, and some are already mentally composing corrective recommendations or commentaries, but I'm not asking for advice this time, I'm just sharing experience. I'm very aware of the limitations of what I've described above, but some of those are imposed by the environment or subject: tripods/monos & flash are not allowed in many museums (and they're a PITA anyway, most times), while birds, insects, snakes, and other critters require more active, rapidly varying exposure control, especially with the 100-400 lens I use most of the time.
So this trip, I was trying out new stuff. As expected, some photos were awful and some came out decent. More important than either, I learned a fair bit about the possibilities with the new gear. The National Art Gallery pics were w/ a 5D4 & Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Macro Zoom (this is an _excellent_ all-purpose lens). The Hirschhorn pics were w/ 5D4 & Tamron SP 24-70mm, f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 w/ circular polarizer on some. All of these were extensively worked in PaintShop Pro and Filter Forge.
So what did I learn?
1. A close-up of old paintings reveals a lot you really don't want to see, but does give a lot of insight into how the painting was made. What looks subtle and smooth to the naked eye from a couple feet away can look positively slap-dash and clumpy up close. The examples here are two detail shots of "The Abduction of Europa." I love the wide-eyed wonder in the cow's expression; but not so much the up-close view of the eyes, or Europa's ears or ribbons.
2. Lenses like the Tamron 2.8 and the Canon 50mm f/1.2 are great for low light, but you pay for that with really poor depth of field sometimes, especially for near shots of statues or other 3D objects. I've got some very good photos but I had to sacrifice speed to get better depth (duh!), but it wasn't as easy to find the best balance with the Tamron as it was with the Canon F/3.5-5.6. I think it'll just take time for me to get used to the differences. I hate learning curves. . . .
3. A circular polarizer filter isn't as easy to work with, nor are the transitions as sharply defined, as with the old regular polarizer, but it gets the job done. I need to play with this a bit more to really get comfortable with it again. Also, wearing polarized sunglasses while using a polarizer is generally a NoGo.
4. I need to try out and practice with the camera's built-in/loadable picture styles to take better advantage of the presets when shooting indoors (and maybe outside too). I've avoided those, but it would have helped at the museums, especially with the new lenses.
5. I REALLY like the touch screen functions of the 5D4! I still roll wheels and push buttons from habit, but being able to get at settings by touching the screen makes it a great deal easier. The hard part is going back to the 7D2 and having to revert to mechanical controls.
Anyway, that's it for now. I'll be happy to answer any questions about the images, lenses, or museums, though I expect there are lots of folks here who can answer Qs about any of those better than I can.
Cheers
NAG - Abduction of Europa detail (De Troy)
(Download)
NAG - Abduction of Europa Detail (De Troy)
(Download)
NAG - Fountain v.1
(Download)
NAG - Fountain v.2
(Download)
HM - Courtyard (w/ polarizer)
(Download)
HM - Glass Table Top (anim. .gif shows polarizer)
(Download)
HM - Graduations of Slow Release detail (Maramotti)
(Download)
HM - The Assumption of Weee (Werner)
(Download)
HM - MoonMad (Ernst)
(Download)
HM - Plants (polarizer remove glass case reflection)
(Download)
Jul 24, 2019 07:37:06 #
robertjerl wrote:
OK, here are some from my archives.
Those are all just beautiful. Enviably so--what I aspire to. Very nice.
Cheers
Jul 22, 2019 21:42:50 #
Bobspez wrote:
That's why I gave up photography in the 1980's.
Pretty much same here. I never stopped taking photos, I just started using cheap one-off cameras and taking snaps of only things I specifically wanted. Otherwise, I'd buy ready-made slide sets at the tourist traps, and by the mid '90s I'd stopped doing even that. About then, I started buying kodak or other brand point and shoot digitals. They took pretty lame pics, but I was done w/ film and getting snaps good enough for reliving the trip or the event.
It wasn't until '10 or '11, I think, when a friend sold me his cast-off DLSR that my interest in photography returned and it did that with a vengeance. I take the cameras with me pretty much everywhere now and I take photos of everything that catches my eye. A lot of that gets deleted, but quite a bit makes great stock stuff. As for the smaller cameras, my spouse stopped using them 4-5 years ago and does everything with the phone, including making videos for teaching (we have a nifty bluetooth clicker that lets you work an iPhone on a tripod remotely).
Lastly, it doesn't matter, but I checked my slides and found that some Kodachrome slides did come back in English frames, but most from '76-'79 & '82-'85 came back in German frames. I also discovered I still have slides from the first pictures I ever took in 1972 or 3, using a Kodak Instamatic 126. I scanned these in 2001 w/ a NIKON scanner, this was pretty good quality back then. This is why I plan to rescan everything. . . .
Cheers
Jul 21, 2019 22:11:00 #
Nieber wrote:
In Germany in the 70’s, the Army would send the film back to the US to get developed. Sometimes we’d wait a month.
It did take a long time, but I assumed the actual processing took place in the FRG because the words on the 'diapostiv' frames were in German (see below).
I've still got more than a thousand of these left. Planning to clean and rescan most of them sometime this year.
Cheers
Jul 21, 2019 18:50:29 #
This is just too true, and further re: old timey stuff (70s & early 80s):
I used to take only transparencies because 1) it was cheaper to process them, 2) I didn't have to deal with negatives (storage was easy), 3) it was an easy choice between Ektachrome (160 asa, IIRR) and Kodachrome (25 asa) depending on the Sun, and 4) the German processing labs didn't mess up the color like they did with prints (wherever it was the PX was sending the rolls for processing). Also, I didn't have to accept their image crops like I did with prints.
As for value, in those days, I used to be really happy if I got 1 very decent and 5-6 pretty good shots out of a roll of 36. I was using a Minolta SRT-101 or SRT-102 then, which were pretty good (though I hated the prism center focus on the -102), and the lenses were pretty decent for amateur stuff, warm and clear. Much better than Yashica or whatever other low end SLRs I had.
Now, on the other hand, I typically take upwards of 500-700 images within 30-40 min, and I end up with a couple hundred worth looking at a second time, 30-40 pretty good ones, 5-10 very good shots, and 1 or 2 superlative shots. I know I could do this differently, but with birds, bugs, snakes, and other critters on the move, if I tried for that ONE GOOD SHOT, I'd probably never get anything I liked. I'm just not patient enough to sit in one spot with an 800mm prime lens waiting three days for the perfect shot--I'd like to be that person, but yeah well. I am an opportunist and I make myself happy and I end up with some pretty darn good photos. Sometimes they are astonishing, either because they are really good or because I caught some action that was a once in a lifetime kind of thing.
And best of all? The instant gratification that comes with being able to download everything and see the results in hours instead of weeks or days. I am much more energized to get out and take photos at every opportunity than I ever was in the past, and I am much more likely to stop and take some photos of whatever strikes my fancy than I would have before because I don't really have to worry about whether or not I'm wasting film/$$$. I can try still lifes, architecture, odd angles at different exposures, with different lenses, and etc. And except for the sunk cost of the tech, the pictures cost me zip. How very cool is that?!
Cheers
P.S. In case it wasn't clear, I really do love technology. I sold off all of my old LPs (many, many orginals from the early 70s onward, used once to record to tape, etc.) years ago, and I haven't ever looked back. Purists can have those LPs, and film cameras, and slide rules, and rotary dial phones, and original VW Beetles(well, okay, one of those'd be cool to have), and even paper books. I love CDs, MP3s, digital movies, modern cars w/ digital tech, and though I relish my book collection, I prefer my Kindle for traveling reading. And I really love digital photography and being able to manipulate and print multiple variations of images without ever having to go into a dark or room again. And truth is, I actually prefer images projected from a large scale monitor to most prints, which just don't have the same visual appeal.
I used to take only transparencies because 1) it was cheaper to process them, 2) I didn't have to deal with negatives (storage was easy), 3) it was an easy choice between Ektachrome (160 asa, IIRR) and Kodachrome (25 asa) depending on the Sun, and 4) the German processing labs didn't mess up the color like they did with prints (wherever it was the PX was sending the rolls for processing). Also, I didn't have to accept their image crops like I did with prints.
As for value, in those days, I used to be really happy if I got 1 very decent and 5-6 pretty good shots out of a roll of 36. I was using a Minolta SRT-101 or SRT-102 then, which were pretty good (though I hated the prism center focus on the -102), and the lenses were pretty decent for amateur stuff, warm and clear. Much better than Yashica or whatever other low end SLRs I had.
Now, on the other hand, I typically take upwards of 500-700 images within 30-40 min, and I end up with a couple hundred worth looking at a second time, 30-40 pretty good ones, 5-10 very good shots, and 1 or 2 superlative shots. I know I could do this differently, but with birds, bugs, snakes, and other critters on the move, if I tried for that ONE GOOD SHOT, I'd probably never get anything I liked. I'm just not patient enough to sit in one spot with an 800mm prime lens waiting three days for the perfect shot--I'd like to be that person, but yeah well. I am an opportunist and I make myself happy and I end up with some pretty darn good photos. Sometimes they are astonishing, either because they are really good or because I caught some action that was a once in a lifetime kind of thing.
And best of all? The instant gratification that comes with being able to download everything and see the results in hours instead of weeks or days. I am much more energized to get out and take photos at every opportunity than I ever was in the past, and I am much more likely to stop and take some photos of whatever strikes my fancy than I would have before because I don't really have to worry about whether or not I'm wasting film/$$$. I can try still lifes, architecture, odd angles at different exposures, with different lenses, and etc. And except for the sunk cost of the tech, the pictures cost me zip. How very cool is that?!
Cheers
P.S. In case it wasn't clear, I really do love technology. I sold off all of my old LPs (many, many orginals from the early 70s onward, used once to record to tape, etc.) years ago, and I haven't ever looked back. Purists can have those LPs, and film cameras, and slide rules, and rotary dial phones, and original VW Beetles(well, okay, one of those'd be cool to have), and even paper books. I love CDs, MP3s, digital movies, modern cars w/ digital tech, and though I relish my book collection, I prefer my Kindle for traveling reading. And I really love digital photography and being able to manipulate and print multiple variations of images without ever having to go into a dark or room again. And truth is, I actually prefer images projected from a large scale monitor to most prints, which just don't have the same visual appeal.
Jul 17, 2019 18:56:21 #
Who'd have thunk a topic so simple would produce so many great photos. Just fantastic. Thanks to all for the quick world tour.
Cheers,
Cheers,
Jul 17, 2019 18:41:44 #
Longshadow wrote:
Sorry, I thought we were talking about products from China, not a political position.
Just sayin'
Just sayin'
Well, okaaayyy then, do so. Who said you should stop?
Of course, I was responding to the second part of what looks like the first msg in this thread, Biogon44's: "Remember China and America were stalwart allies in the Second World War and China certainly did not attack Pearl Harbor. The Flying Tigers' role in defending her against the Japanese are gratefully and fondly acknowledged in present day China."
Sorry I didn't stick to the approved topic, like Don the 2nd Son (who, BTW, mentioned China as supporting Vietnam, though it was also Soviets). I just felt like wasting my time writing about something that actually matters, like facts, instead of about, well, you know. . .
And FTR, that wasn't a political 'position.' It was a comment and opinion that included an assessment of current international affairs based on documented history and recent experience/study.
Just sayin'
Jul 17, 2019 11:47:06 #
China and America were far from 'stalwart allies' in WWII. That's revisionist history. Yes, we had a common enemy, but Chaing was looking for and willing to take help against Mao from anyone who would give it, including criminal gangs and the Nazis (yes!). Likewise, Mao was just interested in defeating Chaing, who had to be prodded _hard_ into turning to fight Japan instead of finishing off the communists (which he should have done). Basically, in the course of doing what the U.S. wanted, i.e., relieve pressure on the U.S. by tying up the Japanese, Chaing lost China because while he was losing forces and killing hundreds of thousands of his own people in floods, etc., Mao was recovering in the west.
As for the war, Chaing refused to pay heed to Gen Stillwell in favor of Chenault, whose main interest was self serving. IMO, any fondness for Chenault lacks context and awareness of the times, which found him undermining Stillwell who finally, in frustration, left the country and went south where he ended up working with Ho Chi Minh, who WAS fighting the Japanese.
And lastly, WWII ended more than 60 years ago--it's old history for a non-ally. Since then, China has been anything but a friend to anyone but itself (and North Korea), and a lot of Americans have died with China's help. Frankly, it's done a pretty nasty job on its own people too (including the millions of female babies aborted because females are less worthwhile than males in Chinese culture). Xi is an important reformer in some ways, but in others he has probably consolidated more power in himself than anyone since Mao has had. Likewise, China is causing no end of problems in Africa with it's outrageous, unsustainable loans and poorly run/managed infrastructure projects. If it keeps up as it's going, China will end up doing as much or more lasting damage to Africa than any former colonial power.
China is a great country, no question, and its people are no less human and therefore deserving of fair judgement, but it is no friend to America and it is no great friend to the world.
Just sayin'
As for the war, Chaing refused to pay heed to Gen Stillwell in favor of Chenault, whose main interest was self serving. IMO, any fondness for Chenault lacks context and awareness of the times, which found him undermining Stillwell who finally, in frustration, left the country and went south where he ended up working with Ho Chi Minh, who WAS fighting the Japanese.
And lastly, WWII ended more than 60 years ago--it's old history for a non-ally. Since then, China has been anything but a friend to anyone but itself (and North Korea), and a lot of Americans have died with China's help. Frankly, it's done a pretty nasty job on its own people too (including the millions of female babies aborted because females are less worthwhile than males in Chinese culture). Xi is an important reformer in some ways, but in others he has probably consolidated more power in himself than anyone since Mao has had. Likewise, China is causing no end of problems in Africa with it's outrageous, unsustainable loans and poorly run/managed infrastructure projects. If it keeps up as it's going, China will end up doing as much or more lasting damage to Africa than any former colonial power.
China is a great country, no question, and its people are no less human and therefore deserving of fair judgement, but it is no friend to America and it is no great friend to the world.
Just sayin'
Jul 16, 2019 21:31:03 #
To everyone who commented on my photos, thank you. I do appreciate it. It's especially nice to share that with so many other really talented people and their excellent photos.
On another note, I took the pictures below in 2009, at the Texas Metal Festival in Gruene, Tx. It was not a big hit, so it wasn't repeated like the annual clay festival, but there was some really cool and interesting stuff to see. Believe it or not the two below are all metal, as worked by an amazing guy named Warren Cullar, who gave me permission to take these. You can check out his work at www.artwarren.com.
Thanks again for the kind words.
Cheers
On another note, I took the pictures below in 2009, at the Texas Metal Festival in Gruene, Tx. It was not a big hit, so it wasn't repeated like the annual clay festival, but there was some really cool and interesting stuff to see. Believe it or not the two below are all metal, as worked by an amazing guy named Warren Cullar, who gave me permission to take these. You can check out his work at www.artwarren.com.
Thanks again for the kind words.
Cheers
Jul 16, 2019 00:02:38 #
Good Evening:
I'm a bit late to the show, but I thought these might be interesting.
1. Atop Ramsey Canyon, AZ, just E of Ft. Huachuca
2. Atop Ramsey Canyon, AZ, just E of Ft. Huachuca
3. Atop Ramsey Canyon, AZ, just E of Ft. Huachuca, looking at San Pedro River Valley
4. 'Montezuma's Castle' National Monument, AZ
5. Petrified Forest looking N toward the Painted Desert
6. Petrified Forest bunch of big ole rocks
7. Petrified Forest 'Ground Cover' This stuff is everywhere.
8. Petrified Tree Detail
Note: Visitors are asked to not take anything from the park; to leave what's there for the next visitors. Amazingly, from before and after photos they've got, it looks like for the most part, people do just that. Very cool.
Cheers
I'm a bit late to the show, but I thought these might be interesting.
1. Atop Ramsey Canyon, AZ, just E of Ft. Huachuca
2. Atop Ramsey Canyon, AZ, just E of Ft. Huachuca
3. Atop Ramsey Canyon, AZ, just E of Ft. Huachuca, looking at San Pedro River Valley
4. 'Montezuma's Castle' National Monument, AZ
5. Petrified Forest looking N toward the Painted Desert
6. Petrified Forest bunch of big ole rocks
7. Petrified Forest 'Ground Cover' This stuff is everywhere.
8. Petrified Tree Detail
Note: Visitors are asked to not take anything from the park; to leave what's there for the next visitors. Amazingly, from before and after photos they've got, it looks like for the most part, people do just that. Very cool.
Cheers
Jul 14, 2019 21:52:56 #
Good evening:
That is an excellent! photo of an Ebony Jewelwing, as ID'd. FWIW, if you take a lot of photos of dragon- and damselflies, you might find this website useful: www.odonatacentral.org. It can be brute force sometimes, searching through all their photos, but I've been able to ID all but a very few of the scores I've photographed (mostly in Texas) over the past 10 years or so.
Likewise, I very much recommend a book titled Texas Damselflies Reference (or Field Guide) by John Abbott. I have a .pdf version I've had for a bunch of years, but I really don't know where I got it. When I looked up a URL to share here, it turns out it's a regular book for sale. I think it came from the website I mentioned above. Regardless, it is the best I've found for quickly ID'ing damsels and well worth the effort of getting a searchable copy.
Also, in case you don't know, male and female damsel- and dragonflies are often very different colors--even more diverse than birds. A male can be blue, the female green, or can have totally different wing markings, or color patterns, etc. It's a lot easier to ID males than females on-line, so if you happen to take a shot with differently colored critters, keep it even if it's not a great photo because that might be the clue you need to ID the subject of the shot you want to keep.
And last, a clue to taking photos of these. If you walk up on a dragon perched on a branch or twig, and it flies away, stand still, frame your shot where it was, and wait. They almost always return to the exact same place if you're not too close, especially in mid-day. I will take some shots then move enough to startle the bug into the air, then take a few steps closer. Almost always, it returns to the exact same perch unless I've got too close, usually w/in about 5 feet. Damsels are similar, but they tend to return to the same area, not always the same perch.
As you might guess, I really like taking photos of these, and I always really appreciate a good one like yours.
Cheers
That is an excellent! photo of an Ebony Jewelwing, as ID'd. FWIW, if you take a lot of photos of dragon- and damselflies, you might find this website useful: www.odonatacentral.org. It can be brute force sometimes, searching through all their photos, but I've been able to ID all but a very few of the scores I've photographed (mostly in Texas) over the past 10 years or so.
Likewise, I very much recommend a book titled Texas Damselflies Reference (or Field Guide) by John Abbott. I have a .pdf version I've had for a bunch of years, but I really don't know where I got it. When I looked up a URL to share here, it turns out it's a regular book for sale. I think it came from the website I mentioned above. Regardless, it is the best I've found for quickly ID'ing damsels and well worth the effort of getting a searchable copy.
Also, in case you don't know, male and female damsel- and dragonflies are often very different colors--even more diverse than birds. A male can be blue, the female green, or can have totally different wing markings, or color patterns, etc. It's a lot easier to ID males than females on-line, so if you happen to take a shot with differently colored critters, keep it even if it's not a great photo because that might be the clue you need to ID the subject of the shot you want to keep.
And last, a clue to taking photos of these. If you walk up on a dragon perched on a branch or twig, and it flies away, stand still, frame your shot where it was, and wait. They almost always return to the exact same place if you're not too close, especially in mid-day. I will take some shots then move enough to startle the bug into the air, then take a few steps closer. Almost always, it returns to the exact same perch unless I've got too close, usually w/in about 5 feet. Damsels are similar, but they tend to return to the same area, not always the same perch.
As you might guess, I really like taking photos of these, and I always really appreciate a good one like yours.
Cheers
Jul 12, 2019 22:39:08 #
I am a driving photographer, mostly, which means I pick a route and generally follow it though I am perfectly willing to follow the GPS where it shows interesting side trips. To be honest, I think the place and way you go should be determined by what you want to see and what kind of photos you like.
For example, if you're not looking for only rural, or outdoors, or fall foliage colors, and you like a bit of variety, you might start in center city Philly, you could see a lot in two good days within a 5-6 sq mile area. Then you could head westerly toward Valley Forge and thence to Lancaster (Penns. Dutch Country) and on to Gettysburg (worth seeing even if you're not really interested in Civil War battlefields). This would be a 1.5 days at most of driving & could include stops. Then head up Rt 15 toward Harrisburg and follow it all the way into NY, where you could travel through the Finger Lakes area toward Rochester and then Niagara Falls (another 1-2 days at a leisurely pace). Then you could go around Lake Ontario along the North shore in Canada (take ID, it's needed now) and head east to the Atlantic following whatever meandering route you want, you'd end up near Portland Maine. This would be 2-3 days, but 4 might be better, again depending on how often and how long you stop. Basically, a week+ at a nice pace, with a TON of stuff to see and do, interesting city, upstate PA (in places it looks a lot like Germany, if you've been there), Great Lakes, Niagara Falls, cross the Appalachian Trail, old Forts, go to another country, and drive across the best of upper NY, the White Mountains and end up at the ocean. If you're up for more, another day would have you in Boston (I really like the Constitution), where you could spend a day or two, then fly back to where you came from. BTW, IMO, fresh Macintosh apples in the Fall are just exquisite and can't be had anywhere else at any time that they are as tasty and tangy.
And that's just one of several routes you could take that would put you in or near cities worth seeing and also out in some truly beautiful countryside. As for 'foliage,' I like New England in the Fall, but so does the rest of humanity, so I tend to avoid it during rush-weeks. Kind of like Cherry Blossoms in DC. If you go first thing on a Sunday and know where to park (most parking in DC is free on Sun), you can get decent morning pics before the rest of the world shows up.
Whatever you do, have a good time. It is a truly fantastic part of Earth.
Cheers
For example, if you're not looking for only rural, or outdoors, or fall foliage colors, and you like a bit of variety, you might start in center city Philly, you could see a lot in two good days within a 5-6 sq mile area. Then you could head westerly toward Valley Forge and thence to Lancaster (Penns. Dutch Country) and on to Gettysburg (worth seeing even if you're not really interested in Civil War battlefields). This would be a 1.5 days at most of driving & could include stops. Then head up Rt 15 toward Harrisburg and follow it all the way into NY, where you could travel through the Finger Lakes area toward Rochester and then Niagara Falls (another 1-2 days at a leisurely pace). Then you could go around Lake Ontario along the North shore in Canada (take ID, it's needed now) and head east to the Atlantic following whatever meandering route you want, you'd end up near Portland Maine. This would be 2-3 days, but 4 might be better, again depending on how often and how long you stop. Basically, a week+ at a nice pace, with a TON of stuff to see and do, interesting city, upstate PA (in places it looks a lot like Germany, if you've been there), Great Lakes, Niagara Falls, cross the Appalachian Trail, old Forts, go to another country, and drive across the best of upper NY, the White Mountains and end up at the ocean. If you're up for more, another day would have you in Boston (I really like the Constitution), where you could spend a day or two, then fly back to where you came from. BTW, IMO, fresh Macintosh apples in the Fall are just exquisite and can't be had anywhere else at any time that they are as tasty and tangy.
And that's just one of several routes you could take that would put you in or near cities worth seeing and also out in some truly beautiful countryside. As for 'foliage,' I like New England in the Fall, but so does the rest of humanity, so I tend to avoid it during rush-weeks. Kind of like Cherry Blossoms in DC. If you go first thing on a Sunday and know where to park (most parking in DC is free on Sun), you can get decent morning pics before the rest of the world shows up.
Whatever you do, have a good time. It is a truly fantastic part of Earth.
Cheers