NancyP said:

Bird photography is specialized, and better gear does add up to better shots. I don't have $20.000.00 right now to drop on a bird photography kit, so I use a $2,400.00 (price when new) kit of 60D and 400mm f/5.6L.

Click to expand...

This is no bad combo, in particular if there is enough light. The little 400mm is a superb lens, I use it quite frequently when I do not want to carry a 500mm with me.

Canon1 said:

And I thought all the ads I see here for adult diapers was because it was a gaining fad among photoraphers. Might be nice in the kayak, or for shooting a concert, or being stuck in traffic on the way to location.

;D

Click to expand...

Or for long trips to Florida!! ;D

CR Backup Admin said:

AcutancePhotography said:

The advantage of posting an image for critique on the Internets Tubes forum is that anyone can give their opinion on the quality of the image.

The disadvantage of posting an image for critique on the Internets Tubes forum is that anyone can give their opinion on the quality of the image. ;D

Getting critique from strangers about whom you know little about is of questionable value to me.

I would much rather get critique from people I personally know have experience, knowledge, and ability that goes beyond a post count on some internet forum.

Click to expand...

That pretty well sums it up, but a photographer can also benefit by a critique given by a stranger as long as he is honest and polite about what he thinks. The issue may be that we do not create photos for other photographers, but for a customer or the general public. They often have 180 degree views, hence the million dollar photographs that photographers criticize.

Click to expand...

IMHO - Posting images for others to critique is more about the photographer posting and asking for feedback than about the myriad individuals offering their opinion.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If you don't like the song, turn off the radio. Otherwise, put on your big boy pants and be prepared to take what comes, good, bad and in between. Some advice is too nice, some is too harsh and some advice actually aims to help. In truth, it's ALL helpful because the poster learns the different reactions his work generates from others.

Fabulous! ;D

I can't wait to learn more about post processing! I've thought about this before and I'm glad it was suggested, supported and has already been started!

CR is getting better quickly, by leaps and bounds! Hurrah! 8)

Rusty

Went iPhoto > TIFF > photoshop and it worked. I'm almost disappointed it did work haha

I got a TG-3 and quite enjoyed it. It was used mostly at the surface though and anyway not deeper than 1 meter.

Zeiss 100 macro: http://www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/open_test/zeiss_100_2_makro_planar/overview.php
(Test in German)

The Zeiss 100 on the D800
http://www.colorfoto.de/produkte/zeiss-makro-planar-t-2-100-mm-zf-2-nikon-d800-1465949.html

Hi Richard,
it's a nice panorama. I like the dramatic sky over the city. The aspect ration is not my favorite. I prefer 2:1 or 3:1, so I shoot such panoramas in portrait mode to have enough space for cropping later on.

Kind regards, Robert

Last month I posted a short video on a retired Hollywood filmmaker's HDR panoramas of Albuquerque. However, the video only touched on his finished results. This link will take you to his site and some of his work:

http://www.unit16.net/Adobe%20Web%20Gallery/content/index.html

After viewing his work, you will understand why I picked ABQ as my retirement home. Our Fall is usually spectacular, and the winter and spring scenes can be quite good as well. If you like thunderstorms, July and August can produce some intense weather formations and plenty of lightning!

Very nice indeed.

I loved the lion cub jumping series. Excellent shots. My personal preference for wildlife is to have the shot look like it does in the bush.

I'm off to S. Africa Next October, so it is a long wait for me.


Keep posting.

sek

Got to say I'm a very happy bunny with my 70D. But then I need that AF .

FunPhotons said:

climber said:

Maybe they can make a flash with adjustable light temperature.

Click to expand...

Sounds nice but I don't know of technology for that at the flashbulb level. What I'd do is put a thin film LCD in the front, then put whatever color cast you want on it. Effectively it's an electronic gel, and you'd lose a half stop or whatever. Of course that could be done as an add in too, though batteries might make it bulky.

Convenient, but plastic gels are more accurate and cheaper.

Click to expand...

Two bulbs?
You'd be limited to two temperatures and I'm sure it wouldn't be great for the shape of the projection, but it would be cost effective.

Just "fixed" it. I removed the battery and after putting it back in - everything is working normally. Not sure why it fixed it though, but it did.

Legalese78 said:

One night when I was out of town, my pit bull decided she was into my 16-35 f/2.8 II...which means that she pulled it off a shelf that is four feet off the ground, and used it as a chew toy. I was sure that this was the end of the lens but, honestly, it works perfectly, cosmetic damage aside.

Click to expand...

Yes except now its a Sixteen to Thirty-Slime lens!!! LOL!! HA I kill me.. I'm here all week people..

LJ3Jim said:

The fine details might be better with the 300:

http://www.lj3.com/misc/plane3.jpg

Regards, Jim

Click to expand...

An old friend of mine owns that Mustang, and I once flew it into an air show with him. Quite the experience...

Anyway, I should think that at the same aperture, with moving subjects, you won't see any appreciable difference between the slower or faster lenses. There could be some in ideal conditions (very heavy tripod, etc.), but even then I wouldn't expect to see a decisive advantage. On the other hand, if you need to shoot at f/2.8, you don't have much choice, do you?

CR Backup Admin said:

Our organization in a large company bought a 3D scanner about 1991. Then the company making the scanner went out of business and as soon as computer operating systems became incompatible with the drivers, we had a $5K piece of junk. I think we were the early adopters.

We also used 3d printers for prototyping of parts. The printers were very expensive, and you did not normally own a printer, but paid $$$ to have your part printed.

Click to expand...

Yeah, until the last few years, CNC was much more cost effective. One of the other members works at a really cool shop that has all sorts of industrial equipment.

Have one machine that functions as an industrial scanner, it has an arm that traces the outside of an object and does a really good job at copying large objects.

Unfortunately, all options I'm seeing now are people doing digital 'selfies' I want to copy some out of print A/C knobs, not my face.

On another note, has anyone else noticed that the colors straight out of camera are not all that great (especially when moving up the ISO ladder)?

I am also finding that the color on a fair number of the files I get to be a little more difficult to manipulate to a point I am content with. Color in general, I have found is not the best with the Sony.

To make matters worse, the auto white balance is by far the weakest I have experienced with any camera I have owned or currently own. This only makes matters worse when trying to work with the color in the files afterward.

Was also thinking that this may be a symptom of me already being used to Canon and Fuji files in post. But something about these Sony files still makes me feel as though there is more labor in post to get them to look the way I want.

Wi-Fi in cameras is strange. Its mostly optimized for transfer to smartphones, so if you want to use it where you do not have a long enough cord to reach your computer, you must take camera or card to the computer.

Samsung has about the best implementation.

Canon has now responded that we should keep an eye out for the site to come back up later in the week.

If it were a one time happening, that might be ok, but their site has been down frequently, as I found out today by doing a search.

I'm disgusted, and considering a return of my camera. The dealer will not take it back, but at least Amex will refund $300 of the purchase price, and I can sell it.

The problem is that none of the cameras is very good at Wi-Fi, so there is not much to chose from. The Sony RX100 III will not transfer to a computer at all, you must go to the computer and pull the images, so its even worse.

I've been on Instagram for a little while now and it's funny how many photos I've seen people post that are covered with "PROOF" watermarks...

My favorite and most heard line has to be "Wow, that's a great camera, I bet it takes great pictures." I'm sure no one else has heard that one.

And when asked to take an outdoor group photo, "We can just take our picture [of us all in blue suits] here in the conference room [with blue walls, two different white balanced fluorescent bulbs, and projector going] and you can drop us into the outdoor background, right?"

Great pics guys keep them coming!

alexturton said:

The 24 70 ii is sublime and you won't regret it.

Click to expand...

this sums it up nicely. i LOVE it.

JonAustin said:

adhocphotographer said:

So, I've tried to have a lens free year this year...

Click to expand...

Wow ... how do you take any photos when you're lens free??? ;D

Click to expand...

Indeed, it has been tough!

JonAustin said:

The best way to curb G.A.S. is to stop reading photography-related websites!

Click to expand...

Agreed, and have been avoiding this site for a time now for that very reason... but now... well... screw it!

lo lite said:

vstrike said:

Those light field cameras are just another means of postponing photographic decisions to the office desk. In former times you had to get it all right at the moment of the shot, now we can, thanks to raw imaging correct the exposure later, thanks to cameras like the 1DC choose the right moment later (when recording video, Canon did promote this with the term "micro expressions" google for "micro expressions canon"), now Lytro offers postponing the focusing …

Call me old fashioned, I don't like all this. Off course I also make mistakes and I am happy when I am able to correct them to some extend later on but usually I prefer to choose the right moment, the right framing, the right focus point, the right exposure and the right field of depth at the moment I take the shot.

Click to expand...

That's not what the purpose of the camera is for. It is not so you can correct your mistakes, it is so you can make the process interactive. You determine the depth and the focus range in camera. There is just as much to think about when using the Lytro as a DSLR, if not more. This is built more for the monitor than it is for prints. Not saying whether it is good or not, but I find the concept very interesting.

Click to expand...

I think too that the technical concept is very interesting. But you need a special viewer to have the interactive aspect for the shots. And then again how many subjects can you imagine (aside from the hand picked examples at the lytro website) where an adjustable focus really makes sense? To me this lytro stuff is still mostly a nice toy, nothing that I would really miss in day to day photography.

Click to expand...

What about to increase DOF to your images? Can allow focus stacking from a single image.

+1 for YN603C. I have three flashes all hooked to one of these little tranceivers.

And here is a sample (w/ two flashes):

500px

i wasn't having a go mate, taking pith out op if anything. You haven't really taken control of depth of field until you've shot film medium or large format.