Picture Of The Day

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #1020 on:** 13 Jan 2010, 05:26 am »

Quote

This is the biggest one we saw - 12 feet long

Hmmmm...would make a nice belt -wallet- shoes.....

Good photo....

ltr317 · « **Reply #1021 on:** 13 Jan 2010, 05:41 am »

Quote from: lonewolfny42 on 13 Jan 2010, 05:26 am

Hmmmm...would make a nice belt -wallet- shoes.....

Good photo....

Yeah, I would say maybe a few hundred of each.

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #1022 on:** 13 Jan 2010, 09:04 am »

Quote from: jqp on 13 Jan 2010, 04:16 am

Risking my life to bring you life in the Everglades.

Actually in the summer this might have been a somewhat dangerous shot, but in this season, the gators are not eating and they just want to get some sun.

Wow! Sure glad I don't live in that neighborhood... Telephoto or balls of steel? How close did you have to get for those pictures?

goldlizsts · « **Reply #1023 on:** 13 Jan 2010, 01:10 pm »

Quote from: lonewolfny42 on 13 Jan 2010, 05:26 am

Hmmmm...would make a nice belt -wallet- shoes.....

Good photo....

Better idea - spare the animal, so it doesn't go extinct. Instead, buy fakes ones from China, support the underground economy.....

nathanm · « **Reply #1024 on:** 13 Jan 2010, 03:53 pm »

Did you by chance visit Clyde Butcher's gallery down there, jqp?

jqp · « **Reply #1025 on:** 13 Jan 2010, 11:45 pm »

Windchaser - I was about 15 feet from the tail and also up a steep little bank. But in the summer when they are active I would be further away, I doubt they would stand for me being behind them like that. Our guide explained that a gator that size can easily scale a 6 foot fence - it uses its tail to push and flop over the fence. Hence dogs are not safe just because you have a 6 ft fence!

lonewolfny42 - The alligators were 'endangered' at one point, but no more - now there is a hunting season. They have lots of food to eat down there, and they reproduce very well.

nathanm - I heard about him from the concierge t the hotel we were at, and he was in the local paper that day! Did not get to the gallery though - If I go back will try to do that.

SET Man · « **Reply #1026 on:** 16 Jan 2010, 11:07 pm »

Quote from: jqp on 9 Jan 2010, 08:45 pm

Getting ready to land in Ft Meyers, Florida on the way to Marco Island. This was of course shot through 3 layers of glass and plastic, but I though it was an interesting shot.

Hey!

I love getting seat by the window when I'm on the plane so I could look out. But didn't always have camera ready on hand most of the time and missed some interesting sites.

I think I will have my camera near by next time I'm on the plane.

But this pic reminded me of one pic I took back in late 2008. Will be right back....

Take care,
Buddy

SET Man · « **Reply #1027 on:** 17 Jan 2010, 04:28 am »

Hey!

OK,I'm back and here is the pic...

"Sunrise Somewhere Over Russia"

Took this on board Cathay Pacific's Boeing 777 on my way to Thailand. Not quite sure where it was but if I remembered correctly the flight route took me over way up North and down Russia and I think I took this around there.

I was sitting by the window and my brother and his girlfriend sitting near the walk way with his daughter. My camera was on the overhead stowaway compartment. I told my brother to look out to see this. And of course my hands got itchy wanting a camera. Luckily my brother seems to noticed that so he got up and got me my camera.

So, with that I think I will keep my camera bag under the seat in front of me whenever possible next time

Take care,
Buddy

jqp · « **Reply #1028 on:** 16 Feb 2010, 06:14 am »

January in Playa Del Carmen, Quintana Roo, Mexico

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #1029 on:** 22 Feb 2010, 07:52 am »

50mm F3.5 1/250

Okay, I admit it isn't anything original or spectacular. Only posting this because I'm not embarrassed to say
I did that. I like the detail when viewed at full size, but I think I will start shooting at 6 megapixels instead of
12 as per Rockwell's recommendation.

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #1030 on:** 22 Feb 2010, 08:18 am »

50mm F8 1/125

I kind of like this one too, (at full size) but I'm not sure what I could have done to get a better result.

Oh yeah, both pictures were shot at ISO 200

nathanm · « **Reply #1031 on:** 22 Feb 2010, 04:49 pm »

Time and light. That's how you get better results with landscapes. You have to be ready at the right time to get the shot when the light is the way you want it. And then it's also chance because the weather doesn't always cooperate. The only (color) landscapes shots I liked were taken when I was out shooting at a highly 'unnatural' hour when I'd normally be sleeping or indoors. Golden hour does not hang around waiting for me to get my gear unpacked unfortunately.

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #1032 on:** 23 Feb 2010, 12:46 am »

Quote from: nathanm on 22 Feb 2010, 04:49 pm

Time and light. That's how you get better results with landscapes. You have to be ready at the right time to get the shot when the light is the way you want it.

So if you're in an area where you want to capture the scenery on the east and the west, you have to stick around all day and wait for the sun to move, or come back later. That can be a little inconvenient.

nathanm · « **Reply #1033 on:** 23 Feb 2010, 05:09 pm »

Quote from: Wind Chaser on 23 Feb 2010, 12:46 am

So if you're in an area where you want to capture the scenery on the east and the west, you have to stick around all day and wait for the sun to move, or come back later. That can be a little inconvenient.

Yep, pretty much! Nature is very inconvenient!

That is, if your goal is to capture it when it looks prettiest. If you like crummy weather landscapes like me it's a bit easier to be a weekend warrior, but I shoot black and white so I don't have to worry so much about pleasing colors. But if you want that glorious Albert Bierstadt looking masterpiece you're going to have to get a little Grizzly Adams out there in the sticks.

SET Man · « **Reply #1034 on:** 23 Feb 2010, 06:04 pm »

Quote from: Wind Chaser on 22 Feb 2010, 07:52 am

....
50mm F3.5 1/250

Okay, I admit it isn't anything original or spectacular. Only posting this because I'm not embarrassed to say
I did that. I like the detail when viewed at full size, but I think I will start shooting at 6 megapixels instead of
12 as per Rockwell's recommendation.

Hey!

Really? Man! You could have safe lots of money and get the 1st generation 6MP DSLR. Better yet look for the early 0.3MP cam.... hey most people never print bigger than 4x6 right?

Seriously, I'm not saying more pixels make better photos (not in technical way of course) yes 6MP can make a perfect photo quality 8X10 and maybe 11X14. But if you already got more pixels and memo space than why not use them? What if you want to crop? One thing I like having more pixels is that I have more room to work with just in case.

But. Man! Maybe I should follow that advice myself so I can ignore the 24MP FF DSLR that I like.

Quote from: Wind Chaser on 23 Feb 2010, 12:46 am

So if you're in an area where you want to capture the scenery on the east and the west, you have to stick around all day and wait for the sun to move, or come back later. That can be a little inconvenient.

You know. Nathan is right. Patience is the key here when is come to nature photography. You have to be there at the right moment. Of course if you can't than... well better luck next time.

Also, if you want some advise than I would say stop pixel peeping and start to see picture as a "whole" first. So, concentrate on the feel and look of the photo as a whole first rather than how much detail I can get at full size. Yes, I do view my photos at full size too... but to check focus and sharpness.

Don't go crazy much over all the thing you read. Go out take some pictures, enjoy it and get use to the process. There's no rule set in stone when is come photography. You will eventually find your own way of seeing and doing things. But of course still keep your mind open for something that might be useful out there.

Anyway, I ain't big shot "pro" like Ken Rockwell or others and my photos aren't award winning. So, do read my comments and opinions with a bucket of salt.

Take care,
Buddy

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #1035 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 03:01 pm »

Buddy,

You have a point about using 12 instead of 6 mega pixels. Sometimes it’s nice to cut extraneous crap away. OTHOH having a 23” monitors is kind of limiting. It would be nice to see the whole image without shrinking it down to fit the screen. The other thing is the buffer in my camera is said to be a little small which limits the 4.7 shots per second to 17 jpegs and 5 RAW. I’m guessing that would increase if shooting at 6 instead of 12??

Pixel peeping? Not sure what that is, but pixel weeping I can relate to. So far 99.9% of the shots I have taken are utter crap. If this were film photography, I’d be done with it by now. You might be a big shot pro but I’d be happy with half the talent you have. Perhaps in time.

Goosepond · « **Reply #1036 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 03:20 pm »

You've hit on the attraction of digital photography for me.

IMMEDIATE GRATIFICATION!

You don't have to think about finishing the roll of film and getting it developed before you confirm you don't know WTF you're doing. You find out right away!

Gene

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #1037 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 03:35 pm »

Quote from: Goosepond on 24 Feb 2010, 03:20 pm

You don't have to think about finishing the roll of film and getting it developed before you confirm you don't know WTF you're doing. You find out right away!

And seconds after a digital picture is taken it can move across the globe at light speed unlike film and prints.

Goosepond · « **Reply #1038 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 05:06 pm »

Quote from: Wind Chaser on 24 Feb 2010, 03:35 pm

And seconds after a digital picture is taken it can move across the globe at light speed unlike film and prints.

Yes! And then the whole world knows. Between digital photography and the Internet, there are no secrets!

Gene

nathanm · « **Reply #1039 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 09:29 pm »

Oooh, this could be the brutal film vs. digital feud I'd always dreamed of moderating. I'm excited!