Skip to toolbar

my contribution to the — hell i’m just an AW

Forums Forums Farktography General Chat The Gallery my contribution to the — hell i’m just an AW

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #956
    Curious
    Participant

    came home from running errands and kicked this while opening the gate.

    http://www.davesweblife.com/images/stuff%20for%20friends/found%20022.jpg

    http://www.davesweblife.com/images/stuff%20for%20friends/found%20026.jpg

    http://www.davesweblife.com/images/stuff%20for%20friends/found%20029.jpg

    http://www.davesweblife.com/images/stuff%20for%20friends/found%20038.jpg

    http://www.davesweblife.com/images/stuff%20for%20friends/found%20040.jpg

    http://www.davesweblife.com/images/stuff%20for%20friends/found%20042.jpg

    as you can tell from the table top reference it’s only 3 or 4 inches long. i wasn’t looking down until i kicked it.

    these are all 3008 x 2000 pixel full frame extra fine jpgs and run roughly 4.5 MB each. none have the crispness that millera9‘s crane shot does. they were shot on a konica/monilta maxxum 7D body using a konica/monolta AF DT 18-70 F3.5-5.6 lens. that lens is a film lens, not made specifically for the DSLR camera. all were taken using full auto. that is both focus and exposure.

    i’ve got to get a flickr pro account before uploading the pictures from yesterday.

    feel free to comment, pro or con. i do know that the pictures aren’t critically sharp and that the DOF could use some improvement.

    #9677
    millera9
    Participant

    Ok first of all… AWWWWWWWWWWW, HE’S SOOOOO CUUUUUUUUTEEE!!! Such cool little creatures!

    Ok, now that that’s out of the way, good shots! No, they’re not perfectly crisp, but they also weren’t in direct sunlight, like the crane shots were. It looks like it was an overcast day without much usable light, hence muted colors and a bit of blur-age. All things considered, I think you did fine on the technical stuff. A couple of the profile shots could use a wider DoF, but you already know that. You probably didn’t want to blind the little guy, but did you try anything with the flash? This seems like the type of situation where a fill flash would have allowed you to get a bit more color and crisp detail, without totally startling the subject. Besides, what’s he gonna do, run away?! 🙂

    Also, your shots do a pretty good job of conveying the little guy’s personality. He’s clearly craning his neck and looking at you. To me, that’s much more valuable in a picture than technical detail.

    So yeah, high marks from me!

    #9678
    Curious
    Participant

    It looks like it was an overcast day without much usable light, hence muted colors and a bit of blur-age.

    first thanks for the vote of confidence. that table was in the shade and while it did rain today it’s been partly cloudy since then. don’t remember just how sunny (or not) at the time. looking at the pictures in the DiMAGE Viewer (shows all the Exif info) all were 1/200 at F9. for “brightness value” it shows 7. must admit i don’t know what that means. also there was no EV correction.

    signed up for a flickr pro account and it’s supposed to be good. the upload page now has no limit and the individual photo limit is up to 10 MB. guess i better start putting up the ones from yesterday.

    #9679
    Curious
    Participant

    ok, it’s dumbass question time. or maybe n00b question time.

    anyway i’m uploading to my flickr pro account and the first batch is done. so i decide it would be nice of they were all in a “set” since they are all the same subject. and i did that but now i have the originals on the main/home page and a “set” with the same shots. how do i get rid of the “o”s from the main page and just have them in the set. flickr help isn’t helping. i really want to organize the photos by subject, similar to how i have my folders on the computer.

    #9680
    millera9
    Participant

    Hmmm… Flickr is set up in a “photostream” configuration so I’m not sure you can take anything fully off of your mainpage and just have it in a set. Try the Organizr page and play around with the “batch organize/edit” options, there might be some stuff in there. I think you’re pretty much stuck with a mainpage with all your pictures on it. I’ve never seen anyone with their page set up any differently from that. Sorry.

    #9681
    Curious
    Participant

    I’ve never seen anyone with their page set up any differently from that. Sorry.

    oh well. i did mess with the organize thing a bit after the second batch went up. guess i’ll try again when the current up load is done. that setup has to make browsing photos a pain.

    #9682
    Curious
    Participant

    ok the flower shots from yesterday are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/57055068@N00/sets/72157600173821968/ and like todays are 3008 x 2000 and around 4 MB. well two are from before and smaller but they are flowers so they are in the “flower” set also (now).

    the four of the dog on the main page titled “close test xxx” are also to show detail.

    all the shots labeled close test were shot with the tele lens set at 300 – max tele. the flowers were mostly at minimum distance or closest focus point. also they were all full auto.

    given that the 18-70 was a kit lens and the 75-300 tamrom is an inexpensive AF film lens overall i’m happy. it just will take a lot of practice to get the most from the camera/lens combo.

    #9683
    XenPix
    Participant

    The colour combinations and the light on the rose pictures are really nice. It’s a shame you couldn’t get a darker green background on that second rose, I really liked that one.

    #9699
    Curious
    Participant

    thanks, that rose is under a tree. the sunlight just happened to be coming through and highlight it like that. the green is lawn in the background.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.