First good day of playing with my DRebel

[mkrishnan]

These are the same pictures I posted in edesign's thread, but they've been enmeshed in a Canon/Nikon fight over there, and so I'm not feeling the love, and so I want more attention! :eek: :p :D

These are pictures taken with the kit lens, mostly to see how it performs in different circumstances, and understand the camera controls better, but these are some of the less poor outcomes. :D

Some more flowers blooming near my home:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/mkrishnan/GNV20050501/IMG_0234.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/mkrishnan/GNV20050501/IMG_0232.jpg

I just liked the colors and textures:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/mkrishnan/GNV20050501/IMG_0264.jpg

Inside this rock was a cubbyhole, full of other rocks. Strange and wonderful! :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/mkrishnan/GNV20050501/IMG_0257.jpg

[mkrishnan]

More interesting colors, although I'm not a fan of how this one turned out. I wanted a much greater emphasis on the post in the front, but the focusing doesn't seem quite right. And the leaves could've been arranged in a better way. The color-bleed on the right of the meter is something that I think is part of JPG'ing it and putting it online...it isn't nearly so bad in the full-res picture on my computer. :(

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/mkrishnan/GNV20050501/IMG_0294.jpg

And a self-portrait of sorts:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/mkrishnan/GNV20050501/IMG_0248.jpg

[mkrishnan]

Two more flowers growing nearby...The orange flowers were underneath a pair of orange and blue road name signs (UF's colors), and I wanted to coerce a shot which had the street sign en bokeh in the background, but I couldn't get a good angle for that. :(

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/mkrishnan/GNV20050501/IMG_0269.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/mkrishnan/GNV20050501/IMG_0235.jpg

This is a nice little park area between the other psychology department's building and my (clinical) psychology department's building. Students and faculty have lunch out here sometimes. There is a little creek, out of view, to the right, in which there are sometimes little baby alligators! :eek: There was a very cute little tiny one that would always be sunbathing mid-day when we went up to classes and meetings at other parts of campus, last fall, but I suppose he or she's all grown up and doing real-gator things somewhere else now! :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/mkrishnan/GNV20050501/IMG_0262.jpg

[MacManDan]

You have some great photos there, mkrishnan - did you postprocess these at all? The red manhole cover is really interesting - haven't seen one of those around here.

[iGary]

There are some really nice Photoshop actions avilable over at Fred Miranda that are real time savers if you get into the post prosessing gig. :D

Nice pics.

[mkrishnan]

You have some great photos there, mkrishnan - did you postprocess these at all? The red manhole cover is really interesting - haven't seen one of those around here.

Thanks! :D

Most of them are cropped and color adjusted...I didn't do *heavy* post-processing on any of these -- no unsharpen mask or blurring or any of that kind of stuff. But it is really amazing to me how much more color you see in DSLR photos than in point-and-shoot ones...I can't completely explain that aspect. I guess it's just better CMOS sensor quality? edesign, emw, and others have all said the exact same thing their first time using one, so I'm not the only one mystified by it! :D

[MacManDan]

Thanks! :D

Most of them are cropped and color adjusted...I didn't do *heavy* post-processing on any of these -- no unsharpen mask or blurring or any of that kind of stuff. But it is really amazing to me how much more color you see in DSLR photos than in point-and-shoot ones...I can't completely explain that aspect. I guess it's just better CMOS sensor quality? edesign, emw, and others have all said the exact same thing their first time using one, so I'm not the only one mystified by it! :D

Tough to say, I would argue extra electronics in the camera (your camera packs heat in the form of digic II, no?) help also. I'm surprised the kit lens gets this close, do you intend to spring for a macro and really get in there?
I find my 20D is a little more subtle with color than my previous Sony DSC-V1, but if I use my ef-s 10-22 or an L-series the colors really pop!

[mkrishnan]

I'm surprised the kit lens gets this close, do you intend to spring for a macro and really get in there?

To be honest, some of the flowers were actually taken inside the minimum focal distance. :o (shhhh...don't tell a soul! :D) I bought this to use taking pics of kids at camp, but now I am thinking I might want a macro. Addictive! :D

There are some really nice Photoshop actions avilable over at Fred Miranda that are real time savers if you get into the post prosessing gig. :D

Nice pics.

Thank you! :) RE: the actions, I know! I should enter one of their weekly contests and try to win one! :D But alas, PSE3 does not really support actions, AFAIK. :( And well, if you've taught me anything at all, my dear Gary, I think this is the correct answer: As bad as being a gear weenie is, I think I should spend my money on more lenses, and my time on taking better shots, before I go the routed of CS2 and becoming a post-processing jock! :eek: ;) :D

[PlaceofDis]

nice pictures indeed, especially like the manhole one, is quite unique!

[MacManDan]

To be honest, some of the flowers were actually taken inside the minimum focal distance. (shhhh...don't tell a soul! ) I bought this to use taking pics of kids at camp, but now I am thinking I might want a macro. Addictive!

As bad as being a gear weenie is, I think I should spend my money on more lenses, and my time on taking better shots, before I go the routed of CS2 and becoming a post-processing jock! :eek: ;) :D

Like I'm sure you read in e's thread, the sigma 50 2.8 is a good, relatively cheap choice ... hmm, but I'm not trying to fuel the addiction.

But about post-procing ... Always better to be out and about with your camera than in front of your Mac right?

Oh wait, wrong forum.

[mkrishnan]

Like I'm sure you read in e's thread, the sigma 50 2.8 is a good, relatively cheap choice ... hmm, but I'm not trying to fuel the addiction.

But about post-procing ... Always better to be out and about with your camera than in front of your Mac right?

Oh wait, wrong forum.

No, it's a good system...morning and evening light are for photography, then one comes home and plays with one's mac at dusk while waiting for one's friends to go out. This way one also avoids dinner, allowing one to keep one's rail-thin, model-like figure. In case the opportunity arises to be on the other side of the lens. ;)

So, erm, I have seen many recommendations for that Sigma. And it's very much within my price range, as is Canon's 50mm macro. Not that I want to create yet another gear lust thread, but... :) One thing I don't quite understand, as I know a lot about optics but not necessarily about the way photographers talk about optics... You have two lenses that are both 50mm focal length, imaging onto the same body. A 50mm macro and a 50mm non-macro prime (such as the 50mm f/1.4 that I ordered) will deliver drastically different results, right? With the latter providing smaller magnification at all focal distances, or just at the minimum focal distance? Is it just me, or why isn't the imaging system aspect of the lens's magnification factor ever quantified, except for macros? I'm confuddled.... :(

nice pictures indeed, especially like the manhole one, is quite unique!

Thanks, PoD! :D I'm such an attention ho. ;)

[iGary]

No, it's a good system...morning and evening light are for photography, then one comes home and plays with one's mac at dusk while waiting for one's friends to go out. This way one also avoids dinner, allowing one to keep one's rail-thin, model-like figure. In case the opportunity arises to be on the other side of the lens. ;)

So, erm, I have seen many recommendations for that Sigma. And it's very much within my price range, as is Canon's 50mm macro. Not that I want to create yet another gear lust thread, but... :) One thing I don't quite understand, as I know a lot about optics but not necessarily about the way photographers talk about optics... You have two lenses that are both 50mm focal length, imaging onto the same body. A 50mm macro and a 50mm non-macro prime (such as the 50mm f/1.4 that I ordered) will deliver drastically different results, right? With the latter providing smaller magnification at all focal distances, or just at the minimum focal distance? Is it just me, or why isn't the imaging system aspect of the lens's magnification factor ever quantified, except for macros? I'm confuddled.... :(



Thanks, PoD! :D I'm such an attention ho. ;)

Too bad you're in Florida and Edesign is in the UK. Been looking for someone to shoot pics with around here. you really will find the BEST of the best photographers at Fred Miranda, though.

[PlaceofDis]

i was taking another look at 'em, and im not sure what to make of the rocks one to be honest. im intruiged by it but the ones in the cubby hole look kinda like eggs...... for some reason i keep thinking about it because its weird to see a rock with a hole like that, and those are some smooth rocks inside too....

oh and dont worry we all love attention, bring on the love! haha

[mkrishnan]

Too bad you're in Florida and Edesign is in the UK. Been looking for someone to shoot pics with around here. you really will find the BEST of the best photographers at Fred Miranda, though.

Hmmm...*thinks of evil plan* All we have to do is convince edesign to get into marathon running, and then we can do a BSIM / photoshoot weekend next year! :D

Do you have an FM account? Mine is "soulmirror." I think I originally tried "mkrishnan" (I use soulmirror elsewhere too though), but I'm a retard and I typed my e-mail address in wrongly, and my confirmation went to la-la land.

[MacManDan]

So, erm, I have seen many recommendations for that Sigma. And it's very much within my price range, as is Canon's 50mm macro. Not that I want to create yet another gear lust thread, but... :) One thing I don't quite understand, as I know a lot about optics but not necessarily about the way photographers talk about optics... You have two lenses that are both 50mm focal length, imaging onto the same body. A 50mm macro and a 50mm non-macro prime (such as the 50mm f/1.4 that I ordered) will deliver drastically different results, right? With the latter providing smaller magnification at all focal distances, or just at the minimum focal distance? Is it just me, or why isn't the imaging system aspect of the lens's magnification factor ever quantified, except for macros? I'm confuddled.... :(

A 50mm f/2.8 macro is "equivalent" to a 50mm f/2.8 at the same focusing distance. I believe the difference is in the distance that it can focus - you get the magnification from the realllly small distance that the macro can focus.
Your 50 1.4 is different than the macro in that it doesn't have such an extreme focusing distance (its probably a more normal 1.5 feet) and that it is two stops faster. If you had two identical bodies both on tripods next to each other, one with the 1.4 and the other with the macro, and set them to the same aperture and focusing distance, you should (theoretically) get equivalent photos.

Magnification isn't made such a big deal for non-macros because they're not as impressive, and many aren't designed in that way. I believe you can still find stats on it though, for just about every lens. Perhaps someone has a better explanation for this, though.

[mkrishnan]

If you had two identical bodies both on tripods next to each other, one with the 1.4 and the other with the macro, and set them to the same aperture and focusing distance, you should (theoretically) get equivalent photos.

Ahhh, thank you Dan! :) With your explanation, I went and found a Canon lens chart and I think I understand this better now.... so for instance, the minimal focal distance of the Canon 50mm primes is 1.5 ft, as you suggested, with a max mag of 0.15x. The Cannon .5x 50mm macro, OTOH, can still focus when only 0.8 ft away, and gets a 0.5x mag (more than three times larger...and that's not even a 1:1 macro) at that distance. But if I focus both of them at an object five feet away, I get the same magnification....

As it turns out, the 18-55mm EF-S can get to 0.92 feet and a mag of 0.28...so from my understanding, poor optics aside, it will actually do better macro-esque work for me (in the absence of a real macro) than the 50mm I ordered.... But then again, it has an (ewww) max aperture of 5.6 at 55mm. So bokeh is a nokeh. :(

for some reason i keep thinking about it because its weird to see a rock with a hole like that, and those are some smooth rocks inside too....

I know! That's why I took a picture of it! It's just contrary to the moral law. :D If I were George Bush, I would've lobbed a nuke-you-ler missile at it by now. ;)

Actually, I sent a link to all the pictures in photobucket to my mom, without telling her what each one was (I forgot), and she asked me if they were real eggs. :D

[PlaceofDis]

I know! That's why I took a picture of it! It's just contrary to the moral law. :D If I were George Bush, I would've lobbed a nuke-you-ler missile at it by now. ;)

Actually, I sent a link to all the pictures in photobucket to my mom, without telling her what each one was (I forgot), and she asked me if they were real eggs. :D

well at least im not alone! those are great pictures though, i really need to save up and get myself a digital camera, my parents have a Kodak digital that i will be able to use soon, but its not up to the quality that i would like, oh well better than nothing i suppose.

keep up the good work though and of course always share more with us!

[jared_kipe]

As it turns out, the 18-55mm EF-S can get to 0.92 feet and a mag of 0.28...so from my understanding, poor optics aside, it will actually do better macro-esque work for me (in the absence of a real macro) than the 50mm I ordered.... But then again, it has an (ewww) max aperture of 5.6 at 55mm. So bokeh is a nokeh. :(


Actually 5.6 isn't even high enough for macro work. At 5.6 you're still going to get a really small DOF at macro distances.

[mkrishnan]

Actually 5.6 isn't even high enough for macro work. At 5.6 you're still going to get a really small DOF at macro distances.

Hmmm...I hadn't considered that... *goes to DoF calculator* You, sir, are quite right! :eek: I had a brain fart on this. For some reason, I thought it would be easier to obtain short DoF at shorter focal lengths on a zoom lens, because the lens opens all the way up. I shot a lot of those flowers at 18mm! :eek: And I was wondering why I couldn't restrict the DoF sufficiently to blur the stems and other stuff. I needed to be at 55 mm!

*loves learning*

[iGary]

Hmmm...*thinks of evil plan* All we have to do is convince edesign to get into marathon running, and then we can do a BSIM / photoshoot weekend next year! :D

Do you have an FM account? Mine is "soulmirror." I think I originally tried "mkrishnan" (I use soulmirror elsewhere too though), but I'm a retard and I typed my e-mail address in wrongly, and my confirmation went to la-la land.

Mine is "iGary"

You'll find me most often in the "Wildlife" forum.

[mkrishnan]

Mine is "iGary"

That will certainly be easy to remember. ;)

I don't think I've seen a lot of your wildlife photos on MR...I should go searching. If they can rival your landscapes than, frankly, Mr. Shankly, I'm rather jealous! :)

[atari1356]

Funny how the pictures shown here, and EDesign UK's pictures look great and were all taken with the kit lens.

Going by how many comments have been thrown around about kit lenses being "pure crap", I would have thought that all of these pictures would have turned out looking horrible. ;)

I'm in the market for a new digital camera too... I was planning on spending around $500, but all this DSLR talk has got me wanting something better (and much more expensive). :( :D

Thanks for posting the pics.

[mkrishnan]

Going by how many comments have been thrown around about kit lenses being "pure crap", I would have thought that all of these pictures would have turned out looking horrible. ;)

Hehehe, thanks! :D I guess awful is a relative term! ;)

[homerjward]

i love the meter one, and the thingy (not sure what it is) with the reflection in it. that's really cool how it's like all mirrory and stuff. i noticed on the meter one you said there was "color-bleed." i know it's a n00btacular question, but what's that?

[mkrishnan]

i love the meter one, and the thingy (not sure what it is) with the reflection in it. that's really cool how it's like all mirrory and stuff. i noticed on the meter one you said there was "color-bleed." i know it's a n00btacular question, but what's that?

Thanks! :)

I don't think it's a n00btacular question (although I'm going to start using that word! :D)... I think I used the wrong term. There's a fringe along the right side of the meter where it looks green, almost like a ghost or outline of the meter edge on that side. Part of it was a focusing issue, but the full size JPG on my computer doesn't look nearly so bad.

[homerjward]

Thanks! :)

I don't think it's a n00btacular question (although I'm going to start using that word! :D)... I think I used the wrong term. There's a fringe along the right side of the meter where it looks green, almost like a ghost or outline of the meter edge on that side. Part of it was a focusing issue, but the full size JPG on my computer doesn't look nearly so bad.
lol ok, cool. thanks. i didn't notice until i knew what i was looking for :p

[mkrishnan]

lol ok, cool. thanks. i didn't notice until i knew what i was looking for :p

Drats, I shouldn't have pointed it out, then! :p ;) :D

Popping open Dashboard :D I see that the weather is going to be clear here today. When I get done at the lab, I am definitely going flower hunting again! :D

[Mr. Anderson]

Cool images, I love the one with the rocks in the stone (I'm assuming its limestone/coral since you're in Florida). Is it on the ground? Did rain sweep the rocks into the hole?

Nice stuff and welcome to the wonderful world of DSLRs :D

D

[mkrishnan]

Cool images, I love the one with the rocks in the stone (I'm assuming its limestone/coral since you're in Florida). Is it on the ground? Did rain sweep the rocks into the hole?

Thanks! :) I think rain might have. Actually, hehe, there was only one in there, which gave me the idea, and I set up the rest. ;) I am not happy with the crop I chose though, and for that image, I really used up a terrible amount of the camera resolution in trying to crop it down... I think I wanted a tighter shot like this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/mkrishnan/GNV20050501/IMG_0257_1.jpg

Here is one other one from yesterday I wanted to post. There was a fenced in basketball court, behind our hospital. These two had it all to themselves as a private parking lot! The children were nowhere in sight. I used to love playing on these when I was a little one....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/mkrishnan/GNV20050501/IMG_0237.jpg

And speaking of sharpness (and kit lenses!), the original (full-res) was really only cropped vertically, meaning the two hot wheels occupy almost the full horizontal resolution, with the picture taken from about 12-15 feet away, I think. I cropped in on just the decal on the wheel of the pink one, at the 10:00 position. Look at the detail! Not bad! :eek:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/mkrishnan/GNV20050501/wheel-detail.png

[jared_kipe]

Which of these do you like the best?

http://homepage.mac.com/jared_kipe/12.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/jared_kipe/22.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/jared_kipe/32.jpg

They were all shot with my ef 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM. Which is a lens I highly recommend to anyone on a budget that needs a good lens. http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=7442 They can be found on ebay for far less than retail I got mine for 150USD.

[mkrishnan]

Which of these do you like the best?

Nice! I'd say, to me, its a toss-up between the first and the third. The first might be a lot better with some judicious cropping, although the pose is better on the third. The balance and symmetry of this one are very nice. I think whatever it is that is on the extreme right of the land on #1 is problematic, though, which is why I wonder about the cropping.

In #3, on the other hand, I think the asymmetry actually works for you, and you definitely have the nicest water surface on that one, and the cuter pose. I'm not sure about the asymmetry vs. symmetry in this case. I can tell you what I think having seen both pictures (that I like the symmetry better, but only if you can crop it in such a way as to clean up the shoreline and still keep the long aspect ratio of the stretch of shore in comparison to the small bench at center), but I don't know how that would impact me if you hadn't shown me both.

But, overall, nice work, Jared! :)

[jared_kipe]

Nice! I'd say, to me, its a toss-up between the first and the third. The first might be a lot better with some judicious cropping, although the pose is better on the third. The balance and symmetry of this one are very nice. I think whatever it is that is on the extreme right of the land on #1 is problematic, though, which is why I wonder about the cropping.

In #3, on the other hand, I think the asymmetry actually works for you, and you definitely have the nicest water surface on that one, and the cuter pose. I'm not sure about the asymmetry vs. symmetry in this case. I can tell you what I think having seen both pictures (that I like the symmetry better, but only if you can crop it in such a way as to clean up the shoreline and still keep the long aspect ratio of the stretch of shore in comparison to the small bench at center), but I don't know how that would impact me if you hadn't shown me both.

But, overall, nice work, Jared! :)

Thanks, yeah, the trash can ruined the first shot somewhat. Originally I liked the second one, because the huge tree gave some weight to the picture. But the 3rd is growing on me. I had to edit out a horrible dangling branch which wasn't fun either. That was me in the picture by the way, I had to sprint my ass off to get there in time.

EDITED for spelling error that has already been quoted

[mkrishnan]

That was me in the picture by the way, I had to spring my ass of to get there in time.

Awwww, you look so cute with your girl on your shoulder. :) A tripod would definitely be a nicety for my long-term list...although then I guess one has fully crossed over the line into being into photography. ;)

[jared_kipe]

Awwww, you look so cute with your girl on your shoulder. :) A tripod would definitely be a nicety for my long-term list...although then I guess one has fully crossed over the line into being into photography. ;)

If you don't mind me asking, what focal length and aperature did you use on your flower shots? And what ISO is that?

[mkrishnan]

If you don't mind me asking, what focal length and aperature did you use on your flower shots? And what ISO is that?

Everything was at ISO 100; the flowers I posted above were all at 18mm f/3.5 because I'm an idiot. :rolleyes: I was using aperture selectivity, so that my shutter time was all over the map, but all the flowers were 1/250-300 except for the last orange one, which was more like 1/640.

This is the only flower I took yesterday where I used more normal settings, but I think I did not really get enough DoF on this (55mm f/5.6):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/mkrishnan/GNV20050501/IMG_0282.jpg

OTOH, I went to another flower bed this evening, and did everything at 55mm at some different apertures. I just pulled them off the cam; I will share later tonight. :)

[jared_kipe]

wow, must have been BRIGHT out, thats the only way I can get good shots at iso 100. I try to shoot mid range flowers at f/8 or 10. If you're going to shoot really really close up, like what my reverse mount is for, then you need that just to get a little window of DOF at those apertures, but even worse wide open. All that I posted (not here, in other thread, I could move them over if you want) were at 200-400. With speeds from 1/50 to 1/200.

EDIT: Ahh, but then again, reverse mounting at f/8 is like a normal lens at like f/16 or something. Which just makes sense because you're taking light from something small and making it big. Jared needs a macro flash thing.

[mkrishnan]

In Florida, Jared my dear, it is usually quite bright outside. ;) But I think that the larger issue is that your reversed lens just isn't able to collect that much light, given that the collecting lens is so tiny (having been designed for imaging onto the CMOS sensor...). :(

Here are three flowers from today...all taken in evening light. The third one seemed a little surreal to me, so I jacked up the contrast by about 30% to milk that for what it was worth :rolleyes:, but otherwise, all are slightly cropped but haven't had much else in the way of post-processing.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/mkrishnan/GNV20050502/IMG_0355.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/mkrishnan/GNV20050502/IMG_0315.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/mkrishnan/GNV20050502/IMG_0346.jpg

[mkrishnan]

As the sun started to get clipped by the trees, I wanted to try and get a picture of the shade playing over this nice grassy little clearing on campus. I took some pictures after the two women had left with their dogs, but they seem to add a little anchoring, and I liked it better with them there. Cropped to get the long aspect ratio.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/mkrishnan/GNV20050502/IMG_0362.jpg

[tech4all]

Which of these do you like the best?

I kinda like the second and third one, mainly on how the couple's head are resting on each other. Gives a nice silhouette feeling. But I like the third a lil more because it's a bit more of a close-up.

Nice job :)

[Deefuzz]

Which of these do you like the best?



Second and third ones definitely...But if I would have to pick one I would have to say the second one

[jared_kipe]

Sorta... but thats how macro works, it isn't about "collecting" light its about making something small that gives off a certain amount of light, much much bigger. If you take something and you spread it's light out over a big distance, then you obviously spread its light out too, so it becomes dimmer.

[jared_kipe]

Second and third ones definitely...But if I would have to pick one I would have to say the second one
Any reason?

[jared_kipe]

Ah ha, forgot to post link. http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/mp-e-65.html this is a specialty canon macro lens. Notice it has a very small front element.

And I quote
"the viewfinder gets dark as you rack it out to 5X; the nominal maximum aperture is f/2.8 but that is a mythical aperture not even available at 1X. At 1X, the effective wide-open f-number is 5.6. As you rack the lens out to 5X, the effective viewing aperture is f/16."

[mkrishnan]

Sorta... but thats how macro works, it isn't about "collecting" light[...]

Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree with that. I'll have to think about it. In any event, you take excellent photos...which is rather more important that a stance on what a lens should look like. I hope to get there too.

BUT, anyways, does anyone have any input on the hot wheels, or the re-cropped rock nest? And are the flowers from day two any improvement over day one? :D

[Deefuzz]

Any reason?

I like how you two seem to be a little more silhouetted than in the third one.

I also like how the trunk of the tree takes up the left border of the picture. With that and the ground it seems to form somewhat of a piece of an off-center frame for the two of you.

Also interesting to see the break in between the leaves of the trees pretty much above where you two are sitting.

It's a great shot IMO! :D

[jared_kipe]

Recrop rock nest is better...as for the resolution on the hotwheels, it isn't bad. I think it may be a little soft, but I think I could have excepted a little more. Throw on some USM and repost it, or better yet, give a link to the full size and I'll compare it to mine.

[jared_kipe]

I like how you two seem to be a little more silhouetted than in the third one.

I also like how the trunk of the tree takes up the left border of the picture. With that and the ground it seems to form somewhat of a piece of an off-center frame for the two of you.

Also interesting to see the break in between the leaves of the trees pretty much above where you two are sitting.

It's a great shot IMO! :D
Thanks a lot!! That was why I liked it best, plus the boats in that one, but everyone else likes the 3rd one. I think I convinced myself I liked that one better too. Now I just don't know. But thanks for the reasons.

Oh, and if you would like the full res, just take the 2 off the images, so it becomes 1.jpg 2.jpg 3.jpg

[mkrishnan]

Recrop rock nest is better...as for the resolution on the hotwheels, it isn't bad. I think it may be a little soft, but I think I could have excepted a little more. Throw on some USM and repost it, or better yet, give a link to the full size and I'll compare it to mine.

I was wondering more about the composition of the hotwheels than the sharpness. That was an aside. But I should noise reduce it... What does "throw on some USM" mean? None of the acronyms for USM that I know seem to apply here. ;)

[jared_kipe]

I was wondering more about the composition of the hotwheels than the sharpness. That was an aside. But I should noise reduce it... What does "throw on some USM" mean? None of the acronyms for USM that I know seem to apply here. ;)

Composition was fine for me, but I'm not one to speak of matters like that. USM= un-sharp mask, sharpening in photoshop. I assume you put the hotwheels there, why not put some kids on them... or a full grown man. Reminds me of my favorite photo ever, Paul Newman on a little tricycle. And as a side note, wtf is up with macrumors the last few days. Takes me forever to get to one thread or another.

[mkrishnan]

Composition was fine for me, but I'm not one to speak of matters like that. USM= un-sharp mask, sharpening in photoshop. I assume you put the hotwheels there, why not put some kids on them... or a full grown man. Reminds me of my favorite photo ever, Paul Newman on a little tricycle. And as a side note, wtf is up with macrumors the last few days. Takes me forever to get to one thread or another.

I will look up Newman on a tricycle. :) Especially since he was elemental in starting the camp that has become one of my favorite places in the world! :D

Anyway, with regard to the hot wheels, thanks for the comment. Actually, no, I didn't pose them. That was the whole point. They were in a fenced in basketball court, and I couldn't even reach them (well, without hopping the fence). I was just struck by the care with which they were parked. Especially since they were his and hers. :)

[jared_kipe]

I will look up Newman on a tricycle. :) Especially since he was elemental in starting the camp that has become one of my favorite places in the world! :D

Anyway, with regard to the hot wheels, thanks for the comment. Actually, no, I didn't pose them. That was the whole point. They were in a fenced in basketball court, and I couldn't even reach them (well, without hopping the fence). I was just struck by the care with which they were parked. Especially since they were his and hers. :)

Good luck, I can never find that picture, and I've looked. It was in some book about a famous hollywood photographer I skimmed through in BN one time.

[jared_kipe]

Don't know if you all care, but check out what I took tonight.

http://homepage.mac.com/jared_kipe/spi1.jpg

[mkrishnan]

Don't know if you all care, but check out what I took tonight.

I'm thinking from the filename, that I was right in guessing that it's a spider.... What kind? Where did you find it? I personally am not overly fond of spiders, unless they're restricted to nursery rhymes, (actually "not overly fond" is putting it nicely), but it is a nice capture.

[wdlove]

Don't know if you all care, but check out what I took tonight.

Nice picture, quite impressive. It's amazing that you could get that clear of a picture.
:cool:

[emw]

I liked this one I shot yesterday:

http://www.mremw.com/MR_Images/Thumbnails/IMG_0321_tn.jpg (http://www.mremw.com/MR_Images/IMG_0321.jpg)

[mkrishnan]

Nice, emw! :) I like the defocused cluster of buds to the right. The pinks of the...what are they called...stamen? They are very nice too.

Go team n00bs with SLRs! :D

[emw]

Thanks! I thought the lighting was fantastic for that shot. I've taken several hundred pictures in the past couple of weeks, and managed to get some nice ones. I liked that one especially.

[mkrishnan]

Thanks! I thought the lighting was fantastic for that shot. I've taken several hundred pictures in the past couple of weeks, and managed to get some nice ones. I liked that one especially.

Don't you love how an SLR can buffer shots, so you don't have to wait for the previous one to save before snapping again? :D I've taken a fair number myself. :) It's been raining here for a couple of days (today might be better), but I'll try to get another flower cleaned up from Tuesday and put it up.

[emw]

Don't you love how an SLR can buffer shots, so you don't have to wait for the previous one to save before snapping again? :D I've taken a fair number myself. :) It's been raining here for a couple of days (today might be better), but I'll try to get another flower cleaned up from Tuesday and put it up.Rain can sometimes yield good shots - wet flowers, etc.

Note that none of the pictures I've posted, for better or worse, have been touched. No cleanup, no contrast, no anything. Straight from the camera. I've got one I want to clean a little bit that I call "Evan was here..." that I enjoy. I'll post later today.

e.

[mkrishnan]

Rain can sometimes yield good shots - wet flowers, etc.

Note that none of the pictures I've posted, for better or worse, have been touched. No cleanup, no contrast, no anything. Straight from the camera. I've got one I want to clean a little bit that I call "Evan was here..." that I enjoy. I'll post later today.

True that about the rain. It wasn't one of those rainstorms though. :( Well, except right at the beginning. It woke me up around 4 in the morning the first night with thunder and lightning. That's when I should've gone out there....

Yeah, I haven't really been doing a lot of touch-up either, except for cropping...I'm in love with weird aspect ratios, so half the time I have to crop to get what I want. :) And then there's the issue that I'm not really using a macro. :rolleyes:

Here is one that involved some USM though.... Tell me what you think? I was interested in how the buds look when they're contrasted to the bloomed flowers. From a tree in the yard of the Veterans' Administration hospital here.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/mkrishnan/GNV20050503/IMG_0370.jpg

And I look forward to Evan. :D

[mkrishnan]

This one, too, rocks the Unsharpen Mask. These flowers were competing for the light! :( I guess if I had a reflector or something, I would be a total nerd :D but I would not have shadows.... :rolleyes:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/mkrishnan/GNV20050503/IMG_0391.jpg

I am experimenting with Unsharpen Mask with high radius on flowers...it seems to work. But I need to bulk up on exactly how to use USM effectively..... Although I agree that I still want to spend more of my time on perfecting the shot and less on cleaning it up! :p ;) :D

[emw]

Here's a couple more. First, the unavoidable flower shot (all of these have been in our yard so far):

http://www.mremw.com/MR_Images/Thumbnails/More%20flowers_tn.jpg (http://www.mremw.com/MR_Images/More%20flowers.jpg)

The next is my "Evan was here" shot. My son, who is 17 months old, was wandering through our yard carrying a cup of Rice Krispies. I'm taking different shots, and I happen to notice his cup sitting on a bed of pine needles under one of our pine trees, dropped in favor of who knows what. I thought it contrasted nicely with it's more natural surroundings:

http://www.mremw.com/MR_Images/Thumbnails/Evan%20was%20here_tn.jpg (http://www.mremw.com/MR_Images/Evan%20was%20here.jpg)

[mkrishnan]

I like the flowers, although I think the ones that are in front of the focal plane at the bottom are distracting. It looks like it's been as bright there as it was here up until Tuesday!

LOL, too, 17 month olds are hilarious. That makes me miss the kids at camp (although none of them are that young). I won't get to go there again until June. :(

I actually have a question that I'm kind of embarrassed to ask at FM.... There are a lot of photos of flowers, that people take in bright daylight, where they light meter on the brightest part of the flower (esp. white flowers). The result is that, even though it is sunny outside, everything except the flower is essentially black. From my understanding, the DRebel has partial metering built-in, where I can isolate the metering to a spot at the center of the image.... but it does not have spot metering, where I can manually select a spot.

Is there a way to get this effect without additional hardware? Is the trick to bring the bright part of the flower (which usually will not be in the center of the photo) to the center, do a partial meter, and then lock exposure? I'm confuddled about how to do this, but I lust after that effect. :D

[mkrishnan]

Seems I sort of answered my own question...it seems that this is exactly what I should do, and that the Rebel is not the best camera in the world for it (because the spot is pretty big -- almost 10% of the image, and it is locked to the center and not the focal spot). I guess I'll play around with it, though....