Life Under a Chair

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hours later they were still at it:

http/www.mhmyers.com/cdjpgs/battle.jpg

I took this with a Coolpix 990. I snapped 132 images and this was the
best. (I could not get them to stay still).

m-m

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"M-M" <nospam@ny.more> wrote in message
news:nospam-E3DFE6.10201208072005@netaxs.com.client.newsread.com...
> Hours later they were still at it:
>
> http/www.mhmyers.com/cdjpgs/battle.jpg
>
> I took this with a Coolpix 990. I snapped 132 images and this was the
> best. (I could not get them to stay still).

That's one BIG meal for that little guy...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

M-M wrote:
>
> Hours later they were still at it:
>
> http/www.mhmyers.com/cdjpgs/battle.jpg
>
> I took this with a Coolpix 990. I snapped 132 images and this was the
> best. (I could not get them to stay still).
>
> m-m

has he munched it yet?
--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http/www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Heslop" <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42CEEEF1.F1D9513C@blueyonder.co.uk...
> M-M wrote:
> >
> > Hours later they were still at it:
> >
> > http/www.mhmyers.com/cdjpgs/battle.jpg
> >
> > I took this with a Coolpix 990. I snapped 132 images and this was the
> > best. (I could not get them to stay still).
> >
> > m-m
>
> has he munched it yet?
> --
> Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Stop and Look
> http/www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

I have a feeling the bee will be left drained after that fight....

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dirty Harry wrote:
>
> "Paul Heslop" <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:42CEEEF1.F1D9513C@blueyonder.co.uk...
> > M-M wrote:
> > >
> > > Hours later they were still at it:
> > >
> > > http/www.mhmyers.com/cdjpgs/battle.jpg
> > >
> > > I took this with a Coolpix 990. I snapped 132 images and this was the
> > > best. (I could not get them to stay still).
> > >
> > > m-m
> >
> > has he munched it yet?
> > --
> > Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > Stop and Look
> > http/www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
>
> I have a feeling the bee will be left drained after that fight....

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... :O)
--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http/www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I wrote:

> http/www.mhmyers.com/cdjpgs/battle.jpg


So, photographically speaking, what do y'all think? It was a LOT of work
to get that picture, to get the exposure and focus, the DOF and the
camera angle.

Sometimes you work real hard at something and all it elicits is a big
yawn. Sometimes you snap something without thinking and you get all the
oos and aahs. I thought this one was exciting.

m-m

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"M-M" <nospam@ny.more> wrote in message
news:nospam-122C8E.23222608072005@netaxs.com.client.newsread.com...
>I wrote:
>
> > http/www.mhmyers.com/cdjpgs/battle.jpg
>
>
> So, photographically speaking, what do y'all think? It was a LOT of work
> to get that picture, to get the exposure and focus, the DOF and the
> camera angle.
>
> Sometimes you work real hard at something and all it elicits is a big
> yawn. Sometimes you snap something without thinking and you get all the
> oos and aahs. I thought this one was exciting.

Didn't know you wanted critique.
Acutally, it looks a bit out of focus to me. Clearly there's some subject
movement that is working against you.
Could you crank up the shutter speed on your camera? You may need to use
flash with a small-ish aperture and fast shutter to give a less blurred
image.
Is this a crop from a larger shot?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <nXHze.7905$Eo.5635@fed1read04>,
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> "M-M" <nospam@ny.more> wrote in message
> news:nospam-122C8E.23222608072005@netaxs.com.client.newsread.com...
> >I wrote:
> >
> > > http/www.mhmyers.com/cdjpgs/battle.jpg
> >
> >
> > So, photographically speaking, what do y'all think? It was a LOT of work
> > to get that picture, to get the exposure and focus, the DOF and the
> > camera angle.
> >
> > Sometimes you work real hard at something and all it elicits is a big
> > yawn. Sometimes you snap something without thinking and you get all the
> > oos and aahs. I thought this one was exciting.
>
> Didn't know you wanted critique.
> Acutally, it looks a bit out of focus to me. Clearly there's some subject
> movement that is working against you.
> Could you crank up the shutter speed on your camera? You may need to use
> flash with a small-ish aperture and fast shutter to give a less blurred
> image.
> Is this a crop from a larger shot?

Not a crop. Full-frame and not touched at all; only reduced dimensions
to 35%.

Flash killed it with shadows so I could only manage 1/7 sec exposure.
Camera was steadied against the chair leg and put into continuous mode.

Manual focus area was put on the spider. I don't think it was out of
focus, just a bit of motion blur.

m-m

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"M-M" <nospam@ny.more> wrote in message
news:nospam-7F99ED.00274709072005@netaxs.com.client.newsread.com...
> In article <nXHze.7905$Eo.5635@fed1read04>,
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> "M-M" <nospam@ny.more> wrote in message
>> news:nospam-122C8E.23222608072005@netaxs.com.client.newsread.com...
>> >I wrote:
>> >
>> > > http/www.mhmyers.com/cdjpgs/battle.jpg
>> >
>> >
>> > So, photographically speaking, what do y'all think? It was a LOT of
>> > work
>> > to get that picture, to get the exposure and focus, the DOF and the
>> > camera angle.
>> >
>> > Sometimes you work real hard at something and all it elicits is a big
>> > yawn. Sometimes you snap something without thinking and you get all the
>> > oos and aahs. I thought this one was exciting.
>>
>> Didn't know you wanted critique.
>> Acutally, it looks a bit out of focus to me. Clearly there's some
>> subject
>> movement that is working against you.
>> Could you crank up the shutter speed on your camera? You may need to use
>> flash with a small-ish aperture and fast shutter to give a less blurred
>> image.
>> Is this a crop from a larger shot?
>
> Not a crop. Full-frame and not touched at all; only reduced dimensions
> to 35%.
>
> Flash killed it with shadows so I could only manage 1/7 sec exposure.

Yipe!
No wonder it's blurred!
This kind of shot really should be more like 1/200th or higher to freeze
their quick flipping around...
shodows aren't the worst thing in the world. You might be able to diffuse
your flash a bit.

> Camera was steadied against the chair leg and put into continuous mode.
>
> Manual focus area was put on the spider. I don't think it was out of
> focus, just a bit of motion blur.

1/7 sec is just too slow for hand-holding--even if the bug wasn't moving at
all.
Laik bilong yu, but that would be my suggestion.
Do you have a higher shutter example with shadows? Maybe you could post
that for comparison...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

M-M wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>
> > http/www.mhmyers.com/cdjpgs/battle.jpg
>
> So, photographically speaking, what do y'all think? It was a LOT of work
> to get that picture, to get the exposure and focus, the DOF and the
> camera angle.
>
> Sometimes you work real hard at something and all it elicits is a big
> yawn. Sometimes you snap something without thinking and you get all the
> oos and aahs. I thought this one was exciting.
>
> m-m

I think given the circumstances and the fact that this is real life
and not studio it's fantastic. Of course some would like to see the
look of terror in the bee's eyes but I'm not that gruesome :O))

--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http/www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 04:27:52 GMT, in rec.photo.digital M-M <nospam@ny.more>
wrote:


>Not a crop. Full-frame and not touched at all; only reduced dimensions
>to 35%.
>
>Flash killed it with shadows so I could only manage 1/7 sec exposure.
>Camera was steadied against the chair leg and put into continuous mode.
>
>Manual focus area was put on the spider. I don't think it was out of
>focus, just a bit of motion blur.

You might give BBS a try in situations such as this.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http/edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

M-M wrote:
>
> In article <nXHze.7905$Eo.5635@fed1read04>,
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
> > "M-M" <nospam@ny.more> wrote in message
> > news:nospam-122C8E.23222608072005@netaxs.com.client.newsread.com...
> > >I wrote:
> > >
> > > > http/www.mhmyers.com/cdjpgs/battle.jpg
> > >
> > >
> > > So, photographically speaking, what do y'all think? It was a LOT of work
> > > to get that picture, to get the exposure and focus, the DOF and the
> > > camera angle.
> > >
> > > Sometimes you work real hard at something and all it elicits is a big
> > > yawn. Sometimes you snap something without thinking and you get all the
> > > oos and aahs. I thought this one was exciting.
> >
> > Didn't know you wanted critique.
> > Acutally, it looks a bit out of focus to me. Clearly there's some subject
> > movement that is working against you.
> > Could you crank up the shutter speed on your camera? You may need to use
> > flash with a small-ish aperture and fast shutter to give a less blurred
> > image.
> > Is this a crop from a larger shot?
>
> Not a crop. Full-frame and not touched at all; only reduced dimensions
> to 35%.
>
> Flash killed it with shadows so I could only manage 1/7 sec exposure.
> Camera was steadied against the chair leg and put into continuous mode.
>
> Manual focus area was put on the spider. I don't think it was out of
> focus, just a bit of motion blur.
>
> m-m

that's what i see, motion blur. and insects are ridiculously nervy
critters, specially when they're about to be gobbled up.
--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http/www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <PNIze.7911$Eo.1971@fed1read04>,
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> 1/7 sec is just too slow for hand-holding--even if the bug wasn't moving at
> all.
> Laik bilong yu, but that would be my suggestion.
> Do you have a higher shutter example with shadows? Maybe you could post
> that for comparison...

Of course 1/7 is slow, but the camera was essentially on a tripod being
held against the chair leg.

"Laik bilong yu" ???

Here is an example with the flash. Not only did it make the shadows, but
it also took out most of the spider web:

http/www.mhmyers.com/temp/shadows.jpg

m-m

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

M-M wrote:
> In article <PNIze.7911$Eo.1971@fed1read04>,
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> 1/7 sec is just too slow for hand-holding--even if the bug wasn't
>> moving at all.
>> Laik bilong yu, but that would be my suggestion.
>> Do you have a higher shutter example with shadows? Maybe you could
>> post that for comparison...
>
> Of course 1/7 is slow, but the camera was essentially on a tripod
> being held against the chair leg.
>
> "Laik bilong yu" ???
>
> Here is an example with the flash. Not only did it make the shadows,
> but it also took out most of the spider web:
>
> http/www.mhmyers.com/temp/shadows.jpg
>

Without flash:
http/www.fototime.com/900DDB42DED12E2/orig.jpg

With:
http/www.fototime.com/E31864B6A2614D9/orig.jpg

--
Frank ess

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <5mhvc11al2ijnoam68lc6ddhi9mfnr37mi@4ax.com>,
Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:

> You might give BBS a try in situations such as this.
> ----------
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007

You mean BSS? (Best shot selector?)

I seem to not trust that as much as continuous. Continuous is almost the
same thing except it keeps all the shots and I can decide which is best.

Is that AMA# = Academy of Model Aeronautics?

m-m

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 13:37:31 GMT, in rec.photo.digital M-M <nospam@ny.more>
wrote:

>In article <5mhvc11al2ijnoam68lc6ddhi9mfnr37mi@4ax.com>,
> Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> You might give BBS a try in situations such as this.

>You mean BSS? (Best shot selector?)

Yes, my mis type.

>I seem to not trust that as much as continuous. Continuous is almost the
>same thing except it keeps all the shots and I can decide which is best.

Ok, I'd agree with that.

>Is that AMA# = Academy of Model Aeronautics?

No, American Motorcycle Association. Though I work in the aeronautics
field. See http/edwardgruf.com/Me/index.html is so inclined.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http/edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:XsSdnU4rL4Cvvk3fRVn-1w@giganews.com...
> M-M wrote:
>> In article <PNIze.7911$Eo.1971@fed1read04>,
>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>>> 1/7 sec is just too slow for hand-holding--even if the bug wasn't
>>> moving at all.
>>> Laik bilong yu, but that would be my suggestion.
>>> Do you have a higher shutter example with shadows? Maybe you could
>>> post that for comparison...
>>
>> Of course 1/7 is slow, but the camera was essentially on a tripod
>> being held against the chair leg.
>>
>> "Laik bilong yu" ???
>>
>> Here is an example with the flash. Not only did it make the shadows,
>> but it also took out most of the spider web:
>>
>> http/www.mhmyers.com/temp/shadows.jpg
>>
>
> Without flash:
> http/www.fototime.com/900DDB42DED12E2/orig.jpg
>
> With:
> http/www.fototime.com/E31864B6A2614D9/orig.jpg

Bingo!
Although that's a backlit situation, which of course means better balance
and no shadows.
Good comparison of fill flash though!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:XsSdnU4rL4Cvvk3fRVn-1w@giganews.com...
> M-M wrote:
>> In article <PNIze.7911$Eo.1971@fed1read04>,
>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>>> 1/7 sec is just too slow for hand-holding--even if the bug wasn't
>>> moving at all.
>>> Laik bilong yu, but that would be my suggestion.
>>> Do you have a higher shutter example with shadows? Maybe you could
>>> post that for comparison...
>>
>> Of course 1/7 is slow, but the camera was essentially on a tripod
>> being held against the chair leg.
>>
>> "Laik bilong yu" ???
>>
>> Here is an example with the flash. Not only did it make the shadows,
>> but it also took out most of the spider web:
>>
>> http/www.mhmyers.com/temp/shadows.jpg
>>
>
> Without flash:
> http/www.fototime.com/900DDB42DED12E2/orig.jpg
>
> With:
> http/www.fototime.com/E31864B6A2614D9/orig.jpg

Bingo!
Although that's a backlit situation, which of course means better balance
and no shadows.
Good comparison of fill flash though!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message
<nospam-D6B434.09184309072005@netaxs.com.client.newsread.com>,
M-M <nospam@ny.more> wrote:

>Of course 1/7 is slow, but the camera was essentially on a tripod being
>held against the chair leg.
>
>"Laik bilong yu" ???
>
>Here is an example with the flash. Not only did it make the shadows, but
>it also took out most of the spider web:
>
>http/www.mhmyers.com/temp/shadows.jpg

Tripods are really not as effective against steadying shots as people
think. All tripods vibrate to some degree, and a 1/7 exposure is about
where tripods tend to be worst. The exposure is too long to capture a
fraction of one cycle of vibration, and too short to have a large
percentage of the exposure occuring after damping.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:kd10d118ivi89ddpieuc9qeeegia5ikrv7@4ax.com...
> In message
> <nospam-D6B434.09184309072005@netaxs.com.client.newsread.com>,
> M-M <nospam@ny.more> wrote:
>
> >Of course 1/7 is slow, but the camera was essentially on a tripod being
> >held against the chair leg.
> >
> >"Laik bilong yu" ???
> >
> >Here is an example with the flash. Not only did it make the shadows, but
> >it also took out most of the spider web:
> >
> >http/www.mhmyers.com/temp/shadows.jpg
>
> Tripods are really not as effective against steadying shots as people
> think. All tripods vibrate to some degree, and a 1/7 exposure is about
> where tripods tend to be worst. The exposure is too long to capture a
> fraction of one cycle of vibration, and too short to have a large
> percentage of the exposure occuring after damping.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Thats what mirror lockup is for....