[PICS] Damn Punks

You need to watch out for those punk kids with the bug eye shades, the
slicked back hair and the unshaven faces.

http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/DiD/Punk.htm

-Jim

jimkramer wrote:
You need to watch out for those punk kids with the bug eye shades, the
slicked back hair and the unshaven faces.

http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/DiD/Punk.htm

-Jim

Great shot - especially of the compound eyes. I wonder what the world looks
like through those.
I've looked and I've tried - but I can't make out an expression in that
face...

Nevertheless, beats me how youse macro guys persuade your models to say
"cheese".

[cough]freeze spray[cough]

Nah....

:-)

I get enough grief from static subjects. I've got a proof sixpence I've been
trying to do justice to since my film days, but still no dice. One day,
mebbe.

--
Jeff R.

Jeff R. wrote,on my timestamp of 11/08/2008 11:05 PM:
jimkramer wrote:
You need to watch out for those punk kids with the bug eye shades, the
slicked back hair and the unshaven faces.

http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/DiD/Punk.htm

-Jim

Great shot - especially of the compound eyes. I wonder what the world
looks like through those.
I've looked and I've tried - but I can't make out an expression in that
face...

Nevertheless, beats me how youse macro guys persuade your models to say
"cheese".

[cough]freeze spray[cough]

Nah....

:-)


superglue...

"Jeff R." wrote in message
...
jimkramer wrote:
You need to watch out for those punk kids with the bug eye shades, the
slicked back hair and the unshaven faces.

http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/DiD/Punk.htm

-Jim

Great shot - especially of the compound eyes. I wonder what the world
looks like through those.

If you believe the literature. It looks a lot like what we see only fuzzier
and wider angle. If you can imagine, with out becoming ill, taking your eye
out and removing the cornea and lens and turning it inside out and then
putting lots of tiny lenses all over the retina. Now just image the depth
of field each of those tiny lenses would give you; no more need to focus.
:-)

I've looked and I've tried - but I can't make out an expression in that
face...

Mostly he's thanking what ever gods he prays to that I and the
evil-big-eye-with-bright-lights is not eating him. :-)

Nevertheless, beats me how youse macro guys persuade your models to say
"cheese".

Usually, I use nothing, and I miss a lot of shots or only get the first one
or two. However this guy was in the dogs' water dish and I fished him out.
He could walk, but his wings were stuck together until he dried out, so it
wasn't like he was going to fly away. :-)

[cough]freeze spray[cough]

The only time I've used canned air for bugs is to dig out antlions, much
kinder, and faster, than using a shovel. :-)

Nah....

:-)

I get enough grief from static subjects. I've got a proof sixpence I've
been trying to do justice to since my film days, but still no dice. One
day, mebbe.

Three lights in a equilateral triangle at about 15 degrees above parallel to
the face of the coin. Adjust as you see fit, but try to keep the lights at a
low angle to emphasize the details on the coin.

-Jim

"jimkramer" wrote

bug eye shades

Really good.

And he really does have built in sunglasses. I thought
it was some sort of bug iridescence thing that banded the
eyes, but it's sunglasses.

I have noticed a real take-off in quality and quantity of
insect shots with digital. I have assumed the reason was
that to get one good bug shot with film uses many rolls of
film and that you don't even know if you got the shot till
days later. With digital the bad shots cost nothing to
delete and you know when you have it. Is that a valid
assumption?

Speaking of other uncontrollable crawly things, I haven't
noticed near as much an increase in the quality of baby pics.
Maybe if I put the baby in the 'fridge for half an hour first,
just to slow it down?

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index2.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote in message
...
"jimkramer" wrote

bug eye shades

Really good.

And he really does have built in sunglasses. I thought
it was some sort of bug iridescence thing that banded the
eyes, but it's sunglasses.

I have noticed a real take-off in quality and quantity of
insect shots with digital. I have assumed the reason was
that to get one good bug shot with film uses many rolls of
film and that you don't even know if you got the shot till
days later. With digital the bad shots cost nothing to
delete and you know when you have it. Is that a valid
assumption?

It is part of a valid assumption. What you said is definitely mostly true;
there are still costs involved, but most of them are upfront in equipment.
However the one thing that film doesn't offer is the immediate feed back of
"Ah, that's what I have to do to make that work in this case." It's not
just a case of "Oh, that works," but what was done to make it work. Unless
of course you "note take" like Ken. :-)

I don't take nearly as many pictures (images/time) as I did when I started
using a DSLR, because my technique and knowledge has improved to the point
where I am comfortable looking at something and saying this is how I want to
shoot it. Now if it is a novel situation I will go back to the "machine gun
mode" of thinking, until I find what works.

The real issue with high magnification macro and live subjects is focus,
both in deciding what should be in sharp focus and keeping it there. That's
where the chilling/killing stackers thrive.


Speaking of other uncontrollable crawly things, I haven't
noticed near as much an increase in the quality of baby pics.
Maybe if I put the baby in the 'fridge for half an hour first,
just to slow it down?

I'd give it a least a hour; probably a little more. Make sure to get the
pictures before it turns blue or use appropriate filters. :-)

Honestly, I think most babies are ugly to everyone, but their parents and
maybe immediate relatives. There are certainly some adorable babies out
there, just as there are some very attractive adults, but most of us fall
outside of the "very attractive" range.

-Jim

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index2.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

"jimkramer" wrote

the immediate feed back of "Ah, that's what I have to do to make that work
in this case."

That would be a very big element - fast feedback makes
for fast learning. OTS [on the shot] learning.

"Programmed Learning" used to be a big thing in the 60's
with 'TutorText' books: a short paragraph explaining something
with an immediate question that got you to the next page
that got you a bit of praise and explanation of why the answer
was correct, or an "I am sorry, but ..." with an explanation
of why the answer was wrong. The pages were randomized so
you flipped around the book "The answer is: a) The square root of 2
- Go to page 314; (b) Pi times the square root of 2 - Go to page 167;
(c) Bananas - Go to ...".

I thought it worked very well, one could learn more in a weekend
from a TutorText than one could in a half semester of classes.

I would have thought the technique would be all over the net, but
I don't see any of it.

Honestly, I think most babies are ugly to everyone
but their parents and maybe immediate relatives

"Hell is other people." Sartre

"The inner circle of Hell is other people's children." Lindan
- in both interpretations of the phrase.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index2.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

jimkramer wrote:
You need to watch out for those punk kids with the bug eye shades, the
slicked back hair and the unshaven faces.

http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/DiD/Punk.htm

Cool shot.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.