20D GETS CLOSE !

On Jul 4, 10:22 pm, Annika1980 wrote:

Noce shot - I haven't seen any in a long time...and very hard to shoot
as they don't stay still - always jutting out of frame, behind the
stem, limb, branch, leaf, whatever.

Yeah, that's exactly what he was doing. I had to put my hand on the
other side of the stem to get him to come around.

Oh, also, that's not a he, it's a female. The tits are a dead
giveaway...

In article . com,
Annika1980 wrote:

One old adage about photography suggests that you should
always try to "get closer." One way to do that is to use a
long lens. Another way is to actually get close to your subject.

So with that in mind I took these pics this morning.


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673036/original


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673031


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673033


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673034


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673035


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673254


-Annika ----- loves having the whole day off !!!

Very neat.

Out of curiosity, what lens were you using for this?

-Kadin.

BaumBadier wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 17:06:39 -0500, Allen wrote:

Annika1980 wrote:
One old adage about photography suggests that you should
always try to "get closer." One way to do that is to use a
long lens. Another way is to actually get close to your subject.

So with that in mind I took these pics this morning.


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673036/original


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673031


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673033


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673034


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673035


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673254


-Annika ----- loves having the whole day off !!!

As I have come to expect from you--Great Pictures!
Allen

Nothing worse than flash used for macro-photography to destroy the
image.

Exactly how would you suggest one shoot macro...of moving subjects...in poor
lighting...preserving DOF with tiny apertures...WITHOUT using flash?? Go
ahead....share your infinite wisdom.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

BaumBadier wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 20:27:21 -0700, Annika1980
wrote:


If they were dead then I wouldn't have needed the flash.
Without flash you are talking about long exposure times. Not such a
good idea when shooting handheld and your subject is on a leaf.

That's what photography talent is for.

Try it sometime.

Gee, what a shock!
Doug has a new screen name...

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

BaumBadier wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 17:06:39 -0500, Allen wrote:

Annika1980 wrote:
One old adage about photography suggests that you should
always try to "get closer." One way to do that is to use a
long lens. Another way is to actually get close to your subject.

So with that in mind I took these pics this morning.


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673036/original


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673031


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673033


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673034


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673035


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673254


-Annika ----- loves having the whole day off !!!

As I have come to expect from you--Great Pictures!
Allen

Nothing worse than flash used for macro-photography to destroy the
image. They might as well have been taken in a staged lab setting
with dead specimens.

Pitiful photography. Dreadful to say the least.

Gee, what a shock!
Doug has a new screen name...


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

"Kadin2048" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Annika1980 wrote:

One old adage about photography suggests that you should
always try to "get closer." One way to do that is to use a
long lens. Another way is to actually get close to your subject.

So with that in mind I took these pics this morning.


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673036/original


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673031


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673033


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673034


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673035


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673254


-Annika ----- loves having the whole day off !!!

Very neat.

Out of curiosity, what lens were you using for this?

-Kadin.

Listed under the photo usually.

On Jul 5, 6:39 am, Annika1980 wrote:


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81673036/original


finally! Something with a reasonable size for a good
evaluation! Thought you were stuck in the 600x400
itty bity time warp...

so, what happened to the feather detail under the eye,
at the base of the beak? Can you rescan so they look
as detailed as the other feathers at the edge of the
background? you know, the ones that look "in focus"
and detailed even though the whole bird is in focus?

Ooops sorry: you can't... Nearly forgot Canon's in-camera
processing smears up fine detail it finds away from edges,
thinking it's noise...

;-)

On Jul 5, 2:01 pm, BaumBadier wrote:
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital, aus.photo
From: BaumBadier
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:01:37 -0500
Local: Thurs, Jul 5 2007 2:01 pm
Subject: 20D GETS CLOSE !
Note: The author of this message spinelessly requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Jul 12, 2:01 pm).

That's what photography talent is for.

Try it sometime.

Is any of your stuff posted, "Baum"? (Or does it all mysteriously
vanish after 7 days? (O

FWIW, I've been posting some of mine, even tho' I don't usually do
macro - here's one, flawed as it is:
http://www.marktphoto.com/grasshopper.jpg
(no flash, overcast windy day, insufficient d-o-f, slightly
oversharpened..)

So how about you bravely show us *your* talents, especially given that
on another thread you said "Everyone that's seen my photography
wonders why I don't sell coffee-table books or enter them in galleries
or contact Nat. Geo...."
Oh... but then you said "But when I saw what kinds of undeserving
useless cretins were able to enjoy my photography just by handing me
their ill-gotten money I decided the best thing to do was take all of
it off the market and never reveal anything new to the general public
ever again."

Maybe you should go into comedy - you're hilarious and you don't even
realise it!

Regarding Bret's shots, I don't see much evidence of 'damage' from
harsh flash light, and I think they are very good.

mt
"Being professional is like being a lady - if you have to tell people
you are ... you aren't."

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:01:37 -0500, BaumBadier
wrote:


That's what photography talent is for.

Try it sometime.

Either let's see some examples of your talent or STFU.

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:01:37 -0500, BaumBadier
wrote:

That's what photography talent is for.

Try it sometime.

Either give us a demonstration of your talent or STFU!