20D GETS CLOSE !

On Jul 5, 6:57 am, Noons wrote:

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...

Wrong again, Buttdrip!
I can pull as much detail as I need from the RAW file.
Maybe even a little too much:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81712964/original

On Jul 5, 12:43 am, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number
wrote:

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.

Talent, my boy ... talent!
Of course ISO 6400 might help.

Most people don't understand what happens to the exposure when you
shoot images larger than 1X. If you meter the scene as your normally
would you'll get a lovely black photo. I guess this is because only a
tiny portion of the overall light is hitting that portion of the
sensor.

On Jul 5, 6:00 am, "Pete D" wrote:

Very neat.

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


Listed under the photo usually

Yes, I usually try to include the shooting data under the pics.
The bug shots were taken with the Canon MP-E 65mm Macro lens from a
distance of a few inches. The others were taken with the Forgotten
400 f/5.6L. The snake shot was on a tripod, the heron was on a monopod
(Spike don't like tripods), and the chipmunk was a roadkill shot taken
out the car window.

"Annika1980" wrote:

the heron was on a monopod
(Spike don't like tripods),

Is that really Spike? (Did he lose his spike?)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com...
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 !!!

Thanks Brett.
As always, some great images ! )

In article .com,
Annika1980 wrote:

On Jul 5, 6:00 am, "Pete D" wrote:

Very neat.

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


Listed under the photo usually

D'oh. Of course I notice that *now*.


Yes, I usually try to include the shooting data under the pics.
The bug shots were taken with the Canon MP-E 65mm Macro lens from a
distance of a few inches. The others were taken with the Forgotten
400 f/5.6L. The snake shot was on a tripod, the heron was on a monopod
(Spike don't like tripods), and the chipmunk was a roadkill shot taken
out the car window.

Thanks for the explanation. Again, nice work.

-Kadin.

Mark² wrote:
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...

Mark, the only times I see BB's arrogant and idiotic posts is when
someone copies them in a reply. Some things don't deserve to be read. I
subscribe to several classical music ngs and I tghought they had a hign
percentage of trolls and flakes. This ng, though, holds my personal
record. I want to say that you are one of the good guys, as is Annika.
Allen

Beautiful Photos, amazing. What flash did you use?


"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com...
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 !!!

On Jul 5, 12:24 pm, "Matalog" wrote:
Beautiful Photos, amazing. What flash did you use?

Canon 430EX with a Lumiquest Softbox.

On 7/4/07 5:14 PM, in article ,
"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.


Who the **** do you think you are? Leonard Pinth-Garnell?