Official Photography Thread

[wuapinmon]

Where's all the ice and snow?

It's long gone. It was 76F here today.

That's nice color without touch up. The mix of orange and blue (I would try to take some of the green out of the blue in LR) is nice. How bright was it actually, or is this indicative of the light at the time?

It was this bright, almost exactly what it looked like. I had just found out that a dear friend and mentor had passed away, and this sunset gave me peace.

[Katy Lied]

It was this bright, almost exactly what it looked like. I had just found out that a dear friend and mentor had passed away, and this sunset gave me peace.

When the world around me is beautiful, it makes me nostalgic, and I tell myself, if God doesn't live, I will never see this sunset again. And if God does live, I will never see this sunset again.

[wuapinmon]

When the world around me is beautiful, it makes me nostalgic, and I tell myself, if God doesn't live, I will never see this sunset again. And if God does live, I will never see this sunset again.

I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don’t know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let’s say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable; ergo, God exists.

"Argumentum Ornithologicum" by Jorge Luis Borges

[Katy Lied]

Always happy to read me some Borges, even just a hand-picked paragraph.

[swampfrog]

From the "snowstorm" in the greater Portland, OR area. Around the office in Vancouver, WA.

[Katy Lied]

how long was your exposure on the second photo?

When I was in college, I took a super long exposure night photo and ran from light source to light source to splash light on myself. (I think there were 5 lights). I called the picture "Five Portraits of Katy."

Come to think of it, I was very pretentious in college.

[swampfrog]

how long was your exposure on the second photo?

When I was in college, I took a super long exposure night photo and ran from light source to light source to splash light on myself. (I think there were 5 lights). I called the picture "Five Portraits of Katy."

Come to think of it, I was very pretentious in college.

It's a 5 frame composite HDR, I don't recall what the longest SS was for sure, but it wasn't long as there was no tripod involved. There was originally some detail in the lights that I lost on the conversion to black and white. I've occasionally done long exposure night shots and used a flashlight to illuminate various parts of the scene. Nothing that I was overly excited about, but should experiment more.

One of the advantages of being behind the camera, is I don't have to be in front of it, I can't imagine purposefully trying to mitigate that--though I have done so occasionally while under duress from Mrs. Swampfrog.

[swampfrog]

Drove the loop again yesterday in the afternoon. Found this raptor happily surveying without any real concern for the passing cars.

[Copelius]

Drove past him eating off of an antelope carcass. By the time I got turned around he had retreated to the tree.

[swampfrog]

More from the refuge on Saturday. The eagles were out--but not quite close enough for great shots. Still coveting an at least 400mm f/4 lens... Practicing flight images.

[Pelado]

More from the refuge on Saturday. The eagles were out--but not quite close enough for great shots. Still coveting an at least 400mm f/4 lens... Practicing flight images.

I think this one is my favorite of that grouping.

[PaloAltoCougar]

More from the refuge on Saturday. The eagles were out--but not quite close enough for great shots. Still coveting an at least 400mm f/4 lens... Practicing flight images.

I've been enjoying all the bird shots from you and others. My wife serves as photographer on our trips and she does some excellent work. She has a very nice Nikon (can't remember the model) and a couple of years ago I got her the 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S ED VR II zoom lens, which she loves and uses to good effect. For Valentine's Day, I'm giving her a Nikon 2x extender that, while supposedly turning her lens into a 400, I'm sure will result in some degradation. Do you have any experience with extenders? Will this be a worthwhile addition to her equipment bag? In three months we're going to be taking pictures of puffins, my favorite bird, so I want her to be well-equipped but I don't want shell out another $2K for a whole lens.

[creekster]

I've been enjoying all the bird shots from you and others. My wife serves as photographer on our trips and she does some excellent work. She has a very nice Nikon (can't remember the model) and a couple of years ago I got her the 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S ED VR II zoom lens, which she loves and uses to good effect. For Valentine's Day, I'm giving her a Nikon 2x extender that, while supposedly turning her lens into a 400, I'm sure will result in some degradation. Do you have any experience with extenders? Will this be a worthwhile addition to her equipment bag? In three months we're going to be taking pictures of puffins, my favorite bird, so I want her to be well-equipped but I don't want shell out another $2K for a whole lens.

It's been decades since I used one and my guess is they are a lot better now. Back in my day they were okay, but suffered from serious degradation around the edges of the shot. If she is serious about the photography you should pop for the real deal.

[swampfrog]

I've been enjoying all the bird shots from you and others. My wife serves as photographer on our trips and she does some excellent work. She has a very nice Nikon (can't remember the model) and a couple of years ago I got her the 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S ED VR II zoom lens, which she loves and uses to good effect. For Valentine's Day, I'm giving her a Nikon 2x extender that, while supposedly turning her lens into a 400, I'm sure will result in some degradation. Do you have any experience with extenders? Will this be a worthwhile addition to her equipment bag? In three months we're going to be taking pictures of puffins, my favorite bird, so I want her to be well-equipped but I don't want shell out another $2K for a whole lens.

This latest group were all with the Canon equivalent lens with the 1.4x extender. I also have the 2x. I use both extensively for birds. I never use the bare lens for birds except at the zoo or other location where birds are super tame. If the bird is perched or on the ground, the 2x comes out more often because of the additional reach.

Keep the shutter speed up and you can get nice sharp images with either. Focusing is the biggest detriment. I try the 2x for flight only occasionally. It's usually an exercise in frustration. Acquisition of focus is too slow for moving subjects. The 1.4x can be used for flight with consistent results. For most bird photography having access to 400mm is the minimum.

[PaloAltoCougar]

It's been decades since I used one and my guess is they are a lot better now. Back in my day they were okay, but suffered from serious degradation around the edges of the shot. If she is serious about the photography you should pop for the real deal.

Yeah, I fear that might be the case. In addition to the cost, there's also the problem of packing around that much glass, but we'll see. Gone are the days when a dozen roses would have sufficed....

BTW, swampfrog, this is the extender I'm giving her, subject to further input, if any...

EDIT: Didn't see your response until I posted this. Makes sense. I'll give her what I have but with your advice, she may exchange for the 1.4. Thanks.