AK Wilks, Subject: Photography Sat May 12, 2012 1:47 pm
One of my other "hobbies" is photography.
Let no one say I am not a patriot. 
Note: Image is PG-13 or R. Nothing explicit, but if you are offended by beautiful women don’t click on the spoiler bar.
zodio, Subject: Re: Photography Mon May 14, 2012 1:22 am
Nice shot AK and say "Hi" to the model for me.
Jem, Subject: Re: Photography Mon May 14, 2012 3:12 am
She’s a real cutie, AK! Your girl? If so then I think you should give her another letter to go with the one she’s wearing. Maybe July 4th would be a good time for that! 
sandy betts, Subject: Re: Photography Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:24 pm
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:08 pm
Marvellous! I’m just taking up photography myself – I hope I can produce similar excellent results one day, many congrats.
I did find myself looking at that tie and wondering if it was a Windsor knot though. Must be getting old.
sandy betts, Subject: Re: Photography Fri Sep 07, 2012 11:31 pm
Marvellous! I’m just taking up photography myself – I hope I can produce similar excellent results one day, many congrats.
I did find myself looking at that tie and wondering if it was a Windsor knot though. Must be getting old.
Thanks smithy, I wish I could take credit for taking pictures like that , but It was a practice scan from an advertisement for the Mikado, that Ricardo took me to for my birthday.
How it ended up under photography is a mystery to me ?
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:45 am
Sandy, I was talking about the model with the tie around her neck, that AK posted. 
I was quite prepared to believe you’d made up that poster though – in fact I did!
traveller1st, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 08, 2012 6:43 am
Nice. Check out the flag on that.
I’m a photo hobbyist too. Got all the stuff and don’t know what to do with it lol. Bridge slr, setting up my own dark room, filters, hoods, umbrellas, battery packs, flashes, tripods, lenses, old film cameras (really cheap off ebay). Got the coolest backpack as well for carting it all around. Coming down with the stuff, great passtime. Even trying some Infra-red photography but I need a full digital SLR – my next goal.
Professional without a clue or budget, apparently (not actually true but you’d think it was the way I accrue stuff)
EDIT: Side lighting or flash on that AK?
TIP: One filter you must get is a circular polarizer. And a UV filter of course to protect the lens. The CPL is awesome though, lets you control the light getting to the lens so you can use the sun and other intense light sources as your lighting at slow shutter speeds without getting washout – very cool. It also intensifies the colour in landscape shots. The CPL is also the filter that’s used to get those great shots of flowing water where it looks like mist. I think lol because there’s also a variable/natural density filter so it could be that one actually – see not a clue lol.
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 08, 2012 2:44 pm
Very nice photo, Mr. A.J…..did you take that yourself?
I like the composition, the posing of the model. You are very good at photography.
That has been my hobby for years. First, a box camera, then an Argus C-3, an 8mm Movie Camera, Super-8mm Sound, Portable Video camera and recorder (before camcorders) then a Professional Nikon F-3 and lots of Nikkor lenses.
Was this digital or film? From the sharpness, probably in the RAW (no, not intended to reflect the picture) format – the one without compression, which pros use for digital.
I like to take 3-D stereo pictures.
If you are shooting digital, why would one need filters? The professional Adobe Program (VERY expensive, over 600 to 700 dollars) can do all that for you.
traveller1st, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 08, 2012 2:55 pm
Yes it can TM and I have those programs but maybe that’s my OCD, I’m a bit of a purist and like photography to be created at the source rather than tweaked and fiddled with in photoshop. After all that’s the original skill of photography, mastering light at the moment of taking the shot.
It’s like digital vs film for movies. Movies on film have a wonderful quality about them.
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 08, 2012 3:02 pm
Oh, I agree with you 100%, Traveller. In spite of all the advances of ditigal, I still prefer film – transparency film is necessary for 3-D stereo.
I HOPE the movie industry never does what it is claiming to do – go digital as far as stamping out feature film on discs for theater showing. There is a quality about film, like you said, that cannot be duplicated on digital.
There is also a warmth about film, just like analog sound, which is missing
in digital. But, lets face it, a lot of the good film is disappearing, now one has to use BH PHOTO in New York and a developing lab to get the film one wants.
Most camera stores are gone, and places that used to offer developing only do so with the simple C-22 process. A Hassleblad 2-1/4 format will not meet those requirements.
One more thing: I think the movie industry wants to use digital discs for (1) to save money on film and (2) discs can be encoded to control piracy.
Clovis, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:41 pm
I did photography as a hobby for a good while. I never got good with lighting though. My stuff always looked only slightly better than a snapshot. I still have my cameras, lenses, (Minolta) and accessories , but they don’t get much use.
AK Wilks, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:20 pm
Yes there is more to life than unsolved true crime cases.
By popular demand…warning this is "R" rated. Yes Jem she deserves a second letter, maybe a "K"?
Picasso had his BLUE period, this is my BLUE period. OK Smithy, are those Anderson sliding glass doors?
traveller1st, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:22 pm
I did photography as a hobby for a good while. I never got good with lighting though. My stuff always looked only slightly better than a snapshot. I still have my cameras, lenses, (Minolta) and accessories , but they don’t get much use.
I’m so like you Clovis lol.
traveller1st, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:27 pm
Ak those are really good.
My one picky point would be the spot of light on the lower lip in the second pic, would take that out. Everything else perfect, my congrats to the confidence of the model in making such a shot,it’s well deserved.
This is one of my digital B&W shots of Maya (my ex and now best friend on left) and Stephanie (our mutual friend) on the the right. No filters and flash bounced off the ceiling if memory serves me. I was experimenting with bounce photography. I had to tell both of them that they were gorgeous and I’m sure they didn’t believe me lol.
AK Wilks, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:31 pm
Ak those are really good.
My one picky point would be the spot of light on the lower lip in the second pic, would take that out. Everything else perfect, my congrats to the confidence of the model in making such a shot,it’s well deserved.
Thanks. You have my permission to airbrush it if you wish.
traveller1st, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:47 pm
AK Wilks, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:54 pm
Perfecto!
You got the right color on her lips, you can’t even tell its airbrushed.
Now get back to work and please do a TK/Z handwriting comparison!
traveller1st, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:57 pm
And hair removes from other shot.
traveller1st, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:01 pm
Perfecto!
You got the right color on her lips, you can’t even tell its airbrushed.
Now get back to work and please do a TK/Z handwriting comparison!
I’m always working and have checked that TK has the alternating ‘e’ and he does. So there lol.
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 08, 2012 11:41 pm
I like these models – keep ’em coming! :bounce:
sandy betts, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Sep 09, 2012 2:01 am
Aren’t they the same girl ?
AK Wilks, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Sep 09, 2012 2:25 am
Aren’t they the same girl ?
Yes.
Trainmaster has mentioned his eyesight has gotten a little off, so with the different styles in these pics he must have thought it was different women.
, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Sep 09, 2012 2:28 am
Does this girl know you are sharing these photos here?
Just curious? I find this post rather creepy on many levels.
Are the only photos you have to share of this scantily clad
young girl? I am very disappointed in this thread, there are sites
to share images like those posted, I just do not feel this is one of them.
I am sorry but this is weird to be posted on a zodiac site.
AK Wilks, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Sep 09, 2012 2:47 am
Does this girl know you are sharing these photos here?
Just curious? I find this post rather creepy on many levels.
Are the only photos you have to share of this scantily clad
young girl? I am very disappointed in this thread, there are sites
to share images like those posted, I just do not feel this is one of them.
I am sorry but this is weird to be posted on a zodiac site.
Well this is called "The Hangout" for non-Zodiac, non-true crime topics. Just stuff for fun. Jokes, personal stuff, sports, music clips, movie clips and pictures.
I shared about 1,000 Zodiac related pictures.
Also I put an "R" rated warning and don’t post any pictures visible, you have to to read the warning and click on the spoiler bar to see the pictures. And all the pictures are clothes, nothing different than what you would see in a swimsuit catalog or MTV or a commercial.
Yes she signed a model release and we have put her pictures on model sites. She likes taking pictures, she is beautiful and comfortable doing these pictures. She asks me to take them. She wants people to see them. She has fun doing them and so do I. And I let her look at every picture, any she doesn’t like we throw out.
But I think this has run its course, just wanted to provide a little lightness and fun. You have to decide to come to the "hangout" for non-zodiac posts, decide to read the warning about the pictures and decide to click on the spoiler bar. Take it or leave it. A few people, male and female, seemed to like them, a little break from the topic of murders. There is a lighter side to life. But these kind of pictures are not for everyone, that is why I put on warnings and covered them by spoiler bars.
But it has runs its course, I will not post any more.
Caresut is there anything about this site that you do like? Honestly it seems like most of you recent posts are complaints. You are a great researcher, I hope you see the positive side of the site and make more contributions.
Zamantha, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Sep 09, 2012 2:55 am
Didn’t really brother me. But I thought I’d start a thread for the Z girls. Let’s see, Robert Downey Jr, Bon Jovi, Kevin Costner…. You know a few cute guys 
AK Wilks, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Sep 09, 2012 2:57 am
Didn’t really brother me. But I thought I’d start a thread for the Z girls. Let’s see, Robert Downey Jr, Bon Jovi, Kevin Costner…. You know a few cute guys
Turnabout is fair play! I think the human face and human body are beautiful, I see no shame if tastefully done, but to each his own.
Trav very nice picture of your friends Maya and Stephanie.
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:41 am
AK: "OK Smithy, are those Anderson sliding glass doors?" – why me? 
I’ve researched this for you, and apparently "Andersen® gliding patio doors have two or more panels, with at least one panel gliding past the other sliding glass door panel." So the answer is – perhaps!
It’s a pleasant change, this thread. I’m a complete novice when it comes to photography. I’ve just borrowed a Nikon D40 from a friend of mine, set it on "Auto" and started snapping. I’m scared to death I’m gonna drop it. Here’s the one that ALL novice photographers take and no spoiler on this one – there aren’t any legs in it (although there may be eight hiding nearby, I suppose, ho ho).
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Sep 09, 2012 2:50 pm
Yes, A.J., I DID think they were different women – your pictures are well composed and done in good taste. I don’t understand the "R" rating.
I would like to see more of your work – still curious as to whether you used film or digital.
You do very well against a back-light situation.
There is NOTHING in these pictures to be offended about, IMO.
Zamantha, you talk about Z girls and then mention guys’ names. I will take female models any day.
I shot plenty of them 40 years ago.
Again, IMO, if anyone if offended by these pictures, there are other threads to look at.
While I predict the popularity of digital photos will grow, (even some studios are using them with the RAW format, (nothing to do with the
girls) – it is the highest format for digital – way superior to .jpeg-no loss in quality) I still think film will be around for quite a while. There are things that a lab can do with film, like superimpose, etc, that I don’t know about digital. To me, digital is informal, while 35mm (with a pro camera) and 2-1/4, with a Hassleblad, are serious formats. Pro photographers still use plenty of film. For the casual user, it just means going through special channels, like B&H Photo to get the necessary accessories and film.
I don’t know ANY way of shooting 3-D stereo in the transparancy (slide) format with digital, except having a lab do the transfer which is quite expensive.
I have dealt for years with B & H Photo. They are the ultimate camera store, to see on-line or in person. They sell on-line, and have a huge catalog.
Visit their website:
You will find it interesting and see plenty of equipment to dream about.
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Sep 09, 2012 2:57 pm
Smithy:
Interesting photo. Try a Nikon D-3X, their flagship. It costs anywhere from $7,500 to
$8,000 for body and lens. It is the model above the D-40.
You want a camera that can offer complete manual control, if you are a serious photographer.
Since you are new, I don’t recommend that one. I did recommend a Kodak Z981 to someone. For $400, it offers
a thru-the-lens viewfinder in addition to the 3" LCD window, the ability to shoot in RAW as well as .jpeg (14 MP), and
also the ability to have complete manual override on everything. It also offers auto aperature-priority or shutter priority and manual focus.
Without having to spend a fortune, this is a very nice camera, offering features only found on the expensive higher-up Nikons and Canons.
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Sep 09, 2012 3:36 pm
TM – I’m obliged to you!
Canon 550D’s are cheap here right now, since the 650 is newly out, but I’m poor and I don’t need video, and since my buddy leant me this ‘cos he hasn’t used it for 3 or more years, I may see if he wants to sell it to me. Post some of yours?
Here’s my chocolate-box picture of the day:
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Sep 09, 2012 3:51 pm
Smithy:
That is a beautiful and outstanding-composed shot!
I take 3-D stereo – they are slides divided in half for the 3-D effect. Even if I had them converted
into a print, they would not make sense without the viewer.
I DO have some interesing shots I took over the years. One is a gorgeous picture of the San Francisco atop of the
Oakland hills taken at night (via shutter release – I set the lens at F-16 and kept it open for about 20 minutes for depth-of-field.
Great picture of the area and bridges. I would have to convert it into a print, since it is not 3-D.
Yes, by all means, use that D-40 all you can. You will get spoiled, though. Maybe you can buy it. Keep in mind the professional Nikons, unlike others, have strong resale value. Don’t tell that to your friend, and you may get a deal. IF ANYTHING, use a skylight filter over the lens – it does not effect the OSI rating, but does protect the glass lens. Nikon is one of only two camera manufacturers who make their own glass. Minolta is the other.
May I make one suggestion? Perhaps you intended for the foreground to be out-of-focus, but it would take manual use to
use a high F-stop and control your-depth-of-field to bring everything into focus. Auto won’t cut it. Your first picture of the spider web made sense to have the background out-of-focus. I think the foreground would look better in focus, but the composure and the rest of the picture is really nice.
Where was that taken?
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:18 pm
TM – thanks! That was taken at Hillhouse Wood near Sapperton, Gloucestershire here in the good old south west of England today, after a pint at an excellent pub called the Daneway (please don’t tell people, it will get popular), and yes I wanted to have the foreground out-of-focus, but I do take your point.
When I’ve decoded the rest of your camera-speak I’ll give it a go!
Any picture of San Francisco will do me nicely thanks since I adore the place – and I look forward to be able to take a long-exposure shot with maybe some tail-lights moving through and so on, but I’m a loooong way off that yet.
Thanks for the compliment – I shall keep going until I know a little more about what I’m doing!
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Sep 09, 2012 11:00 pm
Smithy:
Well, you are off to a good start and doing very well.
Stereo photography has a different set of rules. EVERYTHING from foreground to background must be in focus.
There can be no vertical paralax – the horizan should be perfectly straight, like you are looking outside the "picture window."
Don’t worry – these rules are for 3-D stereo only. Like your very nice picture, you wanted to call attention to the mid section to background, and
controlling depth-of-field does that. With regular photography, there are no strict rules to abide by as in 3-D stereo.
You have a natural gift for composition. Usually, that is the first major problem for beginners; your shot has excellent framing with the trees on the sides and tops. Did you get help, or was that a natural instinct?
Pictures like that would make great calendar photos.
Tip: If you are shooting a person outdoors, make sure you use the spot meter in the camera. Be careful of backlighting, but the skin color is effected, together with facial features. If you have a close-up of the face, you may want a narrow depth-of-field. Pros use an "umbrella" type of flash so the facial features are not too dark. That camera is designed to handle it all. Really, the D-40 and D-3X are cameras designed for the photographer who makes a living shooting pictures. You have an excellent
camera there. I have the pro-Nikon in a film version and a "bag" of Nikkor lenses and accessories. I will someday get something like you have there – one reason I will choose Nikon is that my lenses will work in a Nikon pro digital camera.
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:08 am
TM – stereo photography sounds properly frightening. I’m very pleased to be starting on the bottom rung – and with a camera that’s fully automatic, at that.
I took that shot simply because it did look so "staged" and "chocolate box" in appearance; I could imagine it on a calendar just as you say, so I snapped it. I was looking at the depth of focus too, and the foreground, and later when I got back to the pub I was playing around with it and took this. I suspect it amply demonstrates how a novice breaks the rules of composition good and hard, and gives not a hoot about foreground focus. Spot the focal point.
A tremendously unsuccessful shot on SO many levels. This was a 300mm lens btw – it can be quite intrusive. The camera’s good, yes, much better than me. But it also takes bad ones just as I ask it to!
Eeeek!
To restore equilibrium – here’s another calendar shot from the walk we were on. This annoyed my wife because it was a bit overcast when we got to this section, and there was a party of Dutch tourists coming through too, so I insisted we wait around until the light was OK and they’d moved on. Ahem.
I’m afraid I’ve found something else I can obsess about. 
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:14 pm
Smithy:
Your second picture is awesome! I can see the focus point on the first – sitting on the bench.
The trouble of such an advanced camera like you have, to a novice, is that there are so many
complex operations. You are aware a 300mm lens is a good telephoto, and the depth-of-field is flat.
You will find, on a majority of photos, a normal (50-55mm) lens will do the job for most shots.
On wide angle, I find 35mm ideal. I have a 20mm, 24mm, 28mm as well as a 35mm. 35mm is a nice wide with very little distortion.
With the next step up, 28mm, circular subject take an oval shape. The distortion is quite noticeable.
24mm and 20mm are for shots, where nothing else will work – example – a radio station control room.
Then, when one sees the subject place in person, reacts "I didn’t know it was that small!"
A 35mm lens would be outstanding to get the LHR site where the first Z murders took place. Any other wide would distort the place beyond belief.
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Photography Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:50 am
Thx for making the "spoiler" link AK…pretty girl and tasteful photos, but glad they weren’t directly visible as I agree with Caresut in that we are in a serial killer state of mind here…for the most part.
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Photography Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:54 am
Ok…here’s my input. One of my hobbies is my saltwater fishtank, but I too love taking photos. This is my Frogspawn Coral:
(dang that’s huge! will resize)
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:09 pm
WOW! Great – and great colour.
Macro lens or were you in there swimming, T?
Zamantha, Subject: Re: Photography Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:37 pm
Great Photo’s above! It’s nice to see everyone’s hobbies!
This is more like a snap shot with my trusty iPhone.
But I kinda liked the subject matter. Was at a friends "Man Cave" with all kinds of interesting collectibles & I focus on this, geeze.
traveller1st, Subject: Re: Photography Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:13 pm
Tahoe and Zam,
Great pics. Knew you had a good eye Zam from even just your general shots or Mt Diablo and stuff. The coral shot Tahoe is great abstract. I love macro photography, love all aspects actually – so many things to try with this hobby.
kirkham, Subject: Re: Photography Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:49 pm
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a … 1138_n.jpg
here my entry..this is the sunset from my hometown in Pacifica..Michael
kirkham, Subject: Re: Photography Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:51 pm
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-s … 4533_n.jpg
fog wave in Pacifica last summer
Seagull, Subject: Re: Photography Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:15 am
Nice photos Kirkham! The fog and low clouds at the coast make for some really interesting photos. I live a ways further up the coast and a photo of the green flash is always coveted, do you have green flashes down there?
kirkham, Subject: Re: Photography Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:24 am
Nice photos Kirkham! The fog and low clouds at the coast make for some really interesting photos. I live a ways further up the coast and a photo of the green flash is always coveted, do you have green flashes down there?
Ive seen my fair share of green flashes here but never tried to photo one before,its so hard cause the weather has to be just right ..Im up in your neck of the woods quite often in Santa Rosa visiting family..
Seagull, Subject: Re: Photography Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:29 am
Yeah, the green flash is hard to capture! I moved from Santa Rosa eight years ago, I’m further north now!
kirkham, Subject: Re: Photography Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:30 am
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-s … 4533_n.jpg
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a … 5067_n.jpg
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-s … 3108_n.jpg
heres a few more the last one is a pic I got traveling up 101 in Petaluma
Seagull, Subject: Re: Photography Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:36 am
That last one is what my elderly neighbor calls "fish clouds", sometimes called a mackerel sky. It means rain will come within 24 hours, the heavier the clouds, the harder the rain. He’s right, too!
doranchak, Subject: Re: Photography Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:22 am
But it has runs its course, I will not post any more.
Can your photos be found somewhere else? They still deserve an audience!
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Photography Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:54 am
But it has runs its course, I will not post any more.
Can your photos be found somewhere else? They still deserve an audience!
I agree. Do you have some type of portfolio set up?
Just a suggestion on the one where she is facing the closed shades:
Lighting. Those shades should have been open and the photo taken from a different angle so the natural lighting from the window highlights her face. As I am sure you know…lighting is the key. (I do have some experience…I won’t get into it. )
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Photography Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:56 am
WOW! Great – and great colour.
Macro lens or were you in there swimming, T?
Just sitting in front of my tank.
Taken with my Canon PowerShot A470 7.1 MP……lol
AK Wilks, Subject: Re: Photography Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:22 am
But it has runs its course, I will not post any more.
Can your photos be found somewhere else? They still deserve an audience!
Ha ha, thanks. And I agree. We have actually talked about having a website. We may do it, maybe within the next few months.
Thanks to everyone who made positive comments, that is encouraging.
Thanks for the tip Tahoe, makes sense.
I enjoy looking at all the pictures here, some nice work people!
bentley, Subject: Re: Photography Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:05 pm
Well I’m a little hurt that you guys had me looking at bloody shirt pics for three days and no one told me about these wonderful photos instead.
I didn’t shoot these (I did build the bike though), it was done by a pro with a lens about 2 feet long. I always wondered why they would go back 200ft. to take a photo of something they can walk right up to. Has to do with depth of field, so I’m told. My total camera knowledge consists of finding the "automatic’ mode for adjustments and keeping my fingers away from the lens.
A friend of mine is doing "tintype" photos, old timey looking stuff.
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:17 pm
Man, that bike is beautiful. it’s absolutely edible.
And I just learned something too "keep you fingers away from the lens".
(THAT explains it.)
Here’s one of my cat.
bentley, Subject: Re: Photography Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:55 pm
Race ya…
Cool markings. Probably got the 340 tattooed on the sides.
Seagull, Subject: Re: Photography Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:24 pm
Nice bike, Bentley! You must have/had more vehicles than a magician has rabbits.
On a marginally related note, Richard Thompson will be playing in Ft. Bragg on the 28th of this month. At $35 a pop he probably won’t be seeing me though.
bentley, Subject: Re: Photography Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:01 pm
Thanks Seagull, I made that tank and seat from scratch, flat aluminum sheet, my crowning achievement.
I’ll spread the word on Thompson, he’s really good, like to see him in person. I’ve had friends display their Vincents on stage when he performed. You provoked me to google and find a performance I’d not seen prior.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0kJdrfz … re=related
Seagull, Subject: Re: Photography Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:34 pm
Current tour schedule for Thompson.
http://www.richardthompson-music.com/Tour.asp
He has played at the Mystic Theater in Petaluma more than once but not this time. Looks like Ft. Bragg and Arcata still have tickets but Saratoga is sold out.
I like him a lot, too.
EDITED to change Raven to Mystic Theater, the Raven is in Healdsburg.
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:23 pm
Mr. A.J. Wilkes:
When you left the blinds closed, you eliminated the problem of backlighting.
You can always use a flash to fill in the face. I would rather deal with that then the backlighting situation. That is where spot meters come in handy.
Either way, the pictures are very nice.
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Photography Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:15 pm
Mr. A.J. Wilkes:
When you left the blinds closed, you eliminated the problem of backlighting.
You can always use a flash to fill in the face. I would rather deal with that then the backlighting situation. That is where spot meters come in handy.Either way, the pictures are very nice.
That’s why the photographer would have to change position too. Imo, the blinds make it yellowy, and by using the natural light in the right position, I think the photo would have come out looking even better.
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:26 am
I understand your point, Tahoe. I am not that familiar with digital.
Perhaps switching from portrait to landscape or the other options changes the white control balance.
In color film, there are three layers of emulsion – red, blue and yellow.
In the famous Kodachrome, no longer around, red was the controlling emulsion. Great for landscape photos, not so desirable for skin color.
Ektachrome had blue as the controlling cmulsion and leaned to colder colors – it was excellent for portrait photos.
The Kodacolor was like Kodachrome, and Kodak had many other different types. I don’t know how many slide or negative films are left, but a look at BH Photo would tell.
Shooting with a memory card and the .jpeg format usually allows for severl hundred pictures, depending on card size. With the .RAW format, you would be lucky to get 20. The .RAW format takes a lot of memory, but the quality is worth it for enlargement purposes.
glurk, Subject: Re: Photography Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:54 am
Here is a picture of my cat:
-glurk
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:08 am
Ha! Watch it you – I have three cats and DID have two Jags; you’ll force my hand!
Nice car that. Steering wheel’s in the wrong place though, that needs fixing.
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:01 am
Nice ‘cat’ AND neighborhood. May I ask what town and state or country this is?
Make sure you get "Meow Mix" for you cat!
Zamantha, Subject: Re: Photography Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:41 am
Gluck, love your car!
Beautiful sky blue color!
Scared Kid, Subject: Re: Photography Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:21 pm
Ha! Watch it you – I have three cats and DID have two Jags; you’ll force my hand!
Nice car that. Steering wheel’s in the wrong place though, that needs fixing.
Hey Smithy,
I drove a couple of those cars you are talking about, not Jags, the ones with the steering wheel on the WRONG side! I did it in Malaysia and it was OK until I had to turn from one street to another. I kept winding up on the wrong side of the street!
13Zebra5, Subject: Re: Photography Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:22 pm
I took this while fishing.
Inside Zodiac Shack #11
I took this at a cemetery this summer.
traveller1st, Subject: Re: Photography Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:26 pm
Love the Shack shot. Lighting is wonderful.
Seagull, Subject: Re: Photography Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:32 pm
Great shots 13Zebra5! You always take great shots!!! Makes me jealous.
What’s that guy in the cemetery holding, looks like a sickle.
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 15, 2012 6:02 am
SK – I always great trouble at roundabouts. They’re the devil’s invention.
13Zebra5- wow – great shots. I have so much to aspire toward!
13Zebra5, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 15, 2012 11:55 am
Thanks, all.
Yep, the guy is carrying a sickle. He used it to trim the grass around the edges of his wife’s grave. I talked to him for a couple of minutes. Interesting detail is the jacket and gloves–it was in the morning, but it was already about 80° at the time.
13Zebra5, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:28 pm
These are from Zodiac Shack #297z. I lack the patience to try to correct for the subtle changes in brightness, contrast, and sharpness inflicted on pictures by these various free image hosting sites, but these snapshots here at least give you an idea of what the place looks like.
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:42 pm
Well, that definition and contrast is mighty. What did you shoot it with matey?
Here’s a shot of the local town hall. Been there a few hundred years it has….
…and some orange plants.
…there’s plenty more to learn yet. 
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 15, 2012 6:10 pm
Smithy:
For a beginner, as you say you are, you are doing very well. You have good composition, horizantal is perfectly flat,
and I assume you are using the "auto" mode. Your last picture is an example of backlighting getting in the way, which
is almost impossible to correct in an "auto" mode. I think one "F" stop higher would have corrected the overlighting of the orange plants.
Since that camera has complete manual capability and it is digital, it has a provision for aprature priority, note the shutter setting,
and then go to manuel and make one full stop down on the aprature and use that shutter speed. Or, use a spot meter. I think that camera has a built-in one. With complete "auto" you can choose "spot" or "average" metering; when you have a strong backlight, the spot meter with the smallest degree (the amount it measures) is the best way to go.
Keep up the good work. With digital, you can re-shoot. It is different from working with film.
I do better with film because I am used to it. Since I never cared for prints, most of my shots are slides, regular and 3-D.
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 15, 2012 11:41 pm
I forgot that from 1997-2003, when I was in Concord, half the year, I always had two cameras; the Pentax ES for 3-D stereo and the Professional Nikon for prints. All the scans were taken from the prints, untouched, except for the resizing which, originally, were 60 MB apiece; I had to reduce them to 800kb .jpeg format….what a loss in quality they took!
First, here is Franklyn Canyon. These shots remind me of the Appalachian Mountains….
Next, a horse farm:
This small cottage seems surrounded by woods:
In 1998, I was commissioned by Alan Michilan, owner of Renaissance Rialto theater chains, to photograph the Orinda Theater. I selected a few photos from that session. I only used the Nikon Pro camera.
The theater makes a nice contribution to the village’s main street:
Upon entrance, the lobby greets you. Note the designs in the carpet – they are all hand-sewn.
The elegant main auditorium is known for its murials on the walls:
Finally, standing on the stage and looking towards the rear of the auditorium:
I happened to remember I did do a number of photo stills during those years. I am sorry you could not see the photos as they really look;
the details are razor-sharp, in the prints before they were scanned (still are) and only a couple of digital cameras might match it.
LENSES USED: For Franklyn Canyon: 30-80mm Zoom Nikkor stopped down.
For Orinda Theater: 24mm Ultra-Wide Nikkor, stopped down to F16; outdoor village shot is a 50mm Nikkor shot at F-11; Kodacolor film.
13Zebra5, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Sep 16, 2012 4:13 pm
Well, that definition and contrast is mighty. What did you shoot it with matey?
Here’s a shot of the local town hall. Been there a few hundred years it has….
Shot ’em with the D5000, or maybe the D60. Entry level DSLR’s both. That’s the sum total of my gear (well, plus the iPhone).
Cool shot of the town hall. I cannot imagine how cool it would be to live somewhere that has a functional town hall that old.
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Sep 16, 2012 4:55 pm
Smithy: …..I think one "F" stop higher would have corrected the overlighting of the orange plants……
TM thanks for this tip – of course! And for the rest of the post too. And your photographs prove you can practise what you preach too – highly impressive.
Shot ’em with the D5000, or maybe the D60. Entry level DSLR’s both. That’s the sum total of my gear (well, plus the iPhone).
Cool shot of the town hall. I cannot imagine how cool it would be to live somewhere that has a functional town hall that old.
Ah! Not sure the 5000 is really "entry level" mate! You guys have more money to spend on gear than I do, I suspect – or things are much cheaper in the good old US of A! Yes the town hall’s nice – and so is our fantastic Norman Church. Since Prince Charles lives only a little way out of town though, we pay the price in tourist visits, and people wandering around in the roads with Nikon’s….. (Love ’em.)
Here’s my day out in Corsham (just up the road) today. I suspect it’s nice for you guys to see some shots of merry old England (sorry Trav), so that’s what I keep snapping at the moment. I’ll have a techno phase soon! My churchyard shot was inspired by 12Zebra5 – but I couldn’t find anyone dressed as the Grim Reaper to stand in. It’s a tranquil spot though. A bit overcast it was today, so I’ve playing around with exposures. Good fun!
Corsham. "Just another Cotswold Town"
Not a great photo – but the one I took of the chursch was worse.
The grounds of the local Manor house were designed by "Capability Brown". Landscape created by man, in other words.
The landscape is for the benefit of those who live in Corsham Court – which dates from 1582. I expect it’s draughty….
13Zebra5, Subject: Re: Photography Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:51 am
Ah! Not sure the 5000 is really "entry level" mate! You guys have more money to spend on gear than I do, I suspect – or things are much cheaper in the good old US of A! Yes the town hall’s nice – and so is our fantastic Norman Church. Since Prince Charles lives only a little way out of town though, we pay the price in tourist visits, and people wandering around in the roads with Nikon’s….. (Love ’em.)
Oh, yeah…in terms of Nikon DSLR’s, the D5000 is definitely in the entry level range. The newer D3100 and D5100 are better, but are closer to entry level than they are to the other end of the continuum.
Nice shots!
13Zebra5, Subject: Re: Photography Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:59 am
This is from my iPhone. "Riders on the Storm" by The Doors was playing on the radio:
This too loses something in the translation to Photobucket-land. Frustrating.
bentley, Subject: Re: Photography Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:09 am
And this with my cell phone, a $15 pay as you go piece of crap. I just enjoyed the irony.
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 29, 2012 7:35 pm
Bentley – nice irony.
Bought myself a D3100 yesterday from the ‘Bay (while at the bay!) Amazing how Nikons have jumped forward from the D40 I was borrowing. Here are a couple from the coast, then, on the new gear. (New to me. Excellent used kit – just under 4,000 actuations).
Another Smithy chocolate box. I love ’em. This is Christchurch castle (I think!)
One inspired by Zebra’s Riders on the Storm shot (although by no means as good). Tough to capture, though. (And it probably shows).
Other end of the scale – trying to burn the lens.
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:25 pm
Fog over Lake Tahoe.
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:24 pm
Beautiful! I will go back there one day, I’ve promised myself.
And I’ll take more money.
Edit: Here’s the biggest view I could find nearby, to try and repay the compliment.
(I might go back up there when it snows….). It’s taken from "Uley Bury" – iron age hill fort, which dates from 300 BC, apparently.
I took the 18-55 lens, and perhaps I needed a 55-200. It did OK though, I think.
MODERATOR
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:06 pm
Got our little garden statue cleaned and back in place today.
She’s called "Willow". Naturally.
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:02 pm
Smithy:
Congradulations on getting your Nikon D3100 camera. While some may ballk about "entry" level,
I can assure you that it has improvements that were not even on the top-of-the-line Nikon digital
camera of 15 years ago!
Your pictures turned out nice. Your water picture would have perfect with the use of a polarizing filter….
I am sure that camera has threads for filters – they (filters) are not expesive, so I suggest when you can, get one.
The reflections of the water would have been 100% better with a polarizing filter. You "turn" it while you look
in the viewfinder until you get the effect you want. It is also great in saturating picture color.
I lean to film, and wouldn’t be without one on any of my cameras. I don’t know about digital, but Nikon always used 52mm filters.
Let me know if yours is a different size. At least, have a skylight filter. It does not do much( will cut haze), but protect that expensive lens. There is no filter factor for a skylight, so you can probably screw a polarizor right over it. The latter has a 1 to 2-1/2 factor, which your camera adjusts for automatically. I remember the days I used to have to manually compensate for them, in the 1960’s. Also, the polarizing filter does a much better job of cutting haze, glare, reflections, in addition to making the colors richer.
All the pictures I posted had the use of a polarizing filter.
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:11 pm
TM – the 3100 was very cheap! I’ve got to buy another lens, maybe a 55-200 (maybe a 300mm) I’ll see, but it’s SO much better than the D40 that I borrowed even though it’s only two years newer that you must be right, these things are improving all the time. It’s got stabilisation and autofocus in the lens, 14.2 Mb and lots more focus points – unbelievable. (And of course plenty more brains that I have). Oh! And a "Guide" mode, so it tells you what you’re doing wrong, which is handy.
I’ve got a plain lens filter – non polarising – (yes 52mm I think) – merely to protect the lens (there wasn’t one with the camera), but thanks for the tip – it makes perfect sense that you’d get a polarising one and turn it for the correct effect. I’ve already ordered one up and I’ll try it when it gets here. I’ve got another hood coming too, and some stick-ons to protect the screen display.
Nice to get this info "from the horses mouth" – I’ll see if I can show an improvement.
Post some of yours!
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Oct 21, 2012 12:34 pm
Here. Went out to Winchcombe today – Sudeley castle. Beautiful views, lovely architecture, nice castle (blah blah blah).
Here’s one of the boot of my car.
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Oct 21, 2012 1:24 pm
Smithy:
What you now have to protect the lens is a "skylight" filter. It is clear and the main purpose is to take any nicks or whatever
comes toward the camera, so the filter gets damaged – not the lens. They never come with camera. They also help cut through haze.
95% of my pictures are slides, and I have not shot anything for the past five years! Where I am, there is nothing to shoot!
You have a nice camera there – sharp pictures and detail. Of all my cameras, the F-3 Pro Nikon is the hardest to use now as I have not used it, like I say in quite awhile. At my age, I want something to takes good pictures without a 6-year college education an how to use it!
When one is younger, the top-of-the-line is a challange, but it is the photographer, in the end, who makes the difference.
Well, this horse has back problems, so I will go rest! Nice car that you have! Unlike film cameras, when you change lenses, make sure no dust gets on the CMOS, or your camera will not work. I would recommend an air blower, like the type used on computers.
Zamantha, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Oct 21, 2012 1:44 pm
Good taste in cars, Smithy. Grew up with British Cars in my driveway. Love them, Triumphs are a good choice!
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Oct 21, 2012 2:39 pm
Thanks TM – I’ll get something in the way of a blower-thing next. You’re excused from posting photo’s then – but not from correcting mine!
Ah Zam, you know just what to say to a guy about his car! If you’d have been a fan of MG’s, it would have made my life difficult to be sure. (Natural enemies, the Triumph and MG fraternities as you probably know. Although I confess, I’ve owned three MG’s in the past).
That Triumph Spitfire’s changed a bit since I bought it, but it’s always been around and I’ve grown quite fond of it. (I’ve had it 32 years. Shhhhh!)
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Oct 21, 2012 7:37 pm
Oh, Smithy:
I am not correcting your photos – just making suggestions which will improve them.
There is a difference. You are the basics down pretty well. I don’t think any of those digital camera can superimpose, can they?
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:15 pm
TM – I meant "commenting wisely upon", "opining with authority in respect to", ummmm, "offering learned and encouraging wisdom in respect of".
I know you’re not correcting them per se, sirrah – your comments are greatly appreciated.
Re: superimposing – not sure. 
It boasts about something it calls "image overlay" on the web site, for the 3100, but I haven’t read up on it as yet.
You have something funkalicious in mind? I’m all ears.
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:09 pm
Smithy:
Superimposing is a delibrate double exposure for various reasons.
To be successful, the F-Stop of the exposure must be cut in half for each shot and the same shutter speed used. The camera has a setting not to advance the film (in film cameras. I think that is one reason it is impossible to do such a shot in the camera. Labs do it all the time in movies, superimposing credit titlles over the action, only the proces in done in the photo lab. There are
software programs (Abobe) which allow one to do the same. I can superimpose pictures over one another using the program.
I didn’t have anything in mind, but you can use the effect for whatever you want.
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:51 pm
Smithy (and others)
Here is an extreme example of distortion from a super-wide angle lens.
This type of lens (known as a semi-fish-eye) should be used when there is no other method to get your entire subject, in the frame.
BTW, all television camera thrive on distorted wide-angle lenses.
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:33 am
This post does not involve digital camera nor apply: sorry!
Let’s talk about another type of film used in photography: Infrared.
Infrared is the film used in X-Rays. It is also available to the photographer in
black-and-white, color, and color slide film.
The difference between Infrared and other films is: the former is sensitive to heat and not light. Results can be weird and creepy.
The only pictures I have from the top of Mt. Diablo, on a perfect day, was
taken with Infrared Film. I let it sit in the sun for awhile – then placed a polarizing filter on the lens for more strange effects. Here is what I got:
The sky was green, the people were purple with features in various, weird colors, the tree leaves were dark-red with the ground orange, and the rivers were blood-red.
I shot some 3-D photos from the same roll. If anyone was not warned of the
deliberate effects, the person might think he/she was stoned!!!
You might find this interesting. It is not guaranteed, but Infrared, under the right conditions, is capable of filming right through people’s clothes.
Cool down, guys!
For an example of what infrared can do, here is a black-and-white taken at pitch-dark night (remember, Infrared is not sensitive to light) in one of the most famous haunted cemeteries in the country – this picture is perfect for Halloween! Look very closely, and you will see an appiration sitting on one of the checkered gravestones…..
It’s there – look for it!
There is not Infrared capability for digital!
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:19 pm
TM- that’s very very weird!
Here’s my best "harbour" shot from the recent tour.
I had to wait until it was half-lit the way I wanted, then it was 1/200 F3.26 – a longer exposure to take down the movement of the water – and the polarisation adjusted (as advised by TM!) I had to be up early for this shot. But then I was anyway.
I’d photoshop out those cranes perhaps, being fussy, but maybe it’s nice there’s something going on back there.
Here’s a swampland, for contrast:
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:30 pm
Smithy:
Did you find the “apparition” in the infrared picture?
Your pictures are outstanding, in composition, exposure and color rendition.
Here is one thing to keep in mind: there will never be a camera that can match the human eye.
Our eyes adjust to various lighting conditions, color shifting, close and distant scenes, without our
awareness.
Camera have to be adjusted to compensate for all that.
To understand what capabilities your camera has, even though it is digital, you have to know how color film (and black-and-white film) works.
Black and white is easy – it only has one layer of emulsion (silver nitrate that is sensitive to light).
The main concentration on black-and-white film is contrast. Before digital films and programs, there were
filters available to “touch” up contract: red, yellow, blue, green, and even….polarizing (to a limit of mainly, elimination of reflections.
Color film consists of three layers of emulsions – red, yellow and blue.
From those three primary colors, the rest are formed. Here are the important things to keep in mind.
Films that have RED as the controlling emulsion (such as Kodacolor or Kodachrome) are perfect for warm
colors – which includes landscapes, pictures such as you just posted; in other words, “scenic” shots. RED
controlled emulsions were poor for portraits (because of skin color) and flash. (Remember Paul Simon’s song KODACHROME – the green leaves of summer?)
Films that have BLUE as the controlling emulsion (such as EKTACHCHROME-developed by Kodak as a response to a large lawsuit over KODACHROME) tend to favor cooler colors – perfect for winter shots and portraits. Again, because a camera cannot match the human eye, there is no “perfect” film to reproduce everything the eye sees, but most professionals would choose KODACHROME if there were. That was one film that pictures would last for many years and not fade or change colors.
Kodachrome and Kodacolor used the K- process (K-12-14- Kodak was always changing the formula), because only Kodak developed these films, hence the lawsuit. All color film today have BLUE as the controlling process and use the C-6 or C-22 process, meaning even you could develop them at home – the chemicals are available.
What does the above have to do with digital – plenty!
Although digital does not make you choose between film emulsions and what colors they lean to, you can
adjust your camera to lean to red or blue. The three primary colors apply to digital as well as film and you have an additional “white balance control” (mostly done automatically by your camera), which sort of adjusts this color tint. In addition, you have a wide variety of choices of
"scenic" "Portrait" and so forth on a rotating wheel, which serves to shift color control from warm to cool.
(Infrared cannot be used in digital because it is sensative to heat – not light).
While digital allows for the adjusting of color shifts, whether warm or cool colors, it still does not compare to the human eye. Still, many professional photographers (who make their living by taking pictures) prefer the professional Nikon film cameras – there are so many effects available with film, not possible with digital – like double exposure, infrared, lap dissolves, time-exposure.
Still, digital has come a long way since its introduction and has replaced film for the consumer industry.
One might call digital “Polaroid” perfected, meaning Polaroid was the first film camera which developed its pictures in 60 seconds, although film quality was questioned, and later tended to fade badly – to nothing!
Digital is all that, with much better photos and the ability to delete and replace a bad or unwanted photo –
try doing that with film!
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:14 am
TM – thanks for those kind – and also very helpful – comments!
I need to go through the pre-select functions on this camera of mine now and find out what they’re all for, and what differences they actually make. I’ve already started logging the settings and having a think about what they imply. It makes perfect sense that colour balance is affected when you go from "pictures of faces" to landscapes and so on, now you’ve given me that explanation. Thanks again.
In respect to "effects", my camera will allow you to take double exposures and different time-exposures (including a "bulb" setting which I’ve been trying out hooked up to my friends telescope, which is fun.).
I fully understand your comments re: films versus digital though. I can remember dealing with photo-journalists when digital photography was just coming in, and they said "it will never be like the real thing!" back then…. Probably still true as yet!
Re:
Smithy:
Did you find the “apparition” in the infrared picture?
No! I had to go to the web site it references and look there – and I’m a bit cynical about it as yet.
My new-found knowledge leads me to believe it might be an accidental (or otherwise) double exposure.
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:11 pm
Smithy:
I doubt it, but the appariation could have been inserted by a lab. The exposure was a night – remember infrared film
is not effected by light, but heat.
Most journalists now use digital, including sports. There are die-hards, of course, especially the professionals, whose living depends of photography, but the day is coming, I think, when digital will come close.
I am surprised you can do double-exposures and time exposures – just goes to show how technology has advanced in a short time.
No wonder Eastman Kodak is hurting! I would like to see digital be able to be printed on a transparent
paper to produce slides, more specific, 3-D slides that I can place in 35mm mounts for stereo pictures.
I am sure that will happen someday as well. It has more to do with printing paper than the cameras.
Any 49mm or 52mm filter-sized camera will take my stereo adapter.
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:57 am
Smithy:
I doubt it, but the appariation could have been inserted by a lab. The exposure was a night – remember infrared film
is not effected by light, but heat.
Good point. It couldn’t it be exposed twice, the second time with her there to provide a heat source then? Hmmm.
Say, who knew ghosts were hot? Interesting!
I have some time today, I’ll do some effect stuff I think, see what I can come up with.
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Thu Nov 22, 2012 7:57 pm
You know, Smithy, you have a very good camera. It is quite flexible, has a lot of features.
Sure, there are more expensive models, but most of those are designed for the pro or semi-pro.
If you don’t mind my saying so, I would recommend collecting NIKON lenses as you are able instead
of thinking of another camera in the future (not that you are). Having a variety of fixed focal lengths
(serious photographers are not that crazy about zoom lenses) can help you get all kinds of shots.
Consider a set of bellows, if they are available. Macro is good, but does not compare with bellows for
extreme close-ups.
These accessories will work on any Nikon model. My Nikon lenses for the professional F3, will work with
a Nikon digital camera.
Your camera is capable of providing enlargements, at least to 16 X 20, which is large enough for anyone,
I would think.
Seagull, Subject: Re: Photography Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:53 pm
Amanita muscaria just breaking through the redwood duff
Amanita muscaria with a few days growth, they get quite large and I hope to take more pix as they grow. They are not fully above ground so taking a side view of them isn’t possible just yet.
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Photography Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:00 pm
Oooh neat Seagull! Is that a form of mushroom? Love the bright red coloring!
Seagull, Subject: Re: Photography Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:08 pm
Yes, it’s a mushroom. Common name Fly Agaric. It is said when mixed with milk it will stupify houseflies. It is posionous, causing delirium, raving and profuse sweating but unlike its Siberian relative it induces no visions. Some mushrooms are absolutely beautiful with brilliant colors.
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Photography Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:47 pm
It’s really awesome! Are you going to try the fly experiment?
Seagull, Subject: Re: Photography Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:52 pm
Well, it would be nice if the mushrooms grew in the summer when there are flies, I might try it! The flies are pretty much gone now.
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:16 pm
Wow! Pretty!
We’ve had another really wet Summer over here, and suddenly, lots of mushrooms. Here’s a composite of some large patches of them which remained unidentified. Lot’s of my so-called "friends" were encouraging me to eat them. I didn’t. Never seen them around before. (In 30 years in the area…).
Seagull, Subject: Re: Photography Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:21 pm
Nice Smithy! There are so many of them it looks like they are having a mushroom convention! ID’g mushrooms can be tough and it’s always prudent to err on the side of caution with them. I hope you told your friends to try them first!
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Photography Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:53 pm
I shot these last night. Brightest I have ever seen the moon. Jupiter is the planet in the photo. Look up tonight if you have no clouds!! Just beautiful!
Seagull, Subject: Re: Photography Thu Nov 29, 2012 8:37 pm
Wow, what a cool picture!
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:24 pm
Very nice photos, T-27 – did you use time exposure?
Also, for those of you who have a telescope – is there an adapter to attach your digital camera to? I have one for my Pro-Nikon F3.
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Photography Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:46 pm
TM–Nope, just "zoom" on my Canon Powershot SD950 IS.
Who’d a thunk I could zoom in closer to Jupiter! lol
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:02 pm
T-27:
You could zoom very close to Jupiter with the camera connected to a powerful telescope, but you would need a cable release because, at that power, any
hand motion on the shutter button would blur the picture.
Digitals should be able to connect to telescopes – the bayonet lens mount for Nikon is the same for film and digitals – I am sure that applies to Canon, but Canon does not have nearly the accessories that Nikon offers – you would need a 52mm mount adaptor and provisions for a cable release. The adapter, itself,
would work on any camera with a 52mm mount.
But, if your camera is not a DSLR, it won’t work. Very incredible shots for a hand-held picture, or did you use a tripod?
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Photography Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:27 pm
This is the camera I used….freehand. It does have an image stabilizer, but when you zoom so much, it’s usually pretty shakey!
doranchak, Subject: Re: Photography Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:37 pm
Here’s a photo I took of the moon a while back, using a crude DSLR+telescope rig:
And my fuzzy attempt at a Jupiter photo:
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:42 pm
T-27:
Very impressive of what you were able to do!!!!
Doranchak:
Did you use a cable shutter release?
doranchak, Subject: Re: Photography Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:46 pm
I didn’t buy the shutter release until after those photos. So, basically I just used a tripod and some slow breathing exercises.
morf13, Subject: Re: Photography Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:45 am
The view from my hunting spot today,taken with my Iphone….sunrise, and 32 degrees, a perfect hunting day beginning
morf13, Subject: Re: Photography Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:58 am
Here’s an old photo that my trail camera took a few years ago in a nearby hunting area. Its motion activated,so I mostly got Deer pics,but then I got this one that flat out creeps me out. What do you think?
First one, you can see a deer at night:
Now here is the same camera, in the same spot, a daytime photo:
In the pic above, you can see no animals, only a mist of fog. But look closely:
Do these look like faces in the mist to you???
It’s probably some opticial illusion, at least I hope it was, but I really got freaked out when I saw these
tahoe27, Subject: Re: Photography Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:30 pm
"Casper…the friendly ghost!"
I see faces in everything!
morf13, Subject: Re: Photography Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:27 pm
"Casper…the friendly ghost!"
I see faces in everything!
I dont, people try to get me to see stuff and I cant,but these jumped right out at me:
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:42 pm
Morf:
Your deer picture with eyes lit up……..
that was a result of the flash hitting it head on – I am surprised you did not have "red eye" which is actually blood from the eye reflecting.
I was not aware there were "motion-activated" cameras. Good for front-yard protection.
I am sure the other "faces" are optical illusions.
13Zebra5, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:42 am
Snapshot with the iPhone, groceries in one hand, phone in the other. Dark, deserted back part of supermarket lot late at night, a lone shopping cart under a light.
Because of the lighting conditions, the iPhone shot this at ISO 1000, which is pretty noisy on that camera.
.
Seagull, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:21 pm
Nice impromptu shot Zebra! That shopping cart looks so lonesome that I want to hug it!
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:15 pm
Beautiful, Zebra. I’ve nothing of value to add that I’ve taken recently – too busy! But here’s a snap I took out walking today. It’s the Sapperton stretch of a now disused (and obviously overgrown) canal. I’m hoping they’ll restore it one day.
13Zebra5, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:34 pm
Nice impromptu shot Zebra! That shopping cart looks so lonesome that I want to hug it!
Thank you, Seagull. It was an eerie atmosphere back there. The cart was obviously just left by an earlier shopper, but one could easily conjure images of some kind of dark scenario having occurred (I watch too many movies).
Beautiful, Zebra. I’ve nothing of value to add that I’ve taken recently – too busy! But here’s a snap I took out walking today. It’s the Sapperton stretch of a now disused (and obviously overgrown) canal. I’m hoping they’ll restore it one day.
Cool. Hey, here’s something I’ve always wondered about the UK: Do people fish in canals like that? If so, what do they catch? The whole subject of freshwater fishing over there is perplexing to me; "rough" fish, which seem to include some species considered game fish over here, fishermen wearing tweed fly casting for Atlantic salmon, that sort of thing. I’m willing to bet that I labor under many misconceptions.
13Zebra5, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:42 pm
Check out the upper right quandrant of this one and tell me if you see it:
.
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:32 pm
I see it alright.
Is it a gorilla, you think? Such great colours in that shot – I still have plenty to learn and to try out.
Re: fishing – yes, canals that still have a decent level of water and perhaps a flow of sorts are often fished, for carp, tench and barbel I’d suppose. Fly fisherman are more likely to be found in locations where there’s faster-flowing water I reckon, fishing for salmon, yes (in expensive Scottish locations, where you need to know somebody or be somebody to have the privilege of fishing there) aye aye, or perhaps pike. Forgive me, I know very little about it, really.
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:21 pm
Interesting last shot you posted, Smithy, but your backlight problem ruined the picture.
You have good composure, vertical parallex, but remember that when there are brighter colors in the background,
you can choose a spot meter reading, if available, or stop down an F stop or two for compensation.
That shopping cart picture is interesting – at ASA (or now, ISO 1000), ANY picture taking under those conditions is going to be grainy.
I have found that Kodak B & W Tri-X or Plus-X at ASA 250 tends to be grainy and unsuitable for enlargements.
Lower speed film, unless time exposure, will not get the shot under those conditions, while higher speed film, or sensitivity will, but means
no satisfactory enlargements. I suppose you have to pick your poison. Again proof that cameras, film or digital, are not like the human eye.
smithy, Subject: Re: Photography Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:06 am
Interesting last shot you posted, Smithy, but your backlight problem ruined the picture.
All true TM – but since it wasn’t the Nikon, it was a phone shot. my problem was that I didn’t take a decent camera! Fail!
trainmaster, Subject: Re: Photography Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:12 pm
Well, Smithy – not bad for a phone camera!
You have a great camera! I’m talking about the Nikon !
20 years ago, all this technology was science fiction – how things progress fast!
traveller1st, Subject: Re: Photography Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:37 pm
Interesting last shot you posted, Smithy, but your backlight problem ruined the picture.
All true TM – but since it wasn’t the Nikon, it was a phone shot. my problem was that I didn’t take a decent camera! Fail!
I’ve taken some of my best shots when I didn’t have a camera or a phone with me. I’m sure I’m getting something wrong there though.
“I don’t know Chief, he’s very smart or very dumb.“
Some accidental lighting
Some other random shots.
“I don’t know Chief, he’s very smart or very dumb.“
