ZapperZ's Great Outdoors Photo Contest

[Andy Resnick]

I took this yesterday- it's titled "F U Winter".

[PLAIN]http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/6161/dsc46301.jpg

 

[nismaratwork]

Whoa... i love the detail in the veins of the leaf at the top left. Don't get me wrong, the whole thing is a great picture, with a fun theme... something about that leaf though... it's like an impaled and fallen giant.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Thanks for the kind words- here's a 1:1 crop of the leaf-

[PLAIN]http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/5439/dsc46302.jpg

Here's the full frame, for reference:

[PLAIN]http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/3782/dsc46303.jpg

 

[nismaratwork]

Thanks for the kind words- here's a 1:1 crop of the leaf-

[PLAIN]http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/5439/dsc46302.jpg

Here's the full frame, for reference:

[PLAIN]http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/3782/dsc46303.jpg[/QUOTE]

There's something really beautiful about that leaf...thanks Andy.

I love how the composting leves also produce JUST enough warmth to begin to drive away the snow, and allow new growth. Nature... never ceasing to amaze since... um... before my time.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Did anyone else get any good images of the 'super perigee' moon this weekend?

[PLAIN]http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3015/p10201101.jpg

(taken with our travel camera)

 

[nismaratwork]

Ooooohh... I didn't even know it was happening, but it explains why I turned into a werewolf so quickly...

If that's a shot with a travel camera, I'd love to know what it looks like through a long-exposure shot at high res.

 

[Andy Resnick]

You should not use a long exposure for the moon- the moon is actually very easy to shoot; since it's sunlit, use the same camera settings for daylight.

On the travel camera, I simply set both focus and exposure metering to the dead-center setting, the result is the pic above.

But yeah- now I'm lusting over a 400mm lens w/ a 2X expander:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/93/263702718_fefaa8de39.jpg

 

[nismaratwork]

You should not use a long exposure for the moon- the moon is actually very easy to shoot; since it's sunlit, use the same camera settings for daylight.

On the travel camera, I simply set both focus and exposure metering to the dead-center setting, the result is the pic above.

But yeah- now I'm lusting over a 400mm lens w/ a 2X expander:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/93/263702718_fefaa8de39.jpg

Oooh... I didn't know that, thanks Andy, and thanks for the amazing pics.

Now... get that lens, you don't need food or HVAC.. lenses...

 

[Borek]

you don't need food or HVAC.. lenses...

You got it right.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

A friend sent this, and I thought it worth posting, seems this male bird is suppressing the females protests by taking action on his own:

Here is the caption on the image that I received:

When a male can't take it anymore:

(a photographer can die of old age waiting for a shot like this!)

Rhody...

Wow!

 

[nismaratwork]

I showed that one to some relatives, and the response was jaw-dropping awe.

That is a photo is something truly special.

 

[Borek]

It is everywhere, check with tineye.

 

[Andre]

That is a photo is something truly special.

Maybe so, but the question is what is so special with the magical photoshop powers nowadays.

Or am I too skeptic?

 

[nismaratwork]

Maybe so, but the question is what is so special with the magical photoshop powers nowadays.

Or am I too skeptic?

It doesn't look like it, and from a bit of research this is part of mating behaviour.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Oooh... I didn't know that, thanks Andy, and thanks for the amazing pics.

Now... get that lens, you don't need food or HVAC.. lenses...

You got it right.

I got some great news today, so I'm going shopping! Or rather, I'm making the purchasing department go shopping for me, since they prefer paperwork to common sense...

 

[nismaratwork]

I got some great news today, so I'm going shopping! Or rather, I'm making the purchasing department go shopping for me, since they prefer paperwork to common sense...

Someone is getting lenses... WhhhooooooOOOOoooooo.

 

[drizzle]

A friend sent this, and I thought it worth posting, seems this male bird is suppressing the females protests by taking action on his own:

Here is the caption on the image that I received:

When a male can't take it anymore:

(a photographer can die of old age waiting for a shot like this!)

Rhody...

WOW JUST WOW!
Man you can win any related photo contest... But what would the subject be?

Edit: ops, just read it's been sent by your friend. Great shot indeed.

 

[rhody]

This one cracks me up, can you say... in the stratosphere...

Rhody... whoosh...

 

[turbo]

This one cracks me up, can you say... in the stratosphere...

Rhody... whoosh...

Perfect!

 

[Andy Resnick]

I took the ultrawide and went for a stroll this weekend- it's a manual lens, so everything was done old-skool. One of the advantages of digital is the ability to immediately know if the exposure is too light or dark, and compensate for it right there. The metering had some trouble with this field of view- often I was shooting at exposures of -1 or even -2 to get the histogram where it should be.

It started off poorly when this fellow and I surprised each other:

[PLAIN]http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/7843/dsc6337.jpg

I was about 20 feet away and we watched each other for about 10 minutes, me snapping off frames the whole time. Why do I say 'poorly'? Here's the full frame:

[PLAIN]http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/7213/dsc63371.jpg

Clearly, ultrawides are not suited for animal photos. Even so, it was a useful exercise in manual photography and also learning that (some) wild animals will tolerate someone reasonably close. After I got over what the lens *couldn't* do (and a few mumbled oaths about Andre and his zoom lenses , I was able to think about what the lens *could* do. Ultrawides exaggerate depth- long objects appear shortened and short objects appear lengthened. For example, here's two photos of trees- I'm looking up, the camera is nearly touching the trunk:

[PLAIN]http://img864.imageshack.us/img864/7960/dsc6257.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/5453/dsc6243q.jpg

The trees are quite normal- it's the depth perspective that has altered, making them appear short and stumpy. You can also see my hand and the lens cap in the frame- I'm trying to block the sun glare from creating those blue blobs. Alternatively, here's a shot through a hollow trunk, the length of which was maybe 6 feet:

[PLAIN]http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/4237/dsc6355j.jpg

I'm closer than 1 foot from the trunk, and the warped perspective makes the trunk appear as a long tunnel. The key to using a lens like this is to get *close* and *low*:

[PLAIN]http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/7758/dsc6353.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img863.imageshack.us/img863/4248/dsc6268.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/7194/dsc6273.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/507/dsc6274x.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/1308/dsc6367.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5072/dsc6371f.jpg

Those last two images were taken inside some sort of lean-to structure (there's nature classes that make these things all year long). There was barely enough room for me to crouch down and crawl in- if the ground wasn't so muddy, I would have laid down and shot directly up. I wasn't even looking through the viewfinder- not enough room. As it was, I came home all dirty and muddy. But the images make the interior seem spacious.

Two things to notice: the horizon tends to seek the middle of the frame, and when lines come in from the corners, the image appears 'better'.

[PLAIN]http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/4305/dsc6377n.jpg

It's really hard to get the horizon to move if it's anywhere near the central third- the image appears unbalanced otherwise. Using an ultrawide for landscapes, it's critical that some object be in the foreground to anchor the image:

[PLAIN]http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/1439/dsc6365x.jpg

Otherwise, the image is really empty becasue there's nothing to focus on:

[PLAIN]http://img806.imageshack.us/img806/3020/dsc6259j.jpg

but it's also good for sweeping skies. Here, it's really important to keep the horizon in the frame:

[PLAIN]http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/7716/dsc6264.jpg

The objects basically serve as a 'scale bar'. If you cover up the ground, it's impossible to tell how much area the sky is covering: the image could have been taken with *any* focal length lens- which defeats the purpose of having an ultrawide! Another bonus of this lens, the lens tends to make the image more blue at the corners, so sky and water appear extra-saturated if they run along the edges of the frame.

It's been raining for 2 weeks- if the weather gets better for next weekend, I'll probably do the same stroll except with the 400mm.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Cute, rhody!
And Andy's photos reminds me a little of this artist with interesting perspective:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Arts/Out...eal-and-sublime/2005/06/08/1118123897366.html

 

[Andy Resnick]

I checked out some of Robinson's work- it's oddly interesting (just like what I post here, except for the 'interesting' :) Thanks!

 

[Astronuc]

I took the ultrawide and went for a stroll this weekend- it's a manual lens, so everything was done old-skool. One of the advantages of digital is the ability to immediately know if the exposure is too light or dark, and compensate for it right there. The metering had some trouble with this field of view- often I was shooting at exposures of -1 or even -2 to get the histogram where it should be.

It started off poorly when this fellow and I surprised each other:

[PLAIN]http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/7843/dsc6337.jpg

I was about 20 feet away and we watched each other for about 10 minutes, me snapping off frames the whole time. Why do I say 'poorly'? Here's the full frame:

[PLAIN]http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/7213/dsc63371.jpg

Clearly, ultrawides are not suited for animal photos. Even so, it was a useful exercise in manual photography and also learning that (some) wild animals will tolerate someone reasonably close. After I got over what the lens *couldn't* do (and a few mumbled oaths about Andre and his zoom lenses , I was able to think about what the lens *could* do. Ultrawides exaggerate depth- long objects appear shortened and short objects appear lengthened. For example, here's two photos of trees- . . .

Wow that's amazing camouflage. Spending 10 minutes close to a hawk is pretty cool.

I had one fly right over my head yesterday. I wish that I'd had my camera.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I wasn't outside for this, but here's another example of using an ultrawide- remember, get *close* and *low*:

[PLAIN]http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/2479/dsc5991g.jpg

It's the bottom step of a staircase.

It's been so windy lately, the local windmills are all turned off- those should give nicely "warped" images, especially using long exposures to get some motion blur.

As a semi-random question, has anyone here had any experience using Hydrogen-alpha filters?

 

[rhody]

Self explanatory: Panda Butt, sent to me by a friend:

Rhody...

 

[drizzle]

Oh, that's so cute :)

 

[Andy Resnick]

Went for a stroll with the 400mm this weekend, here's a few pics:

[PLAIN]http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/8796/dsc6470t.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/1189/dsc6472x.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/4438/dsc6476w.jpg

It's not ideal for small, nervous animals- they move too fast, and the lens is not particularly agile: big, heavy, manual focus. It's much more suited for stationary objects. Telephotos compress the image in depth- the opposite of retrofocus (wide angle) lenses, and so they render rows of objects particularly well:

[PLAIN]http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/2912/dsc6477.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/7132/dsc6503b.jpg

What's also nice about this lens is the potential to exploit the depth of field: for the squirrel image, the DOF was approximately 1 inch (the nose is out of focus while the body is in focus).

Really, the lens needs to work with objects about a mile away- at f/2.8, the hyperfocal distance is 6200 feet. This means wide-open spaces or cityscapes.

There was one clear night for viewing, here's a crop (800mm f/5.6, 1/10s, ISO 100) showing Mizar A & B which are separated by 14 arcseconds:

[PLAIN]http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/9981/dsc64471.jpg

I counted 12 pixels between the two.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Crescent moon last night:

[PLAIN]http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/2646/dsc66152.jpg

100% crop:

[PLAIN]http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/7186/dsc66151.jpg

 

[Andy Resnick]

Saturn and Titan (I think) at 300%:

[PLAIN]http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/6958/dsc6751.jpg

And (a piece of) the moon again...

[PLAIN]http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/5785/dsc6749k.jpg

 

[Gokul43201]

Getting intimate with Baraboo Quartzite on a lovely Sunday afternoon (pictures obviously not taken by me):

 

[rhody]

Japanese flowering Cherry Trees (backyard) full bloom, before sunset, medium wind:

Wind blurred blossoms in back, nice effect...

Rhody...

 

[dlgoff]

Japanese flowering Cherry Trees (backyard) full bloom, before sunset, medium wind:...

Beautiful. Now I want one. How long does it take to get a tree blooming like that. i.e. What is their growing rate. I'm too lazy to research it right now...too many beers maybe.

 

[rhody]

Beautiful. Now I want one. How long does it take to get a tree blooming like that. i.e. What is their growing rate. I'm too lazy to research it right now...too many beers maybe.

Don,

These trees are about 26 years old planted 30 feet apart, their foliage spreads to a diameter of about 20 feet, which makes for a nice natural fence from the neighbors houses. When I put them in the ground they were only about 10 feet tall and they didn't blossom till about the 4th or 5th year if I remember correctly, blooms last about two weeks or so, then I mow them over twice for three mowings and all the petals are absorbed in the soil, no raking. I warn you, do not plant near your house the roots spread and seek moisture. They can attack your foundation, or water pipes, like whispering willows. I have had to trim the same kind of tree in front because of that, it kind of has a bansai look to it now, will post a picture of it soon. The roots can do a number on your mower too, so plan on raising and lowering the deck of your tractor and use a trimmer. They are pretty tough, lived through a hurricane, class 2+ about 12 years ago, and withstood an onslaught of japanese beatles. That's it, have another beer on me, hehe.

Rhody...

 

[dlgoff]

These trees are about 26 years old planted 30 feet apart, their foliage spreads to a diameter of about 20 feet, which makes for a nice natural fence from the neighbors houses.

Well, I won't plant any since I probably won't live long enough to see them full grown like yours.

I warn you, do not plant near your house the roots spread and seek moisture. They can attack your foundation, or water pipes, like whispering willows.

I know what you mean about problem roots. Years ago I planted a apricot tree that didn't survive but I left the root stock (plumb root) to grow into a tree that I now really regret. Damn thing puts up new tree starts 100 feet away. I keep threatening to cut it down but even so, I'll be fighting the root system for years.

 

[lisab]

Getting intimate with Baraboo Quartzite on a lovely Sunday afternoon (pictures obviously not taken by me):

You mean you couldn't find the stairs on the other side of the cliff ?