Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Capturing a Killer...Worth a Look... (Hey Bret!)

Reply
Thread Tools

Capturing a Killer...Worth a Look... (Hey Bret!)

 
 
JohnR66
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2006

"Rita ─ Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Annika1980 wrote:
>
>>> Plus, you never did take the time to thank him for teaching you how
>>> to "zoom with your feet" even though you had a zoom on. Anyway,
>>> good job, I'm proud of you.

>>
>> I think Mark has taken the term "zoom with your feet" to new heights!
>> I knew all those years being raised in that South American jungle
>> would someday pay off. Perhaps I shall change Mark's name from "PW"
>> to "Monkey Boy."
>> "Monkey Boy Morgan' .... kinda has a nice ring to it.

>
> Yep! Mark did really well getting close on this one. I would say that
> he's
> probably about 25' or less away.
>
>> Nice pics, BTW. Next time you climb a tree, crank up the ISO and
>> crank down on the flash. This might have been a good time to show
>> off the 5D's high-ISO performance. The natural lighting might have
>> produced some interesting effects. Did you really shimmy up that tree
>> with a 5D, a 70-200 f/2.8L IS, and an external flash? Man, that's
>> dedication! Might get you in the Canon Hall of Fame.

>
> That was my first thought after I seeing the harsh shadowing from having
> the
> flash mounted on camera. He should have taken a few ISO 800 shots without
> any flash as this most likely would have been amazing with natural light.
> Of course, he probably could have had some nice fill flash using that
> homemade rubbing alcohol bottle diffuser. Anyway, great shots Mark.
>

Looks like the bird was in poor lighting. Without flash, it probably would
have blown the background. I would have tried -1 on the flash though. Still
great shots!
John



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2006
Use a better newsreader.

--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

"John McWilliams" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
: Joan wrote:
: > Damn good shots Mark!
: >
: Joan, if you would be so kind as to trim your replies, the rest of
us
: wouldn't have to scroll three pages to get to the next post.
:
: --
: john mcwilliams

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2006

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Mark▓" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
> > Ended up ruining my shirt and getting leg-cramps while climbing the tree he
> > sat in, but wouldn't have missed this for anything... Ended up an amazing
> > 5-6 feet away through the whole thing...at eye-level.

>
> Amazing shots, well worth a shirt and some cramps.


The kind the nature shows on TV cut out so the kiddies don't see them.
Truly awesome.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark▓
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2006
David Littlewood wrote:
> In article <h2sNg.12321$c07.6997@fed1read04>, Mark▓
> <mjmorgan@cox.?.net.invalid> writes
>> I'm sure this will never happen again this way...
>>
>> Went to the beach to discover a flock of crows dive-bombing a
>> tree-top. Why? They were after this guy... Though not sure why,
>> since he wasn't eating...a crow...
>> -Ran back to the condo in my bathing suit to grab my camera...
>>
>> Ended up ruining my shirt and getting leg-cramps while climbing the
>> tree he sat in, but wouldn't have missed this for anything... Ended
>> up an amazing 5-6 feet away through the whole thing...at eye-level.
>>

> [snip]
>
> Really impressive shots Mark - a credit to the photographer, the
> camera and the lens. Were you using the 70-200 f/2.8 IS?
>
> Interesting that the exif information says "no flash used" - you would
> think it would be clever enough to detect an external flash. I do
> wonder if Bret's comment is a good one - would have been worth trying
> 400 ISO and no flash, but of course we don't know what the light was
> like. I know I have been amazed at the high-ISO performance of the 5D.
>
> David


Ya...that was something I might have done differently. Not sure what's up
with the exif (didn't look at that on Pbase), as there difinitely was flash.
But these shots did exactly what I wanted them to do.
My thinking while dangling in the tree-top was that I really wanted to avoid
the intermittent splashing of horribly-bright sunlight spots, which were
poking through in various places. If you've ever tried capturing a
forest-floor scene where you're in heavy shade...but with pockets of bright
sun...then you know how it's basically impossible to capture without
hideously blown-out spots of light all over your image. -That's why
over-cast days are perfect for forest under-growth shooting. But
anyway...to avoid this, I chose to deemphasize the dependance on ambient
light so that these overly-bright spots would be minimized. As it turns
out...it worked exactly as I meant for it to.

What I most wanted to capture was the detail. The ISO 50 was actually a
goof. I thought I was on 100 (which is why the 5D should have included
current ISO in the viewfinder at all times, rather than just while you're
changing it).

These shots served the purpose I had for them--which was to capture the
detail in the bird and his activities. When viewed at full-resolution, the
detail in many of these shots is truly stunning. Are these images perfect in
EVERY sense? No. But they are a very detailed and clear look into what is
usually a very distant activity...which we tend to see in shadowed, blurry
or obscured images.



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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark▓
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2006
Rita ─ Berkowitz wrote:
> Annika1980 wrote:
>
>>> Plus, you never did take the time to thank him for teaching you how
>>> to "zoom with your feet" even though you had a zoom on. Anyway,
>>> good job, I'm proud of you.

>>
>> I think Mark has taken the term "zoom with your feet" to new heights!
>> I knew all those years being raised in that South American jungle
>> would someday pay off. Perhaps I shall change Mark's name from "PW"
>> to "Monkey Boy."
>> "Monkey Boy Morgan' .... kinda has a nice ring to it.

>
> Yep! Mark did really well getting close on this one. I would say
> that he's probably about 25' or less away.


I was 5 to 6 feet away, max.

>> Nice pics, BTW. Next time you climb a tree, crank up the ISO and
>> crank down on the flash. This might have been a good time to show
>> off the 5D's high-ISO performance. The natural lighting might have
>> produced some interesting effects. Did you really shimmy up that tree
>> with a 5D, a 70-200 f/2.8L IS, and an external flash? Man, that's
>> dedication! Might get you in the Canon Hall of Fame.

>
> That was my first thought after I seeing the harsh shadowing from
> having the flash mounted on camera. He should have taken a few ISO
> 800 shots without any flash as this most likely would have been
> amazing with natural light. Of course, he probably could have had
> some nice fill flash using that homemade rubbing alcohol bottle
> diffuser. Anyway, great shots Mark.


See my post to David for my rationale on that...
There are always better ways to do just about anything.
The other factor was that I realized that at ANY point in that series, he
could fly away with his dinner, adn that would be it. I never imagined that
I could keep shooting this way. I was SO close that if I'd had a butterfly
net, I could have caught him... No kidding (though it would have to be
one big...tough butterfly net...

As to zooming with my feet (as you still seem to feel I've never heard
of...), I've been doing that as necessary for many years. Here's an example
of when I found myself chasing a porcupine in Alaska with only a 35mm lens
on my camera. He climbed into a bush that hung over a (literal) CLIFF...and
I was shooting from a distance of only 1.5-2 FEET away:
http://upload.pbase.com/image/66768074/original

"Zoom with my feet?" Thanks for the...um..."help."

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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark▓
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2006
JohnR66 wrote:
> "Rita ─ Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Annika1980 wrote:
>>
>>>> Plus, you never did take the time to thank him for teaching you how
>>>> to "zoom with your feet" even though you had a zoom on. Anyway,
>>>> good job, I'm proud of you.
>>>
>>> I think Mark has taken the term "zoom with your feet" to new
>>> heights! I knew all those years being raised in that South American
>>> jungle would someday pay off. Perhaps I shall change Mark's name
>>> from "PW" to "Monkey Boy."
>>> "Monkey Boy Morgan' .... kinda has a nice ring to it.

>>
>> Yep! Mark did really well getting close on this one. I would say
>> that he's
>> probably about 25' or less away.
>>
>>> Nice pics, BTW. Next time you climb a tree, crank up the ISO and
>>> crank down on the flash. This might have been a good time to show
>>> off the 5D's high-ISO performance. The natural lighting might have
>>> produced some interesting effects. Did you really shimmy up that
>>> tree with a 5D, a 70-200 f/2.8L IS, and an external flash? Man,
>>> that's dedication! Might get you in the Canon Hall of Fame.

>>
>> That was my first thought after I seeing the harsh shadowing from
>> having the
>> flash mounted on camera. He should have taken a few ISO 800 shots
>> without any flash as this most likely would have been amazing with
>> natural light. Of course, he probably could have had some nice fill
>> flash using that homemade rubbing alcohol bottle diffuser. Anyway,
>> great shots Mark.

> Looks like the bird was in poor lighting. Without flash, it probably
> would have blown the background.


Yes. They would have indeed been totally blown out. Not only would the
background have been HORRIBLY blown, but the bird would have been
interrupted with spots of blown-out sunlight as it peeked through the tree.
For the challenge the scene presented, my compromise worked.

People love to make declarations about scenes they weren't confronted
with...

Nothing new there...
That said...there is ALWAYS room for improvement...and second-guessing.
I do that to myself, so I don't mind the commentary. Some things could have
been done differently. It's just that people often are unaware of factors
in the scene that prevented the successful application of some of their
suggestions.

>I would have tried -1 on the flash
> though.


Actually, most of these were -1/3 to -2/3 on the flash.

>Still great shots!


Thanks.
Sometimes the "shot" exists because you worked to get it...


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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2006
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:49:47 +1000, in rec.photo.digital "Joan"
<(E-Mail Removed)2> wrote:

>Use a better newsreader.


While I agree John needs to either learn to use another control on his
newreader to jump to the next article, or get a better one of scrolling is
the only control in his current one, it would be courteous of you to trim
your quoted portion of material, especially when making one line replies to
long posts.
--
Ed Ruf ((E-Mail Removed))
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2006


> That said...there is ALWAYS room for improvement...and second-guessing.
> I do that to myself, so I don't mind the commentary. Some things could
> have been done differently. It's just that people often are unaware of
> factors in the scene that prevented the successful application of some of
> their suggestions.
>
>>I would have tried -1 on the flash
>> though.

>
> Actually, most of these were -1/3 to -2/3 on the flash.
>
>>Still great shots!

>
> Thanks.
> Sometimes the "shot" exists because you worked to get it...


Pity you did not try a few with the higher ISO and no flash for comparison!


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark▓
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2006
Pete D wrote:
>> That said...there is ALWAYS room for improvement...and
>> second-guessing. I do that to myself, so I don't mind the
>> commentary. Some things could have been done differently. It's
>> just that people often are unaware of factors in the scene that
>> prevented the successful application of some of their suggestions.
>>
>>> I would have tried -1 on the flash
>>> though.

>>
>> Actually, most of these were -1/3 to -2/3 on the flash.
>>
>>> Still great shots!

>>
>> Thanks.
>> Sometimes the "shot" exists because you worked to get it...

>
> Pity you did not try a few with the higher ISO and no flash for
> comparison!


I don't need to shoot that to know that the high-bright sun-lit sand in the
background would have been blown. There isn't any question about that. It's
easy enough to check. -Just find a bush in complete shade, with a high-sun,
light-colored background peeking through...and shoot to expose the shade. A
million $$ says your bright background will be severely blown.

No question.

One factor in my shooting variation (or lack of) was that for all I knew...I
only had one shot's worth of time left in this opportunity. He could have
"flown the coop" at any moment...

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


 
Reply With Quote
 
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2006
Mark▓ wrote:

>> Yep! Mark did really well getting close on this one. I would say
>> that he's probably about 25' or less away.

>
> I was 5 to 6 feet away, max.


Got it. I had someone talking to me this morning when I read your post and
missed that.

>> That was my first thought after I seeing the harsh shadowing from
>> having the flash mounted on camera. He should have taken a few ISO
>> 800 shots without any flash as this most likely would have been
>> amazing with natural light. Of course, he probably could have had
>> some nice fill flash using that homemade rubbing alcohol bottle
>> diffuser. Anyway, great shots Mark.

>
> See my post to David for my rationale on that...
> There are always better ways to do just about anything.
> The other factor was that I realized that at ANY point in that
> series, he could fly away with his dinner, adn that would be it. I
> never imagined that I could keep shooting this way. I was SO close
> that if I'd had a butterfly net, I could have caught him... No
> kidding (though it would have to be one big...tough butterfly net...


Good thinking, but my hunch is this bird is pretty much beyond domesticated
and comfortable around people, which is bad. I'll bet he would probably
stick around long enough for you to do a bit of experimenting. I've had
owls like this. You never know, maybe this guy would have let you set up
several strobes and softboxes for that perfect light. Definitely great
shots! Plus, working up to getting the shot was probably much more
exciting?

> As to zooming with my feet (as you still seem to feel I've never heard
> of...), I've been doing that as necessary for many years. Here's an
> example of when I found myself chasing a porcupine in Alaska with
> only a 35mm lens on my camera. He climbed into a bush that hung over
> a (literal) CLIFF...and I was shooting from a distance of only 1.5-2
> FEET away: http://upload.pbase.com/image/66768074/original


No, I know you've heard of "zooming with your feet" but I just thought it
odd that you would say it mandatory to have the super long glass for
wildlife shots. It's amazing what people would do to get that perfect shot
when they don't have the hardware. I'm limited to 400mm so I got to make
the best of it.

It sounds like you had a great time chasing the porcupine, but the picture
really doesn't do anything to excite me. I'm not saying that in a bad way
or to knock it. I would have preferred to not be as close to its face.

> "Zoom with my feet?" Thanks for the...um..."help."


LOL! Anytime.







Rita

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mozilla Thunderbird Email NOT capturing clicked email links... AJPDLA Firefox 4 04-12-2006 07:05 PM
MDS 9216, capturing FC frames Konrad Madej Cisco 1 11-24-2004 01:33 AM
REGEX: capturing on optional groups which fail Charles Shannon Hendrix Perl 0 06-13-2004 11:22 PM
Capturing Request Stream PJ ASP .Net 4 07-17-2003 05:44 AM
Capturing ASPX output from another page Rick Strahl [MVP] ASP .Net 1 07-09-2003 07:34 PM



Advertisments