[RockvilleBob]

Egret catching the morning rays on Little Assawoman Bay

Attached Images

 

[Kevriano]

Evening all. Another one of my occasional uploads of Dragonflies. A special one this, as this particular breed, a Norfolk Hawker, is isolated to the Norfolk Broads, and one reserve in North Kent, where I took these. A nice Hawker to get in flight, as it hovers quite nicely. All on the 150-450, and cropped a little, or in the case of the head shot, and aggressive crop to show the extreme detail this lens can capture in perfect light. Hope you like them.

[ccc_]

Did it have a fish hook in it? Perhaps it's the Ginger Quill dry fly I lost last week. ;~)

I thought the same thing...at first...but there are some bits torn off above it, whatever it is

I do trim some of my trout flies on stream like that instead of tying separate parachute patterns
however I think the only trout in Topeka are in the grocery store...much like here

[ccc_]

...I find the need to crop and pp work an indication of "operator error" and not a fault of either the camera or the lens...

you've touched on this before...why would you think PP was only remedial?

speaking for myself, I probably don't take 100 pictures a year (last year about 37k images across nine cameras) that weren't made with PP in mind

PP is what makes the creative process enjoyable for me
if I wanted to make photography work, I would still shoot film

when I take specimen shots for publication, I will crop
when I take product or procedural images, I crop and retouch as necessary
when my images are going to be used as wall art, wallpapers or backgrounds....well, there are no limits to how much i'll massage an image

however, everyone has their own way

[dadipentak]

if I wanted to make photography work, I would still shoot film

Agree! And, and even with film, darkroom technique was an important part of the process of creating good photographs.

PP is not just for correcting user error (but invaluable for that) but overcoming conditions which would make it impossible to get a decent image straight-out-of-camera.

[aslyfox]

you've touched on this before...why would you think PP was only remedial?

speaking for myself, I probably don't take 100 pictures a year (last year about 37k images across nine cameras) that weren't made with PP in mind

PP is what makes the creative process enjoyable for me
if I wanted to make photography work, I would still shoot film

when I take specimen shots for publication, I will crop
when I take product or procedural images, I crop and retouch as necessary
when my images are going to be used as wall art, wallpapers or backgrounds....well, there are no limits to how much i'll massage an image

however, everyone has their own way

I am speaking only for myself

no offense meant

I am just starting to use pp and I have a lot to learn

[ccc_]

I am speaking only for myself

no offense meant

I am just starting to use pp and I have a lot to learn

none taken

I was genuinely curious as to how you arrived at your choice
I wasn't being judgemental

[boriscleto]

Agree! And, and even with film, darkroom technique was an important part of the process of creating good photographs.

"The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways."-Ansel Adams

[ccc_]

Agree! And, and even with film, darkroom technique was an important part of the process of creating good photographs.

PP is not just for correcting user error (but invaluable for that) but overcoming conditions which would make it impossible to get a decent image straight-out-of-camera.

until scanners and Photoshop came along I composed and metered and cussed a blue streak when target developed my film and the results were sub par
i put a lot of effort into it
I missed a lot of shots because of film speed limitations and no autofocus

digital imaging and manipulation has just suited my reckless style of photography
it's fun and to be honest film wasn't

[aslyfox]

until scanners and Photoshop came along I composed and metered and cussed a blue streak when target developed my film and the results were sub par
i put a lot of effort into it
I missed a lot of shots because of film speed limitations and no autofocus

digital imaging and manipulation has just suited my reckless style of photography
it's fun and to be honest film wasn't

I was told by a guy who ran, for years, a brick and mortar shop and did developing at a high cost, that those competitors who charged less would base their "levels" on the first few frames of the undeveloped film and put the machine on auto

thus, you didn't get the film developed properly .

he was correct imho

[Bhuey55]

K5ii DA*300 f4

[smf]

Images were captured at Whiting Overlook Park in Midland County, Michigan, with RMC Tokina 500mm 1:8 (bought through the Marketplace) on my Pentax K-S2, supported with an inexpensive chest pod bought years ago from a camera shop's clearance table.

Images were processed (including cropping) in Lightroom 4 and the Nik Collection's Dfine.

Regrettably, I do not know what happened immediately after the series of three images involving the two bucks.

Thanks to everyone who posts in this thread!

Best wishes,
Stu

[ccc_]

I was told by a guy who ran, for years, a brick and mortar shop and did developing at a high cost, that those competitors who charged less would base their "levels" on the first few frames of the undeveloped film and put the machine on auto

thus, you didn't get the film developed properly .

he was correct imho

they probably developed them properly...I just had to wait a couple of days to find out how i'd screwed up

which brings up another advantage for digital...instant feedback

[aslyfox]

they probably developed them properly...I just had to wait a couple of days to find out how i'd screwed up

which brings up another advantage for digital...instant feedback

and no cost to look at all of the images and then decide what to print

as opposed to the old days where we had to shell out $ for the developing and printing and then say " Oh ____" as we reviewed our efforts

---------- Post added 07-15-17 at 06:30 ----------

Images were captured at Whiting Overlook Park in Midland County, Michigan, with RMC Tokina 500mm 1:8 (bought through the Marketplace) on my Pentax K-S2, supported with an inexpensive chest pod bought years ago from a camera shop's clearance table.

Images were processed (including cropping) in Lightroom 4 and the Nik Collection's Dfine.

Regrettably, I do not know what happened immediately after the series of three images involving the two bucks.

Thanks to everyone who posts in this thread!

Best wishes,
Stu

well since you can see the " velvet " ( IOW, it isn't mating season ), they must be " kissing cousins "

I really like the photos

[smf]

Re your post: "Well since you can see the " velvet " ( IOW, it isn't mating season ), they must be " kissing cousins "

"I really like the photos."

Thanks very much, Aslyfox!

Stu