Jump to content

Sutton Warrior

Members
  • Content Count

    679
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sutton Warrior

  1. Wellcom Billy50000, An alternative to the above is to click the 'slideshow' button, get larger picture, a black background, I personally find this method very relaxing . . . SW
  2. Installed IE v.8 by mistake tried to go back to a previous point, did not want to know! It has settled a lot since then, suspect MS have put a couple of fixes in the auto updates? But still left with this anoying limit on a 'full box of text' is all I can upload, unless I do an answer in say word, then copy and past, such a fag SW
  3. That the way I get round it Newt, cant do any more to it just send. SW
  4. When I type an answer or question in the box, 'as I am now', it used not to matter how long that text was . . . now, when the box is full it wont scroll down to allow any more text. Some might think thats a good idea . . . but it can be very frustrating being limited to XX number of characters sometimes? This happens on all sites I visit. Using Ev.8, I know, its no good? I installed it by mistake, it appears I cant go back? . . . so how do we go forward? The above is the only problem I have had recently, was a pig first off!!! one assumes there have been fixes? SW
  5. Thanks for that proper explanation Steve. I agree with your last comment, a true 1.1 macro is king . . . or queen, not wishing to be sexist . However, macro has never been a 'must do' in my book, Janet fired up my thought along these lines. So I wondered if tubes might be worth a try. I have an old, manual tub, had a play, the poor quality pictures had enough in them to make me think £85 might just be an investment? As you have seen, these pictures are OK'ish, but are 'close photography', rather than true macro. One has, with searching, discovered 1.1 macro is only the beginning if y
  6. . . . from my thread; 'Its Janets fault' . . . the macro tubes arrived this morning. Kenko are at the budget end of the market, but I am impressed with the perceived quality, although a pouch rather than a plastic bag in a box might have been a nice idea, but that's splitting hairs at £85 for a set of three full fuction tubes, 12mm, 20mm and a 36mm stackable in any combination or on their own. Macro photography has never been my no. 1 thing, however, to have a try at a modest amount seemed a good idea, another string to the bow? Looking through the web at sites that mentioned 'tubes' as
  7. Yes Janet, great weather over both days . . . the tides are right too, I should be off up the river after some bass . . . struggling to muster up the enthusiasm? . . . if I go it will be Sunday morning, if??? Problem is, no one to get enthusiastic with, I have always thought 'alone' was great, but after many years, things have changed, its seems to be waring a bit thin recently I might just take the camera and search out some unusual watery shots, you cant do that if some one else is on board, they get board, unless its Hazel, shes happy enough, bless her A bass trip is good cos it u
  8. I trust you/they have checked the thread on the lens has not been damaged, that could be an expensive problem? Sorry, sceptical me again SW
  9. I'd be interested in others comments on the white a yellow problem, I can see it in the 'Dandelion/Bee' and the 'open wings of the Butterfly'. I'd put it down to strong sun? but as I have mentioned, this may be a case of burnout that could be corrected/controled in RAW? I believe a 'Sky 1B' (my choice) filter has a bearing on reflected light and colour, and of course, I believe, the more modern 'UV filter', how much or how effective ???????????????? Afraid the old dyslexic brain has forgotten the whys and wherefores . . . I'll have to have a search on the web . . . In any case its abo
  10. Janet, you are still a young'n . . . '25' is no age . . . When it comes to getting down and dirty I often cheat . . . These two pics are both low, very low angles, I hold the camera at an appropriate height, 'red flower' was knee height, wet morning in the garden, no way was I getting 'down and dirty' and the fern was all but on the leaf litter, a shot grabbed at work in good clothes . . . line it up, not quite hope for the best as I have an idea what I want. Usually set a wider angle than I think is required, press the shutter, click!!! View the picture on the screen, every one a su
  11. OK lets be picky on the poppies . . . again my limited experience??? Shot could have been from a lower angle, and tighter in, perhaps at a wider angle to include some sky, an aperture to blur the background. Thats my initial reaction, is the picture cropped or is it full frame? If cropped, a full frame would help to be able to play with? Just my humble opinion . . . SW
  12. Wow!! if those Black berries were ripe Id be picking them . . . Nice one Janet, a competion picture if ever I saw one? . . . . 5.30pm home from work, showered time to be a bit more picky? Looked at the Exif again, taken on the 31st!!!! You will have to find one in the garden Janet Zoomed in on the white of the wings, I would have thought there should been more detail, although there are vains showing!! The white looks bleached out? perhaps a tad over exposed? I suspect there might be a case for RAW here? Steve will put us right . . . Even so, I still like it as a pi
  13. Interesting Exif Janet, will be very useful to you in time, when you start to understand your camera and wish to experiment. However, for now, I like the reality, the way those black berries are captured, almost look 3D to me. The other pictures have that solid feel about them as well . . . you are going to get some great pictures as time goes by, the 'eye' is coming on nicely. To me, it begs the question; 'JPEG straight from the camera, or shoot RAW and tart it up after'? Those Exif details indicate it will be possible to set the camera for natural quality JPEG straight from the camera
  14. I like the way the camera presents colour Janet, really nice, sharp to, especially like the butterfly with its wings open! but . . . as there are no Exif details embedded, cant see how, so unable to make further comment other than 'I think I like them', prefer to see them at 800 pixels wide as well, just my view of course. SW
  15. Well Janet, that looks OK to me, but . . . ??? a comparison 'Flickr at the size in the same window' would be good? How does it look to you? My suspicion are very much towards the PB re size option is not very good. Thats good cos I've just opened a Flickr account . . . finding it a bit cumbersome compared with PB . . . thats perhaps lack of familiarity. I hope this is right, first picture on flickr No, cant work that on out for the moment . . . !!!! SW
  16. Janet, What host site you use is a personal choice, Flicker certainly has it . . . However it would be interesting for you to do the 're size in Ev.7 . . . etc', I'm sure we would all like to know if Flicker is simply 'better' or if its PB's auto re sizing package thats at fault? The only other thing Janet, I have tried to look at Exif details on the Flicker hosted images . . . not there? On the picture of the pained pots it is there? Yes, the the car photo is much better! SW
  17. Janet, have you tried the re size in Ev.7 then upload to PB, by passing 'PB re size'? SW
  18. Just had another look at this . . . not only lack of sharpness Janet, the colours are not right in the PB picture, is there some auto processing going on in Photobucket . . . ?? what ever, its unacceptable I would say . . . I still think, try the re size in Ev.7 then upload, you could even do the same comparison, Ev.7/Photobucket view only against Flicker. 5.15am!! what a silly time to be going to work . . . SW
  19. My suspicion Janet, is a problem with PB's re sizing program. Try re sizing in Elements, 'save as' the re sized picture to a folder and then upload this re sized picture from the folder to PB direct dont go through PB's re size. Its the way I do it with no problems. SW
  20. Janet you are not wrong, there is a definite difference . . . unfortunately I have no idea how to fix it? . . . I certainly don't have these problems with Photobucket . . .? I wonder if its because I re size first in Ev.7 before I up load to PB, so I don't use Photobuckets re size program at all? SW
  21. O'Dear, I have tried the 'depth of field' dodge . . . it does not seem to work? and its a pain getting the lens off keeping DOF and lens lock buttons depressed, also feels wrong to treat delicate equipment this way . . . so a re think The Sigma 70-300 is a non starter unless I use a tripod, fine for studio work, but mobile in the field (garden ) If I want a Prime/Macro lens it needs to be 100mm 'ish to have a workable subject to camera distance, IMHO. Paying £300-£400 even £500+ for a Nikon seems a bit OTT, and the used market is getting expensive, closing the gap between 'new and used
  22. Well I have found the 36mm tube, just about to start to play . . . a friend knocked at the door . . . we spent the rest of the day discussing things horticultural and putting the world to rights!!! an enjoyable day, and yes we downed a couple of cups of Kenco as well Steve I managed to do a little 'fit and try' this evening. It works OK, everything manual of course, I have got to get to grips with the aperture though. I recon the Sigma 70-300 will be to long, certainly cant 'hand hold' it still enough at 300mm, making diving about after insects a problem, wonder if it will work at 10
  23. Digging around, thinking about Macro Photography, Janet started my mind churning . . . I'm not sure I want to get into macro big time which requires a major financial investment? Initially I thought 'used' . . . yeah! as usual, used to new can be so close that its not worth the risk? So, wait for a bargain to drop in the lap, as I did manage with my Sigma 10-20 or look for an alternative rout? Aware of tubes, but no idea how, what, where . . . etc. There are all sorts of hurdles, however, Kenco do a set of 'macro tubes' with contacts, at a reasonable price, that work with modern le
×
×
  • Create New...