Sutton Warrior

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

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

So no one has an answer to my problem? SW

That the way I get round it Newt, cant do any more to it just send. SW

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

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 you are into frame filling with, say, a flies head. OK, tubes arrive, take some pics, its difficult, getting so close 2" or 3" is simply a nightmare. Re think . . . I like my 18-70 for normal photography, but cant deal with the close in hand holding, I get the shakes, bending, aquard position, the bl**dy fly wont stay still . . . the results are OK but not what I would call stunning? How about a longer tube . . . that was even worse, 3" became 3mm More thinking, the only optio is my Siggy 70-300 APO . . . It has a 1.2 macro (close up) facility at the 300mm end. Had already discounted that as a wast of time hand held and over 1 meter from camera to subject! So, how about if I just treated the Sigma as a streight lens? Long minimum focus . . . but its worth a try, no other options. This was the result of some experimenting: Sigma 70-300 APO, set to 100mm, f8 apature priority, fixed manual focus (move the camera to focus), hand held. I played around with the macro rings, and the focal length of the lens. Two rings, 12 and 20mm stacked, with the lense set to 100mm gave an aproximate lens front to subject of about 10" (250mm) ideal to follow the subject. Did not feel cramped or uncumfortable, pinched a cushon from the sette to kneel on Not pin sharp . . . a blunt pin may be But its got my interest, its probably showing the limit of the lenses ability as well? what does one expect from a lens at £150 brand new. The next stage will be a tripod, got a nice solid Manfrotto 55, mirror lock, cable shutter release and a static subject to see just how much further the combination will go? Cheap lens, tubes . . . I wonder, what ever next! SW

. . . 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 an option to a full macro lens, the recommendations were mixed. However I surmised, simple tube, no glass = no loss of quality, the chosen lens is as good as it is? So here we are, new toy, lovely weather and a Saturday morning . . . First which lens to choose, Nikon 18-200, or the 18-70 AF-S, always had a liking for the old 18-70, now regarded by many as, as good as it gets with out having a 'pro' label, but sadly still suffers with the tag 'kit', because it was originally supplied with the old D70 and 70S. The 18-200 is in my humble opinion a great lens for the traveler, walker and general grab and go types like me, I love it, but it did not cut the mustard when I tried it with a 20mm tube. So that left only the 18-70mm. If that failed, I was into a new 50mm f1.8 prime, one of Nikons best, so they say? First few shots were shaky to say the least, problems encountered; small aperture f8 to get any depth of field, this lead to a slow shutter speed and auto focus hunt/not working at all, due to lack of light Not to mention wind, the lightest of a breeze was enough to move the flower, and getting insects to pose and say 'cheese' was impossible But I had done my home work on the net, rack up the ISO to 400, use manual focus, set the focus, set the camera to continuous shot and as the shutter fires, rock gently forwards into the focus area, one of say half a dozen shots is likely to be as you want it, or at least sharp? The obvious use of a tripod is a wast of time for insect chasing. I have discovered that macro is something that needs working on, it certainly is not simply, screw on a 'macro lens' and press the shutter, 0.5X (1.2) macro or even 1 to 1, only scratches the surface if you are serious about your macro, so it seems, if what I have read is anything to go by . . . The shot that was anything near what I was expecting in my first session, 15 pics to get one!! After I had made changes to settings and tried rocking for focus, still need to work on angles, and 'eye(s)' contact The set up, a 20mm tube, 18-70mm 'kit' lens. Its compact, balanced and looking forward to some more garden safaris . . . Not to cumbersome in the field either. Why did I choose the 20 mm tube over 36mm or an even longer combination stack? After all, more tubes = a bigger image. First the magnification makes hand holding near impossible, hard enough with a 20mm tube, the other reason was the lens has to be so close it casts a shadow and if photographing insects they are scared off, close, close, is strickly studio and inanimate objects I think. Finally, something unexpected was the intensity of colour that was evident. Might still go for a 50mm Nikon f1.8 prime, fast, pin sharp glass . . . at £85 a pop SW

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 usually only comprises about 2 hours fishing, then the bass go off the feed, fishing goes dead. So wash the hands, clean up, and do a little creek creeping, birds, a seal if your lucky, beaches can be interesting from the water with tree and dune like back drops. Sounds like the 300mm lens and a mono-pod might be needed? We have a full blown Seal colony a couple of miles around the Harwich headland . . . and I have never been there, what a photo opportunity SW

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

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 about time someone else had a chip in . . . SW

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 surprise Half a dozen attempts at one shot is normal, I then choose the best, crop and adjust at home and dump the dross, often the lot!!! The fern was an idea I had for a 'Jurassic landscape' The flower was a crop that came from a session in the garden as I keep a picture diary of 'how the garden grows'. Not ideal, but a way around a problem that is not going to get better . . . Its a pitty low angles often work well. Poppies, For what its worth this is what I would do with what is avaliable, removing the destractions? SW

You did ask . . . SW

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

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 picture, and in any case I rarly 'pixel peep', thats my limited two peneth, nice one Janet, SW

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? RAW will be a complication a long way down the road? This is only my humble opinion, I know, not agreed with by all. I would still like to see the Butterfly at 800 pixels. By the way Janet, what new screen did you get? and I still dont understand how you are transferring information from Flickr???? SW

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

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

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

Janet, have you tried the re size in Ev.7 then upload to PB, by passing 'PB re size'? SW

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

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

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

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' to a point that I feel is to close for comfort, especially on fleBay An old AI Nikon lens used in full manual would work, or a full set of modern Kenko tubes will give control but still leaves the lens required to be manually focused, I think? dont see that as a hardship in Macro. Have to think that one through . . . any one got a view? SW PS having had a search on the web, Kenkos site says that their DG tubes are now compatible with the HSM in the Nikon and Canon range of lenses. I still think manual focus will be favourite, however, a quick auto focus and then the manual override option with Nikon will help in the 'insect chase' The only downside is the 2 stop light reduction?

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 100mm? I need to try the lenses own 1.2 macro capability . . . only ever tried it once The 18-70 is much more stable but needs to be a bit close to the subject, potentially spooking insect? I'm going to have to spend some real time tomorrow getting to grips and deciding where and how to go . . . if at all? Good vibes though, positive thoughts . . . SW

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 lenses, although it appears Nikon HSM lenses loose AF . . . for macro, manual focus seems the way to go anyway? I also dug up this page: http://japanorama.co.uk/2009/02/17/using-t...s-a-macro-lens/ Very interesting, uses old, 'no contact tubes', but describes how to overcome 'setting of the aperture' on a modern lens without an aperture ring. If nothing else, food for thought, I seem to remember I have one 'oldddd' 36mm ring knocking about in the bits and pieces box . . . I wonder what I will be doing tomorrow morning SW