Quake3World

at the square eagle.

Regardless of whether those shots are technically great (I don't know, as I have no knowledge of photography), you've got a knack for capturing nature. I imagine it took a lot of patience to snap some of those.

werldhed wrote: at the square eagle.

Regardless of whether those shots are technically great (I don't know, as I have no knowledge of photography), you've got a knack for capturing nature. I imagine it took a lot of patience to snap some of those.

Thanks, I think.

ToxicBug wrote:Nice pics tnf! The lack of sharpness is what I'd expect from that lens, its not your fault.

So that 100-400mm L lens is known for not being pin sharp?

I was wondering what a 'good' level of sharpness should be at 400mm (640mm equivalent on my camera).

I used the full 400mm so much I have almost considered getting a 400mm prime lens (not anytime soon due to $$$). Would a 400mm prime have better IQ than the 100-400, or will they be the same if they are both L-series lenses?

Did you use a tripod? That could improve sharpness when shooting the telelens. And faster shutter speeds if there's enough available light.

if you can, use around f8 to 11 (the light won't always let you & all lenses have a f/stop range they preform best in) and like sat says, at that range you'll need to get a good tripod and remote shutter release.

saturn wrote:Did you use a tripod? That could improve sharpness when shooting the telelens. And faster shutter speeds if there's enough available light.

I had one that I used for a few of them, but I thought my shutter speed was well within the 'safe' range for handheld shots (I think its like 1/focal length...) so I was shooting at 400(640)mm at about 1/1000 or so. I also tried using the tripod as a monopod of sorts for convenience as I moved around...that helped a little.

There's lens shake in almost every photo, not particularly lack of lens sharpness.

1/400 at 400mm focal length is probably not fast enough when you're pointing a heavy telezoom.
I had trouble with my 300mm lens in daylight unless I really stabilized the camera with my arms pressed against my sides and shooting while holding my breath .
You can always invest in a 400mm f/2.8 lens which will set you back a few grand.

How do I use a tripod for subjects that move a lot? I'm sure there are techniques good photographers use and I realize that the camera shake makes the pictures very amateurish looking but didn't see how I was going to try and catch a brief moment in an unpredictable location with a tripod, let alone a remote shutter. With birds that are sitting still for long periods of time sure, but you are usually scanning around waiting for one of them to do something, and when it finally does I just start shooting.

Nobody posts pics anymore. Form needs to show us some new macros.

I was watching some downhill races today and took some shots.

Here is just one of a guy who wore an ugly jacket to race in. Funny guy he was.

Since I don't take these on to much on the course anymore, I might as well use them for something.

Very nice shot, tnf. You're improving fast. Which lens did you use to take this shot?

While it ain't a real macro, it was taken at 1:1 with the 60mm Macro. Was for a Challenge where the theme involved candy. This is what I came up with.

Still to cold here for bugs...and I have not had a lot of time to shoot much working seven days a week. I'm hoping that changes soon.

You're doing pretty good tnf.

Mr.Sparkle! wrote:Very nice shot, tnf. You're improving fast. Which lens did you use to take this shot?

Thanks Sparkle - I'm just glad I am learning in the age of digital instead of film.
That was just the 28-135mm USM kit lens that came with my 50D.
Still don't have any L-series lenses (too much $$$...might get the 70-200mm F/4 non-IS L series lens since its only $600 and I've talked with a few people that have it and love it, and its a LOT cheaper than any other L-series zooms of that length).

it's pin sharp as well, i was impressed with the 70 - 200 i had.

Hopefully picking it up this week.

My photoshop skills are extremely limited, but here is an attempt at something:

it's called colour pop and i hate it

I tend to avoid over-saturated shots and the like, I may be in the minority, but I really don't care for a lot of the HDR stuff that is out there where the shots have been processed so extensively they don't even look like a photograph. Some do it well, but there are a lot of people on flickr that use photomatix on every scenario they take a picture of.

In this case, though, I liked the colors in the shot to begin with and wanted to try the background thing as a practice exercise as much as anything. No worries that you hate it, but I like the colors and saturated feel here.

"I"

Me me me

tnf wrote:I tend to avoid over-saturated shots and the like, I may be in the minority, but I really don't care for a lot of the HDR stuff that is out there where the shots have been processed so extensively they don't even look like a photograph. Some do it well, but there are a lot of people on flickr that use photomatix on every scenario they take a picture of.

In this case, though, I liked the colors in the shot to begin with and wanted to try the background thing as a practice exercise as much as anything. No worries that you hate it, but I like the colors and saturated feel here.

sorry mate, didn't mean it to come across like that.
i don't like the effect. it's something shit wedding togs do with a £300 camera calling themselves pros.

like HDR, it's hard to get right. have a look at FX's stuff on flickr, he has a real eye for what makes a good shot.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bhophoto/s ... 540110178/

tnf wrote:I tend to avoid over-saturated shots and the like, I may be in the minority, but I really don't care for a lot of the HDR stuff that is out there where the shots have been processed so extensively they don't even look like a photograph. Some do it well, but there are a lot of people on flickr that use photomatix on every scenario they take a picture of.

you could try exposure blending instead of HDR in photomatix. i've gotten better results even as a beginner. can't seem to shake off the colour noise i get with HDR efforts

Some more bike race pics. Not extremely sharp (kit lens), lighting wasn't great and these are my first attempt at shooting any kind of race. Wish my lens had been sharper, in some of the shots you can see some of the expressions on the riders faces. Better lens would have helped with that.

Picked up the 70-200mm L series today. Did some test shots at a something written in 6 point font from about 8 feet away with that lens and with the 28-135mm kit lens at the same focal lengths. Amazing difference (kit lens produced blurry, unreadable text when you zoomed in on the image, the L series was crystal clear.)

Good stuff.

tnf you have to have the dial on the sprinter for action shots

those golf clubs look great!