On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:28:21 +, mike wilson wrote
Nip over to the Farnes in about two months' time. You can get right
up to the nest with a ~100mm macro lens. I've only got shots on
film that do not scan adequately. It is the most gorgeous emerald
green with a radiating pattern.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:44:01 -, Bob W wrote
When you get bored with that, you can try to catch puffins in
flight.
I've tried that but I find it difficult to flap my arms and open my
mouth at the same time.
Bob
LOL
From: John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/02/17 Sat PM 12:32:57 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: PESO: Female Cormorant
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:28:21 +, mike wilson wrote
Nip over to the Farnes in about two months' time. You can get right
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:24:32 +, mike wilson wrote
From: John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/02/17 Sat PM 12:32:57 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: PESO: Female Cormorant
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:28:21 +, mike wilson wrote
Nip over
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:29:35 +, mike wilson wrote
No comment 8-) But, if you ever get the chance, try a full frame of
the eye. Magnificent.
Hi Mike
I missed this, just found it while sorting out my inbox. The eye, very
curious about the colour, I'm sure it would look great full
John Whittingham wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:29:35 +, mike wilson wrote
No comment 8-) But, if you ever get the chance, try a full frame of
the eye. Magnificent.
Hi Mike
I missed this, just found it while sorting out my inbox. The eye, very
curious about the colour, I'm sure
When you get bored with that, you can try to catch puffins in
flight.
I've tried that but I find it difficult to flap my arms and open my
mouth at the same time.
Bob
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Heya John,
I echo what Paul said: it's a bit on the hot side, needs a bit
darker rendering. Good shot otherwise!
Thanks Godfrey, needs a little work then. I think my K10D is overexposing
slightly, perhaps 1/3 of a stop, but the processing was too hot. I was trying
to avoid darkening the
John, not to sound impolite, but the noise and the rendering seem to
be leaving certain room for improvement. I am having now the FA 80-320
and I am struggling with the proper technique to shoot hand held at
320 mm as well. Yet, I think you may have to do a bit more homework,
so to say.
Again, no
Couple of issues - the image is a little large to be viewed without
scrolling. This takes away from the impact. You might consider a
smaller image size or offer multiple image sizes. Also, it seems
rather grainy - something that could be fixed perhaps. Lastly, it
seems overexposed. The white
John, not to sound impolite, but the noise and the rendering seem to
be leaving certain room for improvement. I am having now the FA 80-
320 and I am struggling with the proper technique to shoot hand held
at 320 mm as well. Yet, I think you may have to do a bit more
homework, so to say.
Couple of issues - the image is a little large to be viewed without
scrolling. This takes away from the impact. You might consider a
smaller image size or offer multiple image sizes. Also, it seems
rather grainy - something that could be fixed perhaps. Lastly, it
seems overexposed. The
Couple of issues - the image is a little large to be viewed without
scrolling. This takes away from the impact. You might consider a
smaller image size or offer multiple image sizes. Also, it seems
rather grainy - something that could be fixed perhaps. Lastly, it
seems overexposed. The
Couple of issues - the image is a little large to be viewed without
scrolling. This takes away from the impact. You might consider a
smaller image size or offer multiple image sizes. Also, it seems
rather grainy - something that could be fixed perhaps. Lastly, it
seems overexposed. The
In a message dated 2/11/2007 9:42:56 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Couple of issues - the image is a little large to be viewed without
scrolling. This takes away from the impact. You might consider a
smaller image size or offer multiple image sizes. Also, it
Hello John,
yes, much improved. The sizing down even helped tame the noise a bit.
I think you could even go a little darker, especially in the mid
tones, but this is a good start.
Now for the photo itself, it is quite nice. The man-made perch has
enough character to not bother me and you have
From: John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/02/11 Sun PM 04:24:58 GMT
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: PESO: Female Cormorant
Another Cormorant shot 8)
No comment 8-) But, if you ever get the chance, try a full frame of the eye.
Magnificent.
K10D, Sigma 300 f/4 APO, f/5.6 @
yes, much improved. The sizing down even helped tame the noise a
bit. I think you could even go a little darker, especially in the
mid tones, but this is a good start.
Now for the photo itself, it is quite nice. The man-made perch has
enough character to not bother me and you have
John, I am not Bruce, but I like this one much better than the original
you posted.
John Whittingham wrote:
Couple of issues - the image is a little large to be viewed without
scrolling. This takes away from the impact. You might consider a
smaller image size or offer multiple image sizes.
Didn't see the first, but not bad at all. Head looks a tad
oversharpened, but I may be unclear on what the white specks are.
Nice shot. Like the stuff it is sitting on.
Marnie aka Doe :-)
Thanks fo the kind comment. The white specs are droplets of water, she'd just
been fishing.
John, I am not Bruce, but I like this one much better than the
original you posted.
Sorry, my mistake. I've just read up on the Cormorant, apparently it may not
be female as both sexes share the same colouring. I have a shot of one from a
week or so back, thought it was male, apparently it
I like this as well. Again, I didn't see the earlier version.
Excellent detail. I might reduce overall brightness a small amount
and perhaps burn in the light parts of the head. I don't think the
highlights on the head are the result of oversharpening. If it was
oversharpened, we'd be
Hi Paul
I like this as well. Again, I didn't see the earlier version.
Excellent detail. I might reduce overall brightness a small amount
and perhaps burn in the light parts of the head. I don't think the
highlights on the head are the result of oversharpening. If it was
Sometimes the myth is larger than the reality:-).
On Feb 11, 2007, at 3:31 PM, John Whittingham wrote:
Hi Paul
I like this as well. Again, I didn't see the earlier version.
Excellent detail. I might reduce overall brightness a small amount
and perhaps burn in the light parts of the head. I
Sometimes the myth is larger than the reality:-).
8) I've seen some of the evidence!
John
The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed and may contain
Heya John,
I echo what Paul said: it's a bit on the hot side, needs a bit darker
rendering.
Good shot otherwise!
Godfrey
On Feb 11, 2007, at 12:11 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I like this as well. Again, I didn't see the earlier version.
Excellent detail. I might reduce overall brightness a
26 matches
Mail list logo
