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
> > Subject: Re: PESO: Female Cormorant
> >
>
>
> From: "John Whittingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2007/02/17 Sat PM 12:32:57 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: PESO: Female Cormorant
>
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:28:21 +, mike wilson wrote
> >
> > Nip over to the Far
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
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
>
> 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
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 colou
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 fra
> 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 t
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
> 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
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 he
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
> oversharp
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 seein
> 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
> 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.
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 s
> 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,
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 c
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 se
> 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. T
> 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. T
> 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. T
> 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 white o
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
