177Likes
VF
In the gardening thread, gescom linked to his friend who also has some impressive macro work: Eusebio Photography
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
In the gardening thread, gescom linked to his friend who also has some impressive macro work: Eusebio Photography
The lighting in those images is AWESOME. I especially like the closeup of the spider with the black eyes and green mandibles (?) where you can see the reflection of the softbox in his eyes.Originally Posted by ValleyFan
Wonder how you go about setting up a shot with creatures that are creepy, tiny, and have no ability to act on anything but pure instinct?
P.S.
There's a gardening thread??
I know, way cool. He has a lot of impressive work in there. I imagine a macro set up like the one on the bottom of the page - Really Right Stuff macro flash brackets. When shooting something that small you wouldn't really need any light modifiers, because the flash head is already so large in comparison to the object you are shooting, and the flash is so close to the subject.
Well, not really. Just a thread were Doc is asking about garden creepy crawlies
Kicked out again... I got kicked out of another public place yesterday, being told I could not take photographs at Santa Monica Pier.
The wife and I were out on the pier. I was teaching her to use my D200 as I was toting around my D3. Both of us were taking pictures right and left. When we entered the building that houses the carousel, we were told by an employee that we were not allowed to take photographs. I immediately took a look around and noticed several other people using digital SLR cameras to take photographs and asked if they'd been informed of the restriction. The woman told me that they were obviously not professionals, and that they were okay. She also stated that my wife's Canon point-and-shoot (she always carries it in her purse) is okay as well.
Essentially, this woman assumed that I must be a pro taking pictures with intent to sell because my camera is bigger than everyone else's. To me, that's like assuming a woman is in porn because she's got huge knockers or assuming she's in rap videos because she's got a huge jiggling ass.
I got pretty pissed (to the point where I felt bad later and went back and apologized to the employee who was really only doing her job). Eventually, I found my way to the SM Pier offices and discussed my issues with the staff. They gave me a permit on-the-spot, and told me the reason they have the rule is because they don't want the paparazzi around when celebrities show up. When I told her I'd been all over the pier for two hours taking pictures, she told me that the reason security guards didn't boot me earlier was because there was some television shoot going on there and people probably assumed I was with the production crew.
What a load of CRAP!
Incidentally, the permit restricts me from selling any images that are taken on the pier/of the pier and states that any images taken are the property of the City of Santa Monica. How the hell can they get away with that crap legally in a public place?!?!
That's twice now that I've been run out of public places because my camera is too conspicuous. It is INFURIATING.
Canoga Camera ****ed me...
I stopped in there last week to pre-pay a weekend rental on the Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G VR lens for tomorrow's trip down to San Diego for the Red Bull Air Races. The guy that took my money GUARANTEED that it would be ready for me to pick up today after 3pm.
So I show up at 3:15pm and ask to pick up the lens. The guy goes looking for it. Can't find it. Finds out that they never even had one in the rental inventory (even though it was on their rental list). "Don't worry," he says. He'll just pull one out of regular stock and put it into the rental inventory (since it wasn't done to begin with). Of course, they don't HAVE one in stock to move from sales inventory to rental inventory (understandable, since it's a $4,500 lens to begin with...which is why people ****ING RENT THEM).
So he offers me the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 (which doesn't even come close to comparing to the 300 f/2.8, optics-wise) and a 1.4x teleconverter. Apparently this camera salesperson knows precisely jack squat about what he's selling because that lens won't accept teleconverters.
So instead of having the 300 f/2.8 with my 2x teleconverter (for 600mm on the D3), I'm stuck with my 70-200 f/2.8 and 2x for a total of 400mm.
I hope that's enough lens.
Last year, with the D200's 1.5x crop factor, the 70-200 with the 2x was just slight overkill (600mm, total).
Dammit.
Glenn, I noticed over at dpreview.com they had a review of the 70-200 VR and noted some of the vignetting issues on the FX sensor you mentioned when you first got the D3. Basicalliy they said that it is a superb lens for DX cameras but in conjuction with the D3 it offers "less impressive performance on FX format - marred by soft corners and vignetting."
Is that vignetting we're seeing in the picture above and example of that problem? Or did you add it later to frame the image?
I've found that it's really only noticable in images like the one I posted above where you've got very plain backgrounds of a single color. There is a problem, but what you see above is my own doing. I purposely increased the vignetting in Lightroom. I'm kind of proud of that image overall, but I'm not sure I like it vignetted like that. I decided I'd leave it for a few days and look at it every so often to decide how I felt about it. Part of me thinks it helps the image, part of me is indifferent. There's another one with a similar vignette job in the Red Bull thread.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
