michaeljlawson

<p>I rented a Canon 100mm macro lens from Lensrentals.com last year to use while I was on a weeks vacation. I couldn't have been happier with the ease of the process or the quality\condition of the equipment I received.</p>

<p>Wow. Quite literally that link works, so it doesn't even have to be a legitimate member's site name appearently. Very Interesting Bob.</p>

<p>Somehow our ImagePro sites seem have an additional URL. I googled my site name and found http://www.juliaboggio.photography.com/michaeljlawson and it links to my site. As it turns out http://www.juliaboggio.photography.com/SITENAMEHERE seems to work for all the sites I've tested. A little research shows Julia Boggio as a wedding photographer, so I'm thinking this isn't by design. Some sort of DSN accident?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>some seudo "photographers" just have in mind "I pay so I can post whatever I want"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That may be true in some cases, but people post here for different reasons and are at different stages of their "Photographic Development". Three years ago I posted my first picture. I was so proud I managed to capture that little bird. Never occurred to me how lacking in skill I was or how much work the photo needed, and if I took the same shot today I would probably delete it from the camera before I ever got to download the days shoot to the computer. I don't think National Geographic is going to be knocking on my door anytime soon but thanks to this site and its members my skills and technique have grown substantially. That never would have happened if I didn't start by paying and posting. I guess what I'm trying to say in a nutshell is don't judge to harshly if you don't know for sure why a person is posting here or just how far along the learning process they may be.</p>

<p>Even though " in the middle of a shoot" seems to indicate you have a working knowledge of the basics, I'll throw out the other two common causes in case we are reading to much into your experience, and so others that come along in the future will know. If your shutter speed got set higher than your flash sync speed this will happen, also getting to close to your subject with a lens hood on can do this. The flash speed issue should cause very consistent results. The distance\lens hood issue will show more variance as you move or change angles.</p>

<p>The new kit lenses on models like the Canon XSi and T1i are pretty decent. I wouldn't be to worried about "Only having the kit lens". If the kit lens covers the focal lengths you normally shoot at, I would go for the entry level DSLR.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>basically shuts down and flashes</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you be more specific? If it's flashing a code, like error 99, it may just be a dirty contact on the lens or camera where the lens mounts. If it's really powering off, not just "basically shuts down", then it could be a bad battery. Don't forget about the small watch battery that keeps time, count, etc (in a compartment next to the big battery). It can also cause odd issues.</p>

<p>The Browse Gallery and Top Rated links are the same. You choose a category when you submit your photo for ratings or critique, not when you upload them to your site. If I am still misunderstanding what you are asking I apologize.</p>

<p>Why do you think you will be paying more? Is the new 5D more expensive than the original was? Is the T1i more expensive than the XTi was....the answer is no, they are not.</p>

<p>Try different angles. Not every shot needs to be from a full standing position holding the camera right in front of your nose. Photograph that flower at it's hight, not looking down on them all.</p>

<p>Simon, I don't want to discourage you in any way (The 100-400 is high up on my wish list) but have you used or held one yet? Some people make the transition to the push-pull zoom function easily, some people even prefer it. You should try and see if you can get your hands on one for a day and see if it's truly going to work for you. I didn't see anyone mention this in the other post, and wanted to be sure you were aware of it. I didn't want you to order a $1400.00 lens and not have what I consider a critical piece of the functional puzzle. I personally like the fluid motion of the push-pull\focus combo, but some people don't.</p>

<p>I don't own the Better Beamer although it is on my wish list, but check out the free online Photography TV show <a href="http://www.wildphotoadventures.com/watch.html">Wild Photo Adventures</a> (I own the DVDs). Episode 2 is all about photographing songbirds, and they use and talk about the Better Beamer. Also search the archives at <a href="http://www.birdsasart.com/bn.html">Birds as Ar</a> t. They make several refences to using it and they have some of the most amazing wildlife photography I've seen.</p>

<p>Simon, yes the 100-400 can pull that off easily. Here is one I took with the lowly rated 75-300, and the 100-400 can produce much better results.</p><div></div>

<p>Sorry, Duplicate Post.</p>

<p>Hello Simon. Based on this and your other post ( http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Tngy ) I believe you are trying to see if the lens will serve dual purposes. The first that of a telephoto zoom lens and the second that of a macro lens. It will serve as a telephoto zoom nicely, and while it will bring the occasional insect closer to you, it's not a substitute for a true macro lens. It would help if you gave a little more detail as to your intended shooting style. If you are only interested in getting things that are far away to look closer, you are in good shape with the 100-400. However, the 100-400 has a minimum focusing distance of 1.8m/ 5.9 ft. If you want detailed close-ups of things closer to you than that, you will need a macro lens or at the very least some extension tubes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are we to process for each then???</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure how many people will chime in on a 7 month old thread. You may want to start a new post, but the answer is absolutely. Web, Screen, and Print will often have different color spaces, different ambient lighting, etc. If you want your shots to look their best in multiple mediums, you need to make adjustments in the processing for each one. Not just brightness, but color adjustments and sharpness as well. They all differ in the different viewing mediums.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>why would we set our monitors dimly to adversely adjust our prints to overexpose them just to print them out??</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a slightly over simplified question but the ultimate answer is, for some people it's all about the print.</p>

 

<p>Thanks Anna. There are several threads about doing just that, HDR from a single RAW shot. It does work to a point, not quite as effective as actually taking multiple exposures, but will still yield some decent results. I've done it from a single raw shot in situation where I could never get the subject (usually a bird) to hold still for 3 bracketed shots. I haven't uploaded any of those to point you to, but it can be done.</p>

<p>This may just be well controlled natural light with a little fill. The catch light in the eyes and the highlights so well done in the hair had me leaning toward studio lighting, some of his other photos show multiple catch lights like this one http://www.photo.net/photo/4906430 also a good indicator of studio lighting. He also has some obvious street shots in natural lighting and some well done post work too. You could always shoot him an email.</p>

<p>You can try some relector panels like the ones at <a href="http://www.bogenimaging.us/Jahia/product_main_page/site/bius/cache/off/lang/en_US/cache/bypass?actualPathCategoryKey=1CAT:AAA4:2CAT:BB39&curMarketId=MARKET:MKT3&marketSelect=MARKET:MKT3&curBrandId=NONE&kindOfProductCollectionRequest=productList&isCleanList=true">Bogen Here</a> . I don't think you'll get this well lit look without a proper lighting setup, but you may get close with good natural light and some reflectors.</p>

<p>I find a lot of people confuse the HDR look with the LucisArt look: http://www.lucisart.com/lucis-art3-artist-gallery/lucis-art-3-gallery.htm or the Topaz Adjust look: http://www.topazlabs.com/adjust/examples.html</p>

<p>All of my Fall Color photos: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=880419 were done with Photomatix and have a similar look to yours.</p>

<p>I suppose it could be a female Anna's, although I don't see the red spots they usually have on the throat. Females are very hard to distinguish in the field. Did you notice if she pumped her tail while feeding? The black-chinned are known to do so, the Anna's typically hols theirs still. http://hummingbirdworld.com/h/id.htm</p>

<p>Based on your location of Oregon, I would say the Hummingbird is a female Black-chinned Hummingbird, and the finch is a male House Finch.</p>

<p>I think that link should be http://www.chicameraclubs.org/ ....Thanks for the info Alex, I didn't know about them.</p>

<p>Don't forget to keep in mind that the 2 lenses you continue to fall back to, the 55-250 and the 18-55 are both EF-S lenses. All good if you actually buy the 450D, but not compatible if you decide to go full frame. If full frame is not a concern, and you are still on a budget similar to your original post, I think the 18-55 and the 55-250 are then your logical choices.</p>

<p>Joshua, If you customize the view in the Unified Forum to display the forums you are interested in (you can even color code them), the "New Answers" view will show active threads bumped up to the top (It's how I knew someone added to this thread). It's time stamped with the latest addition so that may work for your "Flag" as well.</p>

<p>I don't think automatically subscribing to threads will go over well with people who post to dozens of threads a day, but the "Notify me of responses" link is right below the posting window. Maybe they can add a checkbox on the confirmation screen instead of a link so you can confirm your text, and subscribe if you want.</p>