joemikel1

<p>The author says they are "long exposure photographs that are illuminated with mobile light sources". Maybe there is a tonemapping, but I think the key is the selective lighting.<br>

Any hint?</p>

<p>I saw this lightpainting:<br>

<a href="http://www.daveblackphotography.com/lightpaintings/pages/lp0001.htm">http://www.daveblackphotography.com/lightpaintings/pages/lp0001.htm</a><br>

and as a newbie lighter, I was wondering what kind of lighting and modifiers were used.<br>

Your thoughts?....... </p>

<p>Greg, I agree with you about generalization. What I meant is that <strong>I</strong> find no fun if I can't go light....</p>

<p>I live in the Canary Islands. No gators here (or close)... but maybe it's migrating from some place in Africa....</p>

<p>Haven't ever used any kind of baiting, calling or whatever, and I have to agree with the OP about the way you can get a good bird shot. I use an ever handholded 80-400VR on a nikon D300, and so I am always tripod free walking arround, and getting more opportunities. Big glasses are of no use to me, though I can afford them....</p>

<p>Today, while walking in the countryside, I saw an egrett passing by, so automatically made a "record shot", and continued my walkarround. Now back at home, I noticed this egrett doesn't have one leg !.<br>

I've been thinking about what could happen...., how can it survive... What do you think?</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Oh, BTW, I was thinking, what should you add to improve this composition?. I mean , wait for a gull passing by, a nd filter to have slow water , a person looking at the horizon in a corner,......</p>

<p>Sometimes we are blind when judging our own work. Yes I have to agree. The first is the most appealing, and I'll go that way. Thanks for your knowledge and sense!</p>

<p>I'm sorry, the bottom image was not optimized for web size, but it has as much detail as the top. Difference between both is only on the white balance......<br>

Thanks for your opinions, they are actually very helpful!</p>

<p>I'll have to print it, and that will help me decide as well. Anyway I can see what you say Matt....</p>

<p>I want to submit an image to a local contest. This one was shoted in my "dark age" (wich means the time I didn´t shot raw), and is one of my favorites for it.<br>

I first pp this image when I shoted it (about 1 year ago), coming with this<br>

A<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2289/2122777013_186f81b8dd.jpg" alt="" width="333" height="500" /> <br>

But I have pp the original image again, geting this one:<br>

B<br>

<img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1407/869097250_0f64c5ec45_o.jpg" alt="" width="332" height="500" /><br>

As you can see they have different white balances. I know it´s a personal decision, but I just can´t decide wich one to choose, so could you help me deciding ?<br>

Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>I spent about 4000$ last year in cameras, lenses and accessories..... all on ebay (about 40% saving), with no complains!</p>

<p>I don't know what happened tonight, but some of my pics have increased the number of views between a 50 and a 100% (some, about 500 new views) . I had never noticed of such an increase before. Is it this usual or a bug in the system?</p>

<p>No formal education in either Nature or Photography (I'm a mathematician), and even though I begun in nature photography a year ago, I'm enjoying both at best.<br>

You can't avoid to learn about nature (and love it) while you're learning to shot it. </p>

<p>I rather prefer shoting, so one year after I bought my D300, I have shot about 25.000 pics with it, but I have read only about 5% of the instructions manual :-)</p>

<p>I have been thinking about the kind of pics I like to try, and "static" is not the adjective that comes to me :-)<br /> I love to manual focus, as to hold that ring and see how it comes sharp as I focus gives me some kind of joy, but if you want to get fast action scenes as I intend, really, I'm gonna need that AF-S and VR (and also lots of luck) , so I will have to wait for some months.<br /> Thanks for your wise feedback...</p>

<p>So I'm thinking of buying this lens. I've read about it and the most expensive AF-S, AF-S II and AF-S VR. I know I will have to learn the technique to manual focus it, and it will be almost impossible to successfully handhold it, or get birds in flight....<br />The AF versions are still expensive to me, and I don't want to get a third party, so...<br />What kind of photographs will I have to give up?. Is it a mistake to buy this lens? Should I better save for the real thing (I mean the AF-S VR version)? <br />Any comment , experience or thought welcomed<br />PD: Forgot to say I use a Nikon D300</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>What a relief! Really thought it was something wrong in me, as this hobby is intended to get satisfaction. Starvy, I agree about what you say. That's the approach I am following! <br>

Thanks all for your comments!</p>

<p>I'm a amateur begginer, (just two years since I touched my first camera). In my first year, I felt amazed by lots of images (even my own ones), but that has been changing in the last year, so now I have become very very very hard to satisfy. I use to watch lots of pics, and in the last year I think there only about 50 pics I felt I really liked (not anyone of mine sure :-)<br>

I think it all comes from my growing learning, and my own personality, as now I have much more elements to handle when I watch a pic, and I have always been very demanding in my targets . <br>

So now, I have high standards, wich make me filter a lot my own pics, and only very few get to my public gallery. And so, as my standards grow, also the "quality" of my pics, and my insatisfaction....<br>

Is it this what happens to others or am I a frikie out of control?</p>

<p>I have exactly 235,132 in the last 2 years all them digital. My way of learning in the dslr age.....</p>

<p>Thanks Jack , no military surplus stores here :-(</p>

<p>So I'm going to buy a hide. I'd been searching and found this two models I need your help to decide on<br>

a) the one man wildlife photography camouflage seat hide ( http://cgi.ebay.es/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=310102385105 )<br>

b) the kwik camo ( http://www.birdsasart.com/accs.html#KWIK-CAMO%20THROW-OVER%20BLINDS )<br>

Wich in your experience would be better? Any other hide suggestion?<br>

Thanks in advance</p>

<h2><br /></h2>

<p>Thanks a lot. I'll have to save for a good lens.....</p>