sgust

<p>Shun I agree, looks like the fish you mentioned.</p>

<p>Shun, it's a goby of some sort. They have some pretty sharp spines on their dorsal and pectoral fins. maybe the heron didn't feel like dealing with them after all.</p>

<p>Just to add my 2¢. What might be very nice image to the majority of people who haven't spent any time learning the technical details of photography, might seem kitchy or poorly executed to a photographer. Neither point of view is more valid from an aesthetic perspective in my opinion. Your level of sophistication in the different aspects of photography very much informs your opinion when evaluating a photo. I know my tastes have evolved over time and I hope they continue to do so. But I think it's important to keep in mind that the vast majority of people do not evaluate an image like the type of people who would frequent a forum dedicated to photography. So sit back and enjoy the images that you like and pass the others by, who knows someone out there might just like them.</p>

<p>Rufous Nightjar (Caprimulgus rufus)<br> <a href="/photo/18230413&size=lg"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18230413-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="392" /></a></p>

<p>From what I hear you used to be able to take a dip but now it's fenced off with "Do not enter" signs. The color really is surreal. If you go to the end of the trail you reach the spot where a underground spring mixes with the river and the chemical reaction takes place that creates the color. It goes from perfectly clear to opaque light blue in a matter of a few feet.</p>

<p>Well, it's been a while since I've been on PN. Nice to see that Laura is still doing the Monday in Nature posts. A few weeks ago I got to revisit the Rio Celeste waterfalls with my new 10-stop ND filter.<br /> <a href=" src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18228593-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="415" /></a></p>

<p>Andy, nice close-up!<br> Well, Christmas brought me a new (well new for me) A77 and I'm finally getting around to taking some hikes with it. Spotted this White Hawk <em>(Leucopternis albicolis) </em>in a tall tree luckily he didn't spook as I made my way up a hill next to the tree to get a more level view.<br> <a href=" src="https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7539/16112336256_db26302586_z.jpg" alt="" width="448" height="640" /></a><br> You can click on the image to see a larger version.<br> Happy New Year everyone.</p>

<p>Thanks for the link, interesting job to have.</p>

<p>Thanks Mark</p>

<p>I'm interested in using a pair of radio triggered flashes and found pretty positive reviews of the Yongnuo YN560III which has an integrated radio receiver. These don't seem to be available with a Sony flash mount, but I only plan on using them wirelessly, so it's not really an issue. Now my question is do they have a hot shoe mount trigger for Sony that would work for triggering the YN560III's. Also where is the best place to order them from?</p>

<p > </p> <p >I have the Hähnel Giga T Pro II for my Sony α55 and am pretty happy with it. I've used it mainly for interval shooting. For which it is pretty versatile letting you program a set of intervals embedded within another.</p> <p > </p>

<p>Here's what I would do, had I taken it.<br> 1. Ran it through Light Zone and used the zone tool to improve the contrast and lighting.<br> 2. Uploaded it to GIMP and created a duplicate layer.<br> 3. One layer was used for adjusting the levels and the other I applied a filter called Dynamic Range Transformer which evens out the dark and blown out areas a bit.<br> 4. Using the opacity slider I lowered the second layers contribution till it was pleasing.<br> 5. Finally did a light selective gaussian blur to smooth over any graininess.<br> <a href="/photo/17901298&size=lg"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17901298-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="453" /></a><br> Click on the image to see it larger.</p>

<p>The picture in front of a vacation destination or iconic location has been around a lot longer than social media. It used to be that you would ask a friendly looking stranger to take it for you. Now, with the omnipresent wide angle camera in every cell phone, selfies in front of said backgrounds are simply a natural evolution of that. Sure, you can call it narcissistic. But sometimes you simply want a memento, something to share with your friends and to look back upon when the memory has faded. When I travel, I generally have my wide angle along and have found that of the images that I post of scenic locations, the selfie ones have garnered the best responses by friends and family. For me, it's a nice way to share in an image what your up to.<br> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17582777-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="451" /></p>

<p>Rick, great image and commentary to go with it.</p>

<p>For my part, I don't need or expect an overhaul, what ever that entails. But I do think that this is a declining site. My guess is that for the ratings and critique system to work it needs to constantly attract a certain level of new users who are motivated to take part. And it seems like it's not reaching that threshold anymore. When I started here I offered quite a few critiques that were essentially about sharing things that I'd recently learned with others that might not know about it yet. But as time goes by I think most users lose interest in the critique and rating system and focus more on the threads. To put it simply, I joined for the critiques but have stayed for the threads. Question is, if you've lost interest in the ratings and critique feature, why become a paying member?<br> Sorry, maybe a bit off topic.</p>

<p>If I were to do this on a minimal budget, I would go with all used gear. KEH Camera is a used camera equipment dealer that has a good reputation. If you only want upwards of 8MP there are loads of older DSLRs out there that will do the job well. As far as lenses go, you want something that has a flat field of focus so that you don't have a fall off of sharpness in the corners when focused on the center. Luckily most macro lenses have a flat focus field and are extremely sharp. I think a 100mm focal length would work well. You'll also need a very stable base and good diffused lighting. A good solid tripod and head will be the easiest way to mount the camera but also relatively expensive. Depending on how handy you are I can think of a lot cheaper solutions as long as they don't need to be very portable. The lighting is also something that to do it with flashes and diffusers will quickly get expensive. But if you are handy, 4 florescent light strips with high color rendering index (CRI) rated tubes placed close but out of frame one on each side with white translucent cloth in front of them would probably produce good results.<br> There is also the question of post processing to get the best results but that's a whole new topic. I'm sure others will disagree, but if you don't have much interest in using the camera for much else, then you can get good results in a DIY studio without having to invest in a lot of high end gear. I think this all only makes sense if you expect to be photographing a lot of artwork. If not, find someone with the equipment and skills to do it for you. If you want to do it on your own, keep in mind you'll need to learn the basics of photography.</p>

<div></div>