Fifth picture: camoflauge

My pictures today could have been better. I still want to go take a picture of that dilapidated barn, but I'm going to wait for a sunnier day to do it in.

here is a picture I call the twins. too bad I can't show it bigger

first the filesize was too big

then there were toomuch pixels.

Sorry Wade but it would be easyer if you made it 400*400 instead of 400*300

At 6/13/04 04:28 PM, TheCorinthian wrote: Second picture: A butterfly with broken wings.

Alright! Glad to see some more close up shots. What are you shooting those with?

At 6/13/04 06:56 PM, WadeFulp wrote: Alright! Glad to see some more close up shots. What are you shooting those with?

I'm shooting them with my Kodak CX 6330 digital camera. 3.1 Megapixel on the best quality (which is what I shoot at by default). Its not the best camera, but it gets the job done.

At 6/13/04 08:59 PM, TheCorinthian wrote: I'm shooting them with my Kodak CX 6330 digital camera. 3.1 Megapixel on the best quality (which is what I shoot at by default). Its not the best camera, but it gets the job done.

I take it you were shooting without the Flash in the macro mode? How close can that camera focus? I've been thinking about getting a close up adaptor for my G5 as it can only get with in like 6 inches, but the 5 megapixels gives you more pixels to work with when cropping in on something. I finally brought all my pictures over from my parents place. I didn't realize how many there were. I had like 7 boxes of them. Now I have to find some cool pics to scan.

LOL! I'm used to capitalizing flash (Flash) after all this time talking about Macromedia Flash. :)

At 6/13/04 09:15 PM, WadeFulp wrote: I take it you were shooting without the Flash in the macro mode? How close can that camera focus? I've been thinking about getting a close up adaptor for my G5 as it can only get with in like 6 inches, but the 5 megapixels gives you more pixels to work with when cropping in on something.

Yes, I wasn't using the flash. It can focus up to about 6 inches. I just cropped it real tight.

I finally brought all my pictures over from my parents place. I didn't realize how many there were. I had like 7 boxes of them. Now I have to find some cool pics to scan.

How long have you been doing photography?!

Here's that butterfly pic before I cropped it.

Here's a birdy. I went to go and capture the sunset, but that didn't work. I just stayed at the gate and didn't walk all the way to the end of the lane. The may reason being the masquitoes ate me alive. If I would have stayed out much more I would have needed a blood donation.

At 6/13/04 09:34 PM, TheCorinthian wrote: Here's a birdy. I went to go and capture the sunset, but that didn't work. I just stayed at the gate and didn't walk all the way to the end of the lane. The may reason being the masquitoes ate me alive. If I would have stayed out much more I would have needed a blood donation.

again, you remind me of a time when i wish i had a camer and didn't

i was walking around burlington vt. (you know, taking the fairy across lake champlain saves A WHOLE LOT OF GAS!!) and in the "market place" (closed off roads for pedestriens only and shops) and there were these raelly cool looking pigeons.

i dont see them much, maybe you city people are bored of them, but they had these really vibrant blue feathers and were all fat and shit.

i wanted to catch one for some reason...but some cop shot me a weird look when i starte fallowing the bird around

At 6/13/04 10:16 PM, MALforPresident wrote: i dont see them much, maybe you city people are bored of them, but they had these really vibrant blue feathers and were all fat and shit.

I don't live in the city. I hardly ever see pigeons exccept when I'm at school. I see hawks and owls about as much as I see pigeons.

At 6/13/04 10:27 PM, TheCorinthian wrote: I don't live in the city. I hardly ever see pigeons exccept when I'm at school. I see hawks and owls about as much as I see pigeons.

same here, i'm in the middle of no where. i should have a shatload of nature shots all over this thread, but i dont have a scanner. and as much as i love landscape shots, i really dont take many pictures of trees and that, i live in a beautiful area though, i think you guys can see from the pictures i've posted of where i live. but its just something i've always lived with and i think i take it for granted

At 6/13/04 10:16 PM, MALforPresident wrote: i dont see them much, maybe you city people are bored of them, but they had these really vibrant blue feathers and were all fat and shit.

Ha, I know what you're talking about. I live in the country too, but whenever I go into a city, I'm amazed at how tame the damn pigeons are. And the blue-feathered ones, mmhmm.

I think this might be some old section of Savannah, Georgia.

At 6/13/04 09:28 PM, TheCorinthian wrote: How long have you been doing photography?!

Well, I've kinda been playing with that kinda thing all my life. I actually first had more of an experience with video than film. My father got one of those video cameras with a VHS recorder that you would wear over your shoulder (two pieces). So I learned how to white balance that, set up the video lights (these old video cameras required like a 500-1000 watt light if you wanted to video indoors).

Then I had played with my Dad's old Canon FTb now and then, and then I used it to take close up pictures of flowers I was growing for an 8th grade science project. I used the ring flash and everything. The pictures came out so good the teachers thought my Dad took them for me... Fuckers. :)

Then I took a couple photo classes in High School. Didn't learn a whole lot, mainly just how to develope B&W film and prints. Then after I graduated and did some college I got a job working at a camera store. The rest is history. After working for about 6 years full time (47 hours a week on average) in a professional camera store you learn a lot. I bought a lot of used equipment there and learned how to use it. After being there for 6-7 years I left to work for Newgrounds. After about 2 years I started working there again on just Saturdays.

So if we start at 8th grade I guess I've been messing around with it for about 15-16 years.

At 6/13/04 04:27 PM, TheCorinthian wrote:

What's that in the background? Anyways, nice pics, very sharp and colorful.

The wasps had a nest inside a hole of a wooden post at the end of a walking bridge. Behind them was some kind of metal plate with ID numbers or something.

I took my camera while I took a long bike trip on Saturday. Here is an air plane up in the sky. I like the lighting.

Alright, I got my pictures from my folks and I have the scanner up and running. I tried scanning a negative rather than the print, just to see the results. I'd really like to get a good film scanner some day. Probably something from Nikon with their Ice3 (Ice cubed) which removes dust and scratches. The problem with scanning is you always get dust no matter what you do.

I also like the colors of this one. The results were different than I expected.

At 6/14/04 01:23 AM, WadeFulp wrote: The problem with scanning is you always get dust no matter what you do.

Try one of those micofiber car cleaning cloths. they pic up just about every pice of lint or dust speck.

And These geese were ready to attack in order to protect their babies.

At 6/14/04 01:36 AM, shak3s wrote: Try one of those micofiber car cleaning cloths. they pic up just about every pice of lint or dust speck.

Way ahead of you. However, when you're scanning a negative at high resolution you're going to pick up stuff that is to small for the cloth or your eye to notice.

Here's a picture of some icicles outside my parents place that I took around new years 2001. It was a long exposure and all I remember is it being damn cold. I shot Fuji NPL 120 with my Pentax67. NPL is a tungsten balanced film, and basically Christmas lights are tungsten bulbs with colored glass, so the film balances the colors properly and doesn't result in all the lights looking orangish like standard day light balanced film would do. So if anyone plans on taking pictures of Christmas lights, go get some tungsten balanced print film! :)

At 6/14/04 01:48 AM, WadeFulp wrote: Way ahead of you. However, when you're scanning a negative at high resolution you're going to pick up stuff that is to small for the cloth or your eye to notice.

Then I'm sure your using air in a can, too.

I've never scanned negatives, do you have a choice with the backlighting device?

Here's another shot from the same night, same film. You can see how the colors look great and aren't tinted yellowish orange.

These were colored Christmas lights that were spread out over a low growing bush that the snow had covered. The lights melted holes in the snow around the bulbs resulting in rings of color.

At 6/14/04 02:04 AM, shak3s wrote: I've never scanned negatives, do you have a choice with the backlighting device?

The scanner I have has a backlight for 35mm negatives or slides.

Haha, forgot about this picture I took driving down I-95, I believe.

how many times to you see a car on fire.

Too bad for the owner

At 6/14/04 02:45 AM, WadeFulp wrote: Haha, forgot about this picture I took driving down I-95, I believe.

Do you just have a camera with you constantly or what? :) Either way, nice pic.

At 6/14/04 11:20 AM, TheCorinthian wrote: Do you just have a camera with you constantly or what? :) Either way, nice pic.

Nah, just happened to have one at the time.

I went for another walk up the lane with my dogs and I felt like taking a picture of this old truck that is halfway in a ditch in the woods. I couldn't get to it because the weeds are 4 feet tall, but I kept going and I took a picture. It was too dull so I touched it up a bit. What do you guys think about the colors and the contrast?

At 6/14/04 02:17 PM, TheCorinthian wrote: I went for another walk up the lane with my dogs and I felt like taking a picture of this old truck that is halfway in a ditch in the woods. I couldn't get to it because the weeds are 4 feet tall, but I kept going and I took a picture. It was too dull so I touched it up a bit. What do you guys think about the colors and the contrast?

It's a little bright on my screen. :) It's hard to make it perfect though as everyone's monitor will vary. I've found the LCD screen on my laptop to be the most accurate. All my old CRT monitors are going down hill.

At 6/14/04 03:03 PM, WadeFulp wrote: It's a little bright on my screen. :) It's hard to make it perfect though as everyone's monitor will vary. I've found the LCD screen on my laptop to be the most accurate. All my old CRT monitors are going down hill.

That's true I guess. Its not real bright on my monitor. The stuff in the background is pretty dark and the front seems just right. For me it made the greens look really lush, instead of bleeched by the bright sun.