 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005What I did on my summer vacation
I've recently returned from a two-week trip, and I put together a quick (auto-generated) web gallery to show some pictures to some people, so I figured I'd post it here to distract from the ongoing brand-wars, and since I've never really shared any pictures here before. So, my stuff from the past couple of weeks: http://www.supernews.com/jeremyspictures/ Now that I look at it, I wonder if 900 pixels on the long side isn't a bit too large. Oh well, I can re-do it with smaller pictures if it's a problem for people to view. Comments welcome. Note -- I've put this on my employer's web server, but obviously they bear no responsibility for any of it in any way. For the technically curious, camera was a Nikon D2x. All pictures were processed in Adobe Camera Raw. Most were untouched in Photoshop proper, except a bunch of them had sensor dust removed, a few (3 or 4) had adjustment layers (like Curves) applied, and a few of the animal pictures were cropped, which I don't like to do, but whatever. I'm a total novice at wildlife and 300mm is as long as my lenses go.  SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com Some nice stuff here - I like your slightly unconventional crops - you remind me of me.. (O: Don't know if I go for the strong dark-to-light sky gradients, though - are you using a polariser a bit too heavily perhaps, or do your skies really change that dramatically? When using wide-angles I back off on the polariser to avoid that 'look', and just saturate it up a bit later. > Don't know if I go for the strong dark-to-light sky gradients, though - > are you using a polariser a bit too heavily perhaps, or do your skies > really change that dramatically? When using wide-angles I back off on > the polariser to avoid that 'look', and just saturate it up a bit > later. I kind of like it, but in most cases it's due to using a fisheye lens rather than a polarizer. In the early morning the sky really does change that much from one angle to another, you just don't normally have a wide enough field of view to see it. :) SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >but in most cases it's due to using a fisheye lens Aha! I didn't look all that closely - I could see the shots were obviously wide-angle, but if it's a fisheye, then yes it's pretty much unavoidable. I withdraw my comment! > So, my stuff from the past couple of weeks: > http://www.supernews.com/jeremyspictures/ Whatever your day job is, quit it. You're a born photographer. Only somebody with real talent could have instinctively shot so many "keepers" on a 2-week vacation. I liked your composition and "print" quality. You obviously had fun with the various lenses you carted along. Don't stop now :^) SignatureAnti-Spam address: my last name at his dot com Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA > I've recently returned from a two-week trip, and I put together a quick > (auto-generated) web gallery to show some pictures to some people, so I [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > were cropped, which I don't like to do, but whatever. I'm a total novice > at wildlife and 300mm is as long as my lenses go. I would assume people have a minimum 1024px across so 900px is fine. But with description on the left side of the picture makes people need to scroll across, which is a bit of an annoyance. It's better to put them at the bottom. Anyway, the fish lens is certainly fun!! And I love the color. > I've recently returned from a two-week trip, and I put together a quick > (auto-generated) web gallery to show some pictures to some people, so I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.supernews.com/jeremyspictures/ Nice shots! Really like this one: http://www.supernews.com/jeremyspictures/source/prairie_plant.html SignatureTim & Christine Walsh Arizona Tribal Collectors www.tribalcollectors.com >> I've recently returned from a two-week trip, and I put together a quick >> (auto-generated) web gallery to show some pictures to some people, so I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Nice shots! Really like this one: >http://www.supernews.com/jeremyspictures/source/prairie_plant.html Yes, I like that one too. All the different curves in the scene are exaggerated by the fisheye lens, making the composition very effective. SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 02:15:14 -0000, in <11cmfliks3hnbdb@corp.supernews.com>, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> said: >So, my stuff from the past couple of weeks: > http://www.supernews.com/jeremyspictures/ Very nice work Jeremy! I particularly like the closeup fisheye shots of the plants with that beautifully coloured expanse of sky & land in the background. I also like the shot of the ant on the flower, although IMO it'd be improved with a tighter crop that'd move the ant out of the direct centre of the image. >Now that I look at it, I wonder if 900 pixels on the long side isn't a >bit too large. Oh well, I can re-do it with smaller pictures if it's a >problem for people to view. Comments welcome. It's probably a non-issue for those of us who have big screens for editing our own work, but I limit the maximum size on my own website (http://lo.ve.ly/) to 800 pixels for the benefit of the typical viewer, who is most likely to be running their screen at 1024x768 with lots of toolbars & other junk taking up space in their web browser. (& even so, I've had complaints from people running elderly PCs at 800x600 pixels!) >For the technically curious, camera was a Nikon D2x. All pictures were >processed in Adobe Camera Raw. Most were untouched in Photoshop proper, >except a bunch of them had sensor dust removed, a few (3 or 4) had >adjustment layers (like Curves) applied, and a few of the animal pictures >were cropped, which I don't like to do, but whatever. I'm a total novice >at wildlife and 300mm is as long as my lenses go. Well, FWIW, you seem to have more talent at that sort of photography than I do. ;) SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- > I've recently returned from a two-week trip, and I put together a quick > (auto-generated) web gallery to show some pictures to some people, so I [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > were cropped, which I don't like to do, but whatever. I'm a total novice > at wildlife and 300mm is as long as my lenses go. Those are some great pictures. Thanks for sharing. -- Slack >> I've recently returned from a two-week trip, and I put together a quick >> (auto-generated) web gallery to show some pictures to some people, so I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> bit too large. Oh well, I can re-do it with smaller pictures if it's a >> problem for people to view. Comments welcome. I like the size, but understand it may be difficult for some. If I were to get really picky, I'd like your background to be a darker gray..... > Those are some great pictures. Thanks for sharing. Yes, well done, well done. Q. Is the mound of earth behind the subject of a few- e.g. <http://www.supernews.com/jeremyspictures/source/badlands_flower_2.html> part of the original bad lands, or a strip mine? If original, I wonder what's in the soil to keep nothing from growing for 1000's of years? -- John McWilliams > I like the size, but understand it may be difficult for some. If I were > to get really picky, I'd like your background to be a darker gray..... Yeah, I just picked one of the templates in iView MediaPro and went with it. When, in my copious spare time, I make a *real* web site, I don't think I'll go with white. :) > Q. Is the mound of earth behind the subject of a few- e.g. > <http://www.supernews.com/jeremyspictures/source/badlands_flower_2.html> > > part of the original bad lands, or a strip mine? If original, I wonder > what's in the soil to keep nothing from growing for 1000's of years? Those are actual, natural rock formations. It's a National Park, so there is no mining or anything else going on. The rock is sedimentary and is very soft, with the softness of the lines due to wind erosion (that's why it looks like a mound of earth, but it's actually solid rock). See: http://www.nps.gov/badl/exp/home.htm -- click "about our park" and then "geology" for an overview. It's a frame-set, so giving the direct URL to that page isn't as helpful. People don't usually think of South Dakota as a prime vacation spot, but honestly, the southwestern part of the state is one of the coolest places I've been in a long time (this was not my first visit, either). I highly recommend it, especially for photographers, though it's really a road-trip destination unless you want to rent a car and drive it quite a long way. (Yes, I really did drive there from New Jersey.) There is a lot more there than you see in my pictures; I had only four days there, so I skipped a lot of stuff that I'd seen before and concentrated mainly on the Badlands, which is a great (and largely unsung) venue for photography. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > People don't usually think of South Dakota as a prime vacation spot, but > honestly, the southwestern part of the state is one of the coolest places [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > skipped a lot of stuff that I'd seen before and concentrated mainly on > the Badlands, which is a great (and largely unsung) venue for photography. Jeremy, loved the pictures! Just one little nitpick. Here in South Dakota they are not called granaries, but elevators... FYI T.W. > Jeremy, loved the pictures! Just one little nitpick. > Here in South Dakota they are not called granaries, but elevators... I thought the elevators were the individual thingies, and the granary was the whole business establishment? But hey, I didn't even know the purple things were "thistle" until someone told me. I just shoot the pictures. :) Thanks. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com Outstanding photos!! Love 'em. Really makes me miss my "time" on the prairies and reminds me of something someone said to me when I first moved to the prairies from the west coast: "Mountains are easy". Bob > I've recently returned from a two-week trip, and I put together a quick > (auto-generated) web gallery to show some pictures to some people, so I [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > were cropped, which I don't like to do, but whatever. I'm a total novice > at wildlife and 300mm is as long as my lenses go. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.