spring at my house
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Mar 25, 2007 4:24 PM EDT |
http://bratgrrl.com/swan.jpg There were skillions of 'em, with the sun behind them, so all I got was one rebel flying off alone way far away. Edited with the Gimp and uploaded with GFTP, just to maintain a Linux connection :) |
| tracyanne Mar 25, 2007 6:21 PM EDT |
What sort of camera were you using? |
| tuxchick Mar 26, 2007 6:21 PM EDT |
I have a cool little Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ1K. It is such a fun camera, and takes great pics. 10x optical zoom, wheee, though the swan pic was at 40x digital zoom. Not a bad image for mass digital zoom! |
| tracyanne Mar 26, 2007 8:17 PM EDT |
Not bad at all, I think you could still have got a great shot, shooting into the sun. |
| tuxchick Mar 27, 2007 8:46 AM EDT |
Tell you what- you first. You can risk your eyes and camera, then come back and tell us how it went. |
| tracyanne Mar 27, 2007 8:15 PM EDT |
I've done it many times. My hobby is photography. |
| tuxchick Mar 27, 2007 10:06 PM EDT |
Ok, so show some pics you shot into the sun. |
| tracyanne Mar 27, 2007 10:26 PM EDT |
Fine I'll but some up tomorrow my time. In the mean time I have a qusetion or two for you. Have you ever seen photos of sunsets, with the sun looking like a big red ball floating above the horizon? Have you ever seen photos of people who are back lit by the sun, with lens fare in the picture? |
| cyber_rigger Mar 28, 2007 5:26 AM EDT |
>big red ball The trick to making the sun or moon look bigger is to stand far away and use a telephoto lens. |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 28, 2007 5:52 AM EDT |
Beautiful, TC. Thank you. |
| tracyanne Mar 28, 2007 2:03 PM EDT |
quote::
The trick to making the sun or moon look bigger is to stand far away and use a telephoto lens. ::quote It also means, in the case of the sun, that you are not only shooting into the sun (pointing the camera in the direction of the sun), you are shooting at the sun. In other words you are pointing the camera directly at the sun |
| tracyanne Mar 28, 2007 3:38 PM EDT |
TC, http://p207.ezboard.com/ffreethinkerspubfrm8.showMessage?top... I had nothing that wasn't on Film, and therefore it needed to be scanned in. I used my partners Kodak digi camera and took these this morning to demonstrate what I was talking about. |
| cyber_rigger Mar 28, 2007 7:11 PM EDT |
>In other words you are pointing the camera directly You can alway get out the black construction paper and poke a pinhole in it, or use a solar filter. When I look at the sun (solar eclipses) I use a welding hood lens. |
| tuxchick Mar 29, 2007 9:23 AM EDT |
oh, you have TREES. Filtered sun through trees is very pretty. but you'll notice the foreground is pretty dark. I had swans directly in front of the sun with no nice trees, which is a bit too intense to photograph. At least with my little camera. |
| tracyanne Mar 29, 2007 2:20 PM EDT |
Yeah, I had trees in the photo, it wouldn't have looked as good with just a picture of the naked sun (beside some people don't like naked), it needed some sort of framing. If I'd had a camera with controllable aperture, adjustable exposure timing, and focus ability, I might have tried to bring up a bit more definition in the foreground, but stopping down (closing the aperture to f11 f16 or thereabouts would have changed the lens flare effects). It really depends on how close the swans were - how much of the frame they filled in comparison to the sun. If the sun filled more of the shot, or overpowered it then yeah there wasn't much point, unless you were doing a sunset thing with the birds silhouetted against the setting sun, But then the sunset is the subject and the silhouettes of the birds act as a sort of inverse frame to draw your eye, and you aren't worried about detail in the birds. |
| tuxchick Mar 29, 2007 2:56 PM EDT |
I definitely wanted details, otherwise they look like $generic_bird. Plus the sun is pretty intense, we're about 3500 feet altitude, which makes a noticeable difference in intensity. Might be fun to try sometime with a better camera with a longer lens. |
| tracyanne Mar 29, 2007 3:14 PM EDT |
quote:: 3500 feet altitude, which makes a noticeable difference in intensity. ::quote It would indeed. I'm pretty close to sea level. Partner and I are heading off to go camping/fishing on the river near here - I've got a 2 week break started on Tuesday - see you all in 5 days. |
| dcparris Mar 29, 2007 4:23 PM EDT |
Enjoy your break! |
You cannot post until you login.