# Picture thread



## miketx60 (Jul 20, 2015)

Are there any photographers here? If so post a few pictures you took.

Here's a few I shot...




























I usually use a Nikon D90 or D40 with several lens combinations to choose from.


----------



## miketx60 (Jul 20, 2015)

My prescription for crime....


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Nice work!
I wish that my work were anywhere near as good.


----------



## miketx60 (Jul 20, 2015)

Thank you. Photoshop helps to tweak them. Not much just a little sharpening and color correcting.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

miketx60 said:


> Thank you. Photoshop helps to tweak them. Not much just a little sharpening and color correcting.


I don't care about your pictures, and I don't like your kool aid . :butthead:


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

miketx60 said:


> Are there any photographers here? If so post a few pictures you took.
> 
> Here's a few I shot...
> 
> ...


You can ask that it would be nice to post pics , you sound a little demanding


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

You mention Photoshop and all credibility goes right out the window. 

You either take great pics or you don't.


----------



## miketx60 (Jul 20, 2015)

The original is a great pic. I just tweaked it a little like a lot of photographers do. All professional and many amateur photographers use Photoshop. The reason is simple: THe camera does not see like the human eye does. Even before Photoshop pros edited their stuff.



> I don't care about your pictures, and I don't like your kool aid .


So? Stop whining man, please.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

miketx60 said:


> The original is a great pic. I just tweaked it a little like a lot of photographers do. All professional and many amateur photographers use Photoshop. The reason is simple: THe camera does not see like the human eye does. Even before Photoshop pros edited their stuff.
> 
> So? Stop whining man, please.


Back in the mid 70's, I had a Nikon F2S. Can't claim to be an expert photographer, or anything that even came close. But, I took some very good pics that seemed to please everyone that saw them. I even won some on-base photo contests.

My point is, if you alter a photo via whatever means available to you, it's not the same photo you took. I'm not sure that photos were supposed to be 100% perfect. However slightly flawed a photo might be, it is proof that a human took it, and not corrected by technology.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

...At the same time, it must be admitted that every great photographer "tweaked" his or her work, even long before PhotoShop.

Even Ansel Adams changed aspects of his shots during enlarging, and also during contact printing. You guys do know about "dodging," right?

You can't make a poorly-composed or uninteresting picture into a winner by using PhotoShop. The fundamentals still have to be there.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> ...At the same time, it must be admitted that every great photographer "tweaked" his or her work, even long before PhotoShop.
> 
> Even Ansel Adams changed aspects of his shots during enlarging, and also during contact printing. You guys do know about "dodging," right?
> 
> You can't make a poorly-composed or uninteresting picture into a winner by using PhotoShop. *The fundamentals still have to be there*.


Great point, Steve! Just because an individual has a great guitar doesn't make them Jimi Hendrix or Joe Bonamassa.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

miketx60 said:


> The original is a great pic. I just tweaked it a little like a lot of photographers do. All professional and many amateur photographers use Photoshop. The reason is simple: *THe camera does not see like the human eye does.* Even before Photoshop pros edited their stuff.
> 
> So? Stop whining man, please.


Indeed you are correct. Credit is where credit is due. *Congratulations, outstanding pictures! Excellent detail!* Photoshop or not it does take some degree of skill to use both. We've got a Canon EOS 60D with it's standard lens, great camera! We also have Photoshop. Sometimes we need it, sometimes we don't, it all depends on the lighting. Because of the sun out here in Arizona the colors tend to get a little washed out. Especially in the middle of the desert. I usually like to take pictures of cars or objects on overcast days which we seldom have or in the shade. Both my wife and I have worked in the printing industry as graphic designers and are familiar with the tricks of the trade. If you do not know the basics, Photoshop won't do you any good. If you do, it is a great tool to use to get the most realistic photo's possible. However it is no substitute for good composition and an artistic eye which you obviously have.

We also have a Celestron 8" Schmidt Cassegrain telescope, tried some astrophotography with mediocre results. Same for terrestrial photography. The problem is that every vibration is magnified by the same amount as the power that is being used. In other words if the magnification is 500X the vibrations are also magnified 500X. To solve this I made a concrete pier to mount the telescope on. But it is hardly portable. At one time they made and probably still do, a cold camera that was packed with dry ice. You had to load the film and dry ice in complete darkness before attaching it to the telescope. The other issue with astrophotography is finding true north which is so many degrees from Polaris otherwise celestial objects will trail with the movement of the earth. Which can be a time consuming pain in the ass even with an illuminated reticle. The moon is no problem and requires a fast shutter speed as it's brilliance is also intensified by the telescopes magnification. I've seen some outstanding celestial photographs taken with the same telescope. I just don't have the patience or desire to stay up that late to achieve the same results. Plus I've got too many other hobbies to keep me occupied, working on guns and antique cars among them.

As for the Cool Aid, no I don't drink it. Couple of beers now and then, but no Cool Aid. Keep posting those pictures! My wife and I really enjoyed seeing them. You've given us some inspiration! Time to get out the camera and fart around with it.


----------



## miketx60 (Jul 20, 2015)

Thank you.

Here is another with a little explanation to go with it.

Let's look for a moment at how changing the exposure of a scene can completely change the picture. The picture below was shot at around 6:30 in the morning and the exposure was as follows: Aperture F10 , Shutter speed 1/15th second, ISO 400, exposure compensation -0.7. The camera was a Nikon D40. Not to impressive, huh?










Now, the exact same picture taken a few seconds later with the following exposure settings, aperture F10, shutter speed 1/250th second, ISO 200, exposure compensation -0.7, gives a dramatically different result:


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Indeed it does! It pays to know what you are doing.


----------



## miketx60 (Jul 20, 2015)

desertman said:


> Indeed it does! It pays to know what you are doing.


I always wanted one of those Celestron telescopes. Never got it. As far as sky photography I usually just do the moon.

Here's on from my from porch back in Feb. I think that was Venus to the left.










This one was shot with a Nikon D90 with 300 mm lens. ISO 200 F8 1/200th.


----------



## miketx60 (Jul 20, 2015)

For what it's worth here is the original of the grasshopper.










It was mostly just cropped and a little color correcting.


----------



## Orange (Jun 4, 2015)




----------



## miketx60 (Jul 20, 2015)

Beautiful! I got one or two butterflies somewhere.


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

Nice clear shots. Very Good Mike and Orange. 

What other lenses do you have?

Filters?


----------



## miketx60 (Jul 20, 2015)

I have a polarizer and several others, as well as each lens has a UV filter on it for protection. As far as lenses:

Nikkor 55-300 mm









Nikkor 18-105 mm









Nikkor 55-200 mm









Nikkor 50 mm prime









Sigma 10 -20 wide angle









And my favorite thing to shoot with:

Springfield Armory .45 acp


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

miketx60 said:


> I always wanted one of those Celestron telescopes. Never got it. As far as sky photography I usually just do the moon.
> 
> Here's on from my from porch back in Feb. I think that was Venus to the left.
> 
> ...


Astrophotography is a league unto itself. It usually requires long exposures to obtain some of those spectacular photo's of galaxies and nebula. The camera will pick up colors that are not visible to the naked eye. Looking through the telescope they appear as blue/greenish clouds or patches of light. The camera will pick up more details and those spectacular red and violet colors as seen in magazines. The telescope has to be aligned perfectly with the earths polar axis. Some photographers will leave the telescope running all day and open up the shutter over several nights in order to obtain even longer exposures. If it is aligned properly it will be in the exact same spot as it was the night before and the night before etc. It also requires a solid foundation. I dug a hole large enough to fit a 55 gallon drum in, centered a steel lolly column in it and then filled the hole with reinforced concrete. I then secured a level steel plate on top of lolly column. The equatorial wedge was then secured to it allowing for some side to side movement in order to obtain the proper alignment. Celestron also sells a solid mount that is set at the correct angle as the earths polar axis that can also be used as a substitute for the wedge. It is far more rigid than the wedge. But has to be carefully aligned on the lolly column before it is welded in place. Once that's done it's just a simple matter to carry out the telescope, bolt it on the mount, attach a camera and you are good to go. Vibration is the astrophotographers worst enemy.

I never really got serious about astrophotography but wanted the rigid column for viewing purposes where a simple alignment on Polaris was more than adequate. Astrophotography requires a more precise alignment and a great deal of trial and error as the earths true polar axis is a few degrees away from Polaris.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

If it's in that kind of alignment with our Moon, isn't it always Venus?

The "star" in the Islamic star-and-crescent is Venus, too.
That alignment happens pretty often, although I'm not certain about how often.


----------



## miketx60 (Jul 20, 2015)

desertman said:


> Astrophotography is a league unto itself. It usually requires long exposures to obtain some of those spectacular photo's of galaxies and nebula. The camera will pick up colors that are not visible to the naked eye. Looking through the telescope they appear as blue/greenish clouds or patches of light. The camera will pick up more details and those spectacular red and violet colors as seen in magazines. The telescope has to be aligned perfectly with the earths polar axis. Some photographers will leave the telescope running all day and open up the shutter over several nights in order to obtain even longer exposures. If it is aligned properly it will be in the exact same spot as it was the night before and the night before etc. It also requires a solid foundation. I dug a hole large enough to fit a 55 gallon drum in, centered a steel lolly column in it and then filled the hole with reinforced concrete. I then secured a level steel plate on top of lolly column. The equatorial wedge was then secured to it allowing for some side to side movement in order to obtain the proper alignment. Celestron also sells a solid mount that is set at the correct angle as the earths polar axis that can also be used as a substitute for the wedge. It is far more rigid than the wedge. But has to be carefully aligned on the lolly column before it is welded in place. Once that's done it's just a simple matter to carry out the telescope, bolt it on the mount, attach a camera and you are good to go.
> 
> I never really got serious about astrophotography but wanted the rigid column for viewing purposes where a simple alignment on Polaris was more than adequate. Astrophotography requires a more precise alignment and a great deal of trial and error as the earths true polar axis is a few degrees away from Polaris.


I knew that is was NOT easy. Kudos to you for building a proper rest.
I limit mine to near Earth objects like the moon. The moon is easy if you know how. The only secret is that you need a tripod and it's usually NOT a long exposure. I thought about going out on a moonless night and set my camera on a tripod and open the shutter and see what I would get but never did. I need to do it.

Start doing it again.


----------



## miketx60 (Jul 20, 2015)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> If it's in that kind of alignment with our Moon, isn't it always Venus?
> 
> The "star" in the Islamic star-and-crescent is Venus, too.
> That alignment happens pretty often, although I'm not certain about how often.


Steve I don't know how often that alignment happens. I was getting ready to to work at the prison and and stepped out the front door and saw that. I went back and got the camera and tripod and got the shot. It was all luck.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

Y'all ain't got nothing on this dude:

http://gizmodo.com/the-iss-photobombed-this-photographers-perseid-meteor-s-1723236890


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> If it's in that kind of alignment with our Moon, isn't it always Venus?
> 
> The "star" in the Islamic star-and-crescent is Venus, too.
> That alignment happens pretty often, although I'm not certain about how often.


Sometimes its Saturn or Jupiter [actually all the planets could line up except maybe Pluto on an elliptical orbit. Mercury would be blotted out by the sun's light.] Venus is the most regular and brightest. Being an inner planet, Venus rises in the west, reaches apogee then sinks back down until its on the other side of the sun rising and sinking in the morning then repeating the cycle as the Earth and Venus race around Sol.

Recently, I'm pretty sure it was both Saturn and Venus that were close to the moon.

And if the muslims ever do see a 'star' _within _the circle of the moon, it'll be an incoming ICBM not Venus.


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

Nice set of lenses Mike.

Wife has a Cannon EOS70d that she is still learning to use. I prefer my old Fujica AX3.

As for cannon, a 1911a1 does fine by me. Nice grips on yours.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

miketx60 said:


> I knew that is was NOT easy. Kudos to you for building a proper rest.
> I limit mine to near Earth objects like the moon. The moon is easy if you know how. *The only secret is that you need a tripod and it's usually NOT a long exposure*. I thought about going out on a moonless night and set my camera on a tripod and open the shutter and see what I would get but never did. I need to do it.
> 
> Start doing it again.


I'm sure you are already aware of this but when you hook your camera up to a telescope it also intensifies the incoming light by the same amount of magnification. I'm guessing that you would have to adjust your shutter speed accordingly? Depending on how long the exposure is more than likely you would get trails because of the earths rotation. Our telescope has a clock drive to compensate for this and you can mount the camera on top of the telescope so you wouldn't get any trails. We also have a set of counter weights to offset the weight of the camera and any other accessories that are mounted to it.

With your knowledge of photography, I'll bet that with the proper equipment you would have no trouble taking some fantastic photo's of the heavens. Being a good photographer does take a considerable amount of skill along with the willingness to experiment. You've got that down pat, my friend. Good luck in your endeavors!


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

CW said:


> Nice set of lenses Mike.
> 
> Wife has a Cannon EOS70d that she is still learning to use. I prefer my old Fujica AX3.
> 
> As for cannon, a 1911a1 does fine by me. Nice grips on yours.


I guess we all have a few "cannons" except they're not too good at taking pictures. Maybe they have a good flash but that's about it.


----------



## miketx60 (Jul 20, 2015)

desertman said:


> I guess we all have a few "cannons" except they're not too good at taking pictures. Maybe they have a good flash but that's about it.


If anyone is interested I have a document I wrote to help people new to photography understand cameras and how to improve your pictures.

Yeah Desertman, it would be trails.


----------



## miketx60 (Jul 20, 2015)

Here's a few more.

This car was only going about 30 mph, but with the correct exposure settings it looks like it's really moving.










Kitty cats.










The fence keeps the flowers at bay.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

miketx60 said:


> Here's a few more.
> 
> This car was only going about 30 mph, but with the correct exposure settings it looks like it's really moving.
> 
> ...


Love the little creatures!


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

Mike, it looks like you did a 'pan shot'. 

Very popular for railfans. 
You move the camera - pan, with the action part - train. This freezes the action -train, and makes the still become a blur.


Have you tried strobe light photos where you freeze high speed action - like a bullet in flight?


----------



## miketx60 (Jul 20, 2015)

No I have not done that. Might be interesting though. You are correct on the pan.


----------



## DirtyDog (Oct 16, 2014)

I'm not what I'd consider a real photographer, but I'll play along.

Caribbean reef shark, Nassau, Bahamas. 








Sting ray, Cozumel, Mexico








Green Sea Turtle, Cozumel, Mexico








Caribbean reef shark Sue, Me, and Kim, Nassau, Bahamas








Alvaro and me, Dos Ojos Cenote, Tulum, Mexico








Iguana, Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles








Crab, Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles








Iguana, Curacao, Netherlands Antilles








Iguana, Curacao, Netherlands Antilles








Shot with some high tech gear.
An iPhone 4 or 5, with a WaterShot housing for the underwater shots.


----------



## miketx60 (Jul 20, 2015)

Those are all nice shots! I like the one with the three divers and the shark on top best!


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

I take it the water got a little murky after the shark swam past..... heh.


----------



## DirtyDog (Oct 16, 2014)

Nahhhh... sharks are awesome, but (like guns) they get a bad rap from the media and Hollywood. They're not generally aggressive, and they certainly don't look at us and think "LUNCH!!!" There were at least a dozen other sharks around when that picture was taken.


----------



## lewwallace (Mar 4, 2015)

Samsung 10.1 tab, mid morning!


----------



## miketx60 (Jul 20, 2015)

Nice butterfly. What kind of camera is it?


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

miketx60 said:


> Nice butterfly. What kind of camera is it?


Ah, yes...
The true nature photographer:
Not, "What kind of butterfly?" But rather, "What kind of camera?"

Thanks, guys.
That was my really good laugh of the day!


----------



## miketx60 (Jul 20, 2015)

I feel so ashamed now.... That's the same reason I stopped going to the library. My wife and friends accused me of being a problem thinker.


----------



## lewwallace (Mar 4, 2015)

Its a Samsung tablet! Version 10.1; 2 yrs old!


----------



## packrat (Jul 30, 2015)

Canon SD1200I
The light is a little harsh over my work bench.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

lewwallace said:


> Samsung 10.1 tab, mid morning!
> View attachment 1535


Eastern Tiger Swallowtail


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

I doubt anyone would mistake me for a photographer.

Just a storm coming in.

GW


----------



## miketx60 (Jul 20, 2015)

Nice sky shot.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

I second the motion!

Nice work, GW!


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)




----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Wow, Cait...
Nice cock!
:yawinkle: :anim_lol:


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

Cait43 said:


>


That looks like The House On The Rock.

GW


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

This is a shot of the same storm a little later on.



You need luck to catch lightning with a cheap digital camera.

GW


----------



## miketx60 (Jul 20, 2015)

You need luck to catch it with my 1500 dollar Nikon as well.

Almost all so called "great photographs" are a combination of knowing how to use the equipment, having the equipment and being at the right place at the right time. Also, the main advantage to having good equipment in any field is that it gets out of your way. For example, one morning I wanted a shot of the morning red sky over some hills and all I had was my semi cheap Fuji camera. I got out of the car and pointed at the scene and it was over exposed, so I adjusted the aperture down. Pointed again and still over exposed. I finally had to adjust the ISO down enough to let me get the picture, whereas with me Nikon DSLR, which I keep ready, I would have just had to get out, compose and press the button.

This was on the Brazos river early one morning. I had everything and just clicked.


----------



## TAPnRACK (Jan 30, 2013)

I didn't take this photo... a buddy (photographer) did, but I'm in it...lol. He punched up the contrast to make it more interesting.


----------



## DirtyDog (Oct 16, 2014)

My most common view of the ocean, when I'm not in it. Taken at the Sabor, Cozumel, Mexico.








A cleaner shrimp. If you have good buoyancy and can be totally still, these guys will come out and clean your hands, like they do fish and turtles.








A Scorpion Fish. No touchy. Very poisonous.








Another cleaner shrimp, out to play.








A cave fish. Extremely rare. They've been in the dark so long that they have no color, and no eyes. Shot about half a mile back in the cave at Cenote Dos Ojos.








Entrance to the cenote at Chichen Itza.








Pyramid at Chichen Itza.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

*Lighthouse*









*Old Water Tower*









*George Wallace campaigning 1968*








*
Hummingbird Moth*


----------



## DirtyDog (Oct 16, 2014)

A panoramic shot of the Tower of London.








The Tower Bridge, London, England








Another view of the Tower Bridge.








Thornbury Castle as seen from the garden. Gloucestershire, England.








Our room at Thornbury Castle.








A panoramic of Leeds Castle, Kent, England








Approaching Leeds Castle.








Albino Peacock, Leeds Castle.








Drawbridge, as seen from the moat. Arundel Castle, West Sussex, England.








The original "Motte and Bailey" keep at Arundel Castle.








A panoramic shot of Amberley Castle, Sussex, England.








The path to the entrance at Amberley.


----------



## ybnorml (Nov 26, 2014)

Always try to have my camera with me, no matter which vehicle I'm in.
Inexpensive Canon S110, if it's dropped and smashed I don't frett.
Here's a few from days past....


----------



## miketx60 (Jul 20, 2015)

DirtyDog and ybnorml, great work!


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

Great pictures everybody. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

If you haven't guessed by now, the better half and I like watching storms. This was around a year ago at home.

GW


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Wow!


----------

