butterflies

On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 21:11:32 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

the
backgrounds that are blurry came out that way natrually I didn’t blur them after.

Yes, that’s called depth of field… *sigh*

You should marry Ulysses and raise a pack of moron children. 7-11 is always going to need night clerks.

"Carrie" wrote in message

Some I took today. Since we’re posting things to keep the group active. I’ve been doing PS CS3 video tutorials and feel I’m learning a lot- fast. Just have to remember it, but I figure I’ll be doing things over and over (with various pictures) and trying things out. I’m on blend modes now (I love that stuff and filters/effects)

back in the old days of 35mm slr cameras
you would set the shutter opening (f-stop) to shorten the depth of field then set the shutter speed accordingly. tripods were needed for sharpness and lots of patience
today with digital cameras you can do the same, BUT we are lazy and use the "auto" settings. plus with most digitals, one cannot see thru the lens
photoshop can do it, but really it’s fake. still love potoshop, tho

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 21:11:32 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

You should marry Ulysses and raise a pack of moron children. 7-11 is always going to need night clerks.

get married. maybe
have children at my age—-HA

"Ulysses" wrote in message

"Carrie" wrote in message

Some I took today. Since we’re posting things to keep the group active. I’ve been doing PS CS3 video tutorials and feel I’m learning a lot- fast. Just have to remember it, but I figure I’ll be doing things over and over (with various pictures) and trying things out. I’m on blend modes now (I love that stuff and filters/effects)

back in the old days of 35mm slr cameras
you would set the shutter opening (f-stop) to shorten the depth of field then set the shutter speed accordingly. tripods were needed for sharpness and lots of patience
today with digital cameras you can do the same, BUT we are lazy and use the "auto" settings. plus with most digitals, one cannot see thru the lens
photoshop can do it, but really it’s fake. still love potoshop, tho

I used to have 35mm SLR cameras. Except for brightening and sharpening (and cropping) the butterfly pictures are as I took them. My camera has an auto setting for long dept of field, if I want to use that. I had just been using auto everything on it, but lately have been putting it on manual more. My camera has a viewfinder (along with the screen on the back) and I tend to use that more. Especially outside when it’s bright.
I got into using photoshop when I first had a digital camera and it was very cheap, but all I could get at the time.
I see people who post picures online and either they say what camera they have, or if I ask, and I look it up and it costs like $3000. And they have a tripod and all kinds of fancy lenses. (I have a tripod but it’s kind of a bother to use it) In a way I think having a not so expensive camera forces me to be more creative and learn more about using mine and photoshop after. I have a Canon Rebel XSi (up from the XS body I had before the shutter broke on). Which I think is pretty good. I do look at some of the Nikon D ones. But, most of them cost more than I have to live on per month.

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 07:55:33 -0400, "Ulysses"
scribbled:

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 21:11:32 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

You should marry Ulysses and raise a pack of moron children. 7-11 is always going to need night clerks.

get married. maybe
have children at my age—-HA

Amazing. You’re smart enough to NOT want to pollute the gene pool.

You’re a step above cockroach, congratulations.

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 08:34:41 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

I see people who post picures online and either they say what camera they have, or if I ask, and I look it up and it costs like $3000. And they have a tripod and all kinds of fancy lenses. (I have a tripod but it’s kind of a bother to use it) In a way I think having a not so expensive camera forces me to be more creative and learn more about using mine and photoshop after. I have a Canon Rebel XSi (up from the XS body I had before the shutter broke on). Which I think is pretty good.

Don’t be intimidated by the people who have expensive camera kits. If you own a decent dslr body (and the Rebel XSi is), the only time they can produce better images based on equipment is when they are using better lenses. Without a long lens (300mm to 500mm) you won’t be able to get certain wildlife shots. Without a dedicated macro lens, you won’t be able to get certain macro shots. And so on.

I don’t consider a tripod to be fancy equipment. It’s an essential, and they aren’t expensive. Camera shake – movement of the camera in your hands – ruins a lot of images.

Improving your composition and understanding aperture settings and their effect is where you should be now. One thing that sets good photographers apart is the ability to "see" the picture…to see a scene or an object and know that it could make a good photo and then to compose the photo in their mind before they push the button.

I do look at some of the
Nikon D ones. But, most of them cost more than I have to live on per month.

I use Nikon, but I really don’t think that camera brand is all that big a deal.
—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

"Ulysses" wrote:

"Carrie" wrote in message

Some I took today. Since we’re posting things to keep the group active. I’ve been doing PS CS3 video tutorials and feel I’m learning a lot- fast. Just have to remember it, but I figure I’ll be doing things over and over (with various pictures) and trying things out. I’m on blend modes now (I love that stuff and filters/effects)

back in the old days of 35mm slr cameras
you would set the shutter opening (f-stop) to shorten the depth of field then set the shutter speed accordingly.

Not quite. An SLR camera has a focal plane shutter. The f-stop is set by the aperture (diafragm) in the lens.

—
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com

"tony cooper" wrote in message

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 08:34:41 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

I see people who post picures online and either they say what camera they have, or if I ask, and I look it up and it costs like $3000. And they have a tripod and all kinds of fancy lenses. (I have a tripod but it’s kind
of a bother to use it) In a way I think having a not so expensive camera forces me to be more creative and learn more about using mine and photoshop
after. I have a Canon Rebel XSi (up from the XS body I had before the shutter broke on). Which I think is pretty good.

Don’t be intimidated by the people who have expensive camera kits. If you own a decent dslr body (and the Rebel XSi is), the only time they can produce better images based on equipment is when they are using better lenses. Without a long lens (300mm to 500mm) you won’t be able to get certain wildlife shots. Without a dedicated macro lens, you won’t be able to get certain macro shots. And so on.

I don’t consider a tripod to be fancy equipment. It’s an essential, and they aren’t expensive. Camera shake – movement of the camera in your hands – ruins a lot of images.

Improving your composition and understanding aperture settings and their effect is where you should be now. One thing that sets good photographers apart is the ability to "see" the picture…to see a scene or an object and know that it could make a good photo and then to compose the photo in their mind before they push the button.

I do look at some of the
Nikon D ones. But, most of them cost more than I have to live on per month.

I use Nikon, but I really don’t think that camera brand is all that big a deal.
—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

Thanks, Tony. I started out thinking of Nikon, then decided the Canon would be good, but a little bit lower price. There are some brands I think of as "better". I believe (maybe not true) that it’s not just the megapixels, but the lens(s) that make for good pictures. Some of my kids get Kodak EasyShare cameras (around the $200 range) and doesn’t seem like they can be enlarged very much. I think Kodak is a ‘known" brand, but I have come to believe it’s not that great.
When my first Rebel (XS) body broke, I looked into Nikons again, then thought where I already have 2 Canon lenses… I’d stick with that and move up one.
I’m a "grandmother" (not that they don’t take pictures LOL) and live on Social Security, so have to plan and look for deals to get something good. I do have a tripod (not expensive) but take a lot of pictures as they happen, so to speak. Not like "wait a minute while I set up the tripod". I take my dogs out back, that’s where I see the butterflies. One day I saw two deer, one a fawn walking up the road (I’d never seen before) and than later a doe in the pasture across from me, maybe looking for the fawn. It was like grab the camera and run out. With the doe I walked over to the fence and took pictures. It was almost like she was posing for me. It was 8pm and lightly raining. Then she flipped her white tail and bounded off.

http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_2091.jpg

I took that with the 75-300 mm zoom lens.

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 13:08:16 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

Some of my kids get Kodak EasyShare
cameras (around the $200 range) and doesn’t seem like they can be enlarged very much. I think Kodak is a ‘known" brand, but I have come to believe it’s not that great.

You should never enlarge any pictures. You can’t add material that’s not there. BTW, I’ve owned several Kodak digital cameras and they take amazing pictures. That you ‘think’ at all is something I doubt. You prattle on like a vapid, mindless 12 year old.

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 13:08:16 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 08:34:41 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

I’m a "grandmother" (not that they don’t take pictures LOL) and live on Social Security, so have to plan and look for deals to get something good. I do have a tripod (not expensive) but take a lot of pictures as they happen, so to speak. Not like "wait a minute while I set up the tripod". I take my dogs out back, that’s where I see the butterflies.

My better butterfly photos have all been taken using a tripod. Chasing around a butterfly with the camera hand-held is difficult. It’s better to watch and see where the butterflies land, focus on that spot, and wait for a butterfly. They usually come back.

The other trick to photographing butterflies is to have the camera set on continuous and take several photos hoping one will have both wings open and spread…fast speed and wide-open aperture.

Pay no attention to Voivod. He’s been posting in this group for several years and has never posted anything remotely useful or interesting. I think he’s one of those people who no one pays attention to in real life and uses the internet to bully because he’s safe in being anonymous.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 15:34:41 -0400, tony cooper
scribbled:

Pay no attention to Voivod. He’s been posting in this group for

Like you just didn’t?

several years and has never posted anything remotely useful or

You’ve NOTICED ME! My life is complete!

interesting. I think he’s one of those people who no one pays attention to in real life and uses the internet to bully because he’s safe in being anonymous.

Yeah, that’s it. Fucking failures at Psych101 trying to diagnose people.

"tony cooper" wrote in message

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 13:08:16 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 08:34:41 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

I’m a "grandmother" (not that they don’t take pictures LOL) and live on Social Security, so have to plan and look for deals to get something good. I
do have a tripod (not expensive) but take a lot of pictures as they happen,
so to speak. Not like "wait a minute while I set up the tripod". I take my dogs out back, that’s where I see the butterflies.

My better butterfly photos have all been taken using a tripod. Chasing around a butterfly with the camera hand-held is difficult. It’s better to watch and see where the butterflies land, focus on that spot, and wait for a butterfly. They usually come back.
The other trick to photographing butterflies is to have the camera set on continuous and take several photos hoping one will have both wings open and spread…fast speed and wide-open aperture.

I do take the butterfly pictures with rapid shooting. I have about 30 pics of each one then go over them after. I combine taking me 2 dogs out to play with picture taking, so end up like I’m "stalking" the butterflies in the brush and flowers.
You are saying my butterfly pictures could be better? I mainly take them for my own enjoyment, and then what I can do with them after in photoshop. I like using the "art" effects, too. (Virtual Painter is one, but I only find a few of the effects it has occasionally useful)
I mainly posted them here because others were posting things like keyboard shortcuts just to keep the group moving.

Pay no attention to Voivod. He’s been posting in this group for several years and has never posted anything remotely useful or interesting. I think he’s one of those people who no one pays attention to in real life and uses the internet to bully because he’s safe in being anonymous.

I know, I have found people like that on other groups, mainly the "spiritual" ones. I think they feel people into this are easier to bully. Though it’s also good practice in not letting what someone else posts effect me. Not a bad lesson to learn for off the internet, too. There aren’t too many unmoderated groups around now, where people can vent or dump their frustrations, or make themselves feel better by putting others down. Or whatever they get from it.
Sometimes, they write such similiar stuff, I wonder if it’s all the same person using different names.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 19:17:10 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

You are saying my butterfly pictures could be better?

I didn’t comment on them at all. You didn’t ask for a critique, so I didn’t offer one. If you do ask, I’d suggest you crop a little tighter and not crop so your subject is always in the middle of the image.

I mainly take them for my own enjoyment,

Unless we’re professional photographers, that’s what we all do.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

"tony cooper" wrote in message

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 19:17:10 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

You are saying my butterfly pictures could be better?

I didn’t comment on them at all. You didn’t ask for a critique, so I didn’t offer one. If you do ask, I’d suggest you crop a little tighter and not crop so your subject is always in the middle of the image.

Okay, you should have seen how much I cropped them already LOL

I mainly take them for my own enjoyment,

Unless we’re professional photographers, that’s what we all do.

One would hope that’s what a professional photographer would to, too. Why do something creative like photography if you don’t enjoy it.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 20:35:06 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 19:17:10 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

You are saying my butterfly pictures could be better?

I didn’t comment on them at all. You didn’t ask for a critique, so I didn’t offer one. If you do ask, I’d suggest you crop a little tighter and not crop so your subject is always in the middle of the image.

Okay, you should have seen how much I cropped them already LOL

Feature the subject. When you are photographing something like a butterfly, the subject should fill the frame as much as possible. The subject would include the butterfly and whatever it is resting on; usually a flower. Any extra space should be unequally on one side to give the impression that the butterfly can fly off to that space; ahead or above, but not behind or below.

The exception to a tight crop is if you are processing to sell the image as a stock photo or for a card. There, you leave in out-of-focus background area so text can be added to the image.

I mainly take them for my own enjoyment,

Unless we’re professional photographers, that’s what we all do.

One would hope that’s what a professional photographer would to, too. Why do something creative like photography if you don’t enjoy it.

I spent one day with a professional wedding photographer who is a member of my camera club. His assistant was ill, and he needed someone to carry his gear and hold things. I volunteered. I didn’t take any photos, though.

That may be someone’s idea of enjoyment, but it sure isn’t mine.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 07:55:33 -0400, "Ulysses"
wrote:

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 21:11:32 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

You should marry Ulysses and raise a pack of moron children. 7-11 is always going to need night clerks.

Just ignore Voivod. He’s just an asshole that insults everyone to make himself feel better. I guess he’s just an insignificant piece of crap that has no life and is constantly being stepped on in real life, so he takes out his frustrations by insulting everyone here and using really crude language….as if that makes him feel special. He is special…..he’s a special asshole, so ignore him. He/she/it only responds with bad language and insults on the computer. If he/she/it responed like that in real life, he/she/it would get it’s face smashed in, so assholes like it hide behind their computers to insult people.

If you were to read his posts, you will never see one where he doesn’t use bad language or insults to reply to someone. He only knows how to use bad language and insults to show how ignorant he is, that’s why I killfiled him/her/it.

Switch to Agent to read the newsgroups, then you can killfile him like most of us do. The only time I see his comments are when someone replies to his comments and keeps his post with theirs.(that’s how I saw his post this time).

Voivod is nothing more than a low life troll….don’t feed the trolls. (It never ceases to amaze me why assholes like voivod reply to posts. If they have nothing useful to add, then why respond….I guess it’s because they have no life, and to show the world that they are assholes, only they are too stupid to see that they are assholes.)

back in the old days of 35mm slr cameras
you would set the shutter opening (f-stop) to shorten the depth of field then set the shutter speed accordingly.

Not quite. An SLR camera has a focal plane shutter. The f-stop is set by the aperture (diafragm) in the lens.

—
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com

yes you are so right with the correct discription
years go by and one forgets
thank you

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 04:55:54 -0400,
scribbled:

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 07:55:33 -0400, "Ulysses"
wrote:

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 21:11:32 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

You should marry Ulysses and raise a pack of moron children. 7-11 is always going to need night clerks.

Just ignore Voivod. He’s just an asshole that insults everyone to make himself feel better. I guess he’s just an insignificant piece of

As therapies go it’s cheap AND it works! Then again you just called me an asshole AND changed your nick/email address to something insulting so you’ve actually dropped BELOW my level as I NEVER nym shift to get around filters or insult people. How that feel, fucktard, you’re lower than me!

crap that has no life and is constantly being stepped on in real life, so he takes out his frustrations by insulting everyone here and using really crude language….as if that makes him feel special. He is

He’s just an asshole
insignificant piece of crap

The above aren’t really crude language, hypocrite?

special…..he’s a special asshole, so ignore him. He/she/it only responds with bad language and insults on the computer. If he/she/it responed like that in real life, he/she/it would get it’s face smashed in, so assholes like it hide behind their computers to insult people.

Ah, the tough guy approach. New, no, novel, no, interesting, no… fail all around.

If you were to read his posts, you will never see one where he doesn’t use bad language or insults to reply to someone. He only knows how to use bad language and insults to show how ignorant he is, that’s why I killfiled him/her/it.

And yet you’re still obsessing over me. WIN!

Switch to Agent to read the newsgroups, then you can killfile him like most of us do. The only time I see his comments are when someone replies to his comments and keeps his post with theirs.(that’s how I saw his post this time).

Come on, admit it. You changed your name JUST FOR ME! You want my attention. You CRAVE my attention. My paying attention to you gives meaning to your miserable life.

Voivod is nothing more than a low life troll….don’t feed the trolls.

And you, hypocrite? What’s your excuse for lashing out while you’re supposedly HIDING behind your filters?

(It never ceases to amaze me why assholes like voivod reply to posts.

You’re breaking irony records here, Junior.

If they have nothing useful to add, then why respond….I guess it’s

*boom* there goes another.

because they have no life, and to show the world that they are assholes, only they are too stupid to see that they are assholes.)

You make funny!

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 07:43:26 -0400, "Ulysses" scribbled:

years go by and one forgets

You cannot forget what you never knew.

Voivod found these unused words:

He’s just an asshole
insignificant piece of crap

The above aren’t really crude language, hypocrite?

If you ain’t, then you’re a colostomite.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 06:38:33 -0700, Sir F. A. Rien
scribbled:

Voivod found these unused words:

He’s just an asshole
insignificant piece of crap

The above aren’t really crude language, hypocrite?

If you ain’t, then you’re a colostomite.

Look at you trying to be all clever and failing miserably.

Better luck next… naa, you’ll fuck up then too.

wrote in message

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 07:55:33 -0400, "Ulysses"
wrote:

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 21:11:32 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

You should marry Ulysses and raise a pack of moron children. 7-11 is always going to need night clerks.

Just ignore Voivod. He’s just an asshole that insults everyone to make himself feel better. I guess he’s just an insignificant piece of crap that has no life and is constantly being stepped on in real life, so he takes out his frustrations by insulting everyone here and using really crude language….as if that makes him feel special. He is special…..he’s a special asshole, so ignore him. He/she/it only responds with bad language and insults on the computer. If he/she/it responed like that in real life, he/she/it would get it’s face smashed in, so assholes like it hide behind their computers to insult people.
If you were to read his posts, you will never see one where he doesn’t use bad language or insults to reply to someone. He only knows how to use bad language and insults to show how ignorant he is, that’s why I killfiled him/her/it.

Switch to Agent to read the newsgroups, then you can killfile him like most of us do. The only time I see his comments are when someone replies to his comments and keeps his post with theirs.(that’s how I saw his post this time).

Voivod is nothing more than a low life troll….don’t feed the trolls. (It never ceases to amaze me why assholes like voivod reply to posts. If they have nothing useful to add, then why respond….I guess it’s because they have no life, and to show the world that they are assholes, only they are too stupid to see that they are assholes.)

I get the newsgroups in Outlook Express (through my cable company) and I can block people with this.
It’s just as easy to ignore them.

In article ,
says…

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 13:08:16 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

Some of my kids get Kodak EasyShare
cameras (around the $200 range) and doesn’t seem like they can be enlarged very much. I think Kodak is a ‘known" brand, but I have come to believe it’s not that great.

You should never enlarge any pictures. You can’t add material that’s not there. …

Now that _is_ funny. Voivod appears to believe that photographs taken on a 35mm camera should remain at 35×24 mm, and presumably has some misguided viewpoint regarding the dimensions of digital images.

Tell me voivod, how big is the picture taken by a digital camera, so I can avoid the crime of enlarging it?

Mike

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:45:17 +1200, mike fee
scribbled:

In article ,
says…

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 13:08:16 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

Some of my kids get Kodak EasyShare
cameras (around the $200 range) and doesn’t seem like they can be enlarged very much. I think Kodak is a ‘known" brand, but I have come to believe it’s not that great.

You should never enlarge any pictures. You can’t add material that’s not there. …

Now that _is_ funny. Voivod appears to believe that photographs taken on a 35mm camera should remain at 35×24 mm, and presumably has some misguided viewpoint regarding the dimensions of digital images.
Tell me voivod, how big is the picture taken by a digital camera, so I can avoid the crime of enlarging it?

If only stupidity were a crime we could have you jailed… ah well.

You and Ulysses should get together with Grandma Stupid… I mean Carrie. Ya’ll deserve each other.

In article ,
says…

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:45:17 +1200, mike fee
scribbled:

In article ,
says…

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 13:08:16 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

Some of my kids get Kodak EasyShare
cameras (around the $200 range) and doesn’t seem like they can be enlarged very much. I think Kodak is a ‘known" brand, but I have come to believe it’s not that great.

You should never enlarge any pictures. You can’t add material that’s not there. …

Now that _is_ funny. Voivod appears to believe that photographs taken on a 35mm camera should remain at 35×24 mm, and presumably has some misguided viewpoint regarding the dimensions of digital images.
Tell me voivod, how big is the picture taken by a digital camera, so I can avoid the crime of enlarging it?

If only stupidity were a crime we could have you jailed… ah well.
You and Ulysses should get together with Grandma Stupid… I mean Carrie. Ya’ll deserve each other.

Just as I thought – all piss and wind.

"mike fee" wrote in message

In article ,
says…

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 13:08:16 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

Some of my kids get Kodak EasyShare
cameras (around the $200 range) and doesn’t seem like they can be enlarged
very much. I think Kodak is a ‘known" brand, but I have come to believe it’s
not that great.

You should never enlarge any pictures. You can’t add material that’s not there. …

Now that _is_ funny. Voivod appears to believe that photographs taken on a 35mm camera should remain at 35×24 mm, and presumably has some misguided viewpoint regarding the dimensions of digital images.
Tell me voivod, how big is the picture taken by a digital camera, so I can avoid the crime of enlarging it?

You can enlarge pictures that are high resolution. Though I mainly reduce mine, because most of the time I put them online or share them. And to a point, you can add something that’s not there. Enhance what there is.

"mike fee" wrote in message

In article ,
says…

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:45:17 +1200, mike fee
scribbled:

In article ,
says…

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 13:08:16 -0400, "Carrie"

scribbled:

Some of my kids get Kodak EasyShare
cameras (around the $200 range) and doesn’t seem like they can be enlarged
very much. I think Kodak is a ‘known" brand, but I have come to believe it’s
not that great.

You should never enlarge any pictures. You can’t add material that’s not
there. …

Now that _is_ funny. Voivod appears to believe that photographs taken on a 35mm camera should remain at 35×24 mm, and presumably has some misguided viewpoint regarding the dimensions of digital images.
Tell me voivod, how big is the picture taken by a digital camera, so I can avoid the crime of enlarging it?

If only stupidity were a crime we could have you jailed… ah well.
You and Ulysses should get together with Grandma Stupid… I mean Carrie. Ya’ll deserve each other.

Just as I thought – all piss and wind.

I’ll I did was post some pictures from that day, because someone else posted keyboard shortcuts, to keep the group going.
Maybe more of us should post pictures? If there’s nothing much to ask or say. I don’t know about everyone else who checks out this group, but I tend to think in "pictures".

In article <VGrSp.58503$>, starchild1124
@charter.net says…

"mike fee" wrote in message

In article ,
says…

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 13:08:16 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

Some of my kids get Kodak EasyShare
cameras (around the $200 range) and doesn’t seem like they can be enlarged
very much. I think Kodak is a ‘known" brand, but I have come to believe it’s
not that great.

You should never enlarge any pictures. You can’t add material that’s not there. …

Now that _is_ funny. Voivod appears to believe that photographs taken on a 35mm camera should remain at 35×24 mm, and presumably has some misguided viewpoint regarding the dimensions of digital images.
Tell me voivod, how big is the picture taken by a digital camera, so I can avoid the crime of enlarging it?

You can enlarge pictures that are high resolution. Though I mainly reduce mine, because most of the time I put them online or share them. And to a point, you can add something that’s not there. Enhance what there is.

Yes, I quite agree – you can sometimes ‘rescue’ a low-resolution image by careful up-scaling, as long as you accept that something artificial may have been added to the image. But the best way to get good pictures of small things like butterflies is to fill as much of the frame as is possible to start with – and that is most easily done with a nice macro- lens (along with a fair bit of patience) and fairly bright sunlight so you can ensure a reasonable depth of field. Have you considered upgrading to such a lens (assuming you don’t already have one)? An enthusiast-grade third-party lens like a Sigma shouldn’t break the bank, but if budget is a constraint you can do OK with a set of close-up lenses that screw on top the end of a standard lens (a bit like a filter).

Mike

"mike fee" wrote in message

In article <VGrSp.58503$>, starchild1124
@charter.net says…

"mike fee" wrote in message

In article ,
says…

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 13:08:16 -0400, "Carrie"

scribbled:

Some of my kids get Kodak EasyShare
cameras (around the $200 range) and doesn’t seem like they can be enlarged
very much. I think Kodak is a ‘known" brand, but I have come to believe
it’s
not that great.

You should never enlarge any pictures. You can’t add material that’s not
there. …

Now that _is_ funny. Voivod appears to believe that photographs taken on
a 35mm camera should remain at 35×24 mm, and presumably has some misguided viewpoint regarding the dimensions of digital images.
Tell me voivod, how big is the picture taken by a digital camera, so I can avoid the crime of enlarging it?

You can enlarge pictures that are high resolution. Though I mainly reduce mine, because most of the time I put them online or share them. And
to a point, you can add something that’s not there. Enhance what there is.

Yes, I quite agree – you can sometimes ‘rescue’ a low-resolution image by careful up-scaling, as long as you accept that something artificial may have been added to the image. But the best way to get good pictures of small things like butterflies is to fill as much of the frame as is possible to start with – and that is most easily done with a nice macro- lens (along with a fair bit of patience) and fairly bright sunlight so you can ensure a reasonable depth of field. Have you considered upgrading to such a lens (assuming you don’t already have one)? An enthusiast-grade third-party lens like a Sigma shouldn’t break the bank, but if budget is a constraint you can do OK with a set of close-up lenses that screw on top the end of a standard lens (a bit like a filter).

I have a (regular)18-55mm and a zoom 75mm -300mm I usually use the zoom one for butterflies, because they are in the middle of thick brush and wildflowers (usually) I don’t mind low depth of field, I kind of like the soft, blurred background. I take pictures on the highest quality (next to raw) and they open in PS as 4272×2848 pxls. I can pretty much crop or print them full page, whatever I want.
As to filling the frame with a butterfly or using a closeup lens, it’s hard enough getting shots of them with the zoom lens. Though sometimes they do sit and pose for me.
One summer I went through a stage of taking pictures of really small things (with my Canon Powershot G-8 which had an extra closeup lens. I could pretty much put the camera on the bug. If it would sit there and let me (LOL)
These are saved at 72 res to put online.
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_6745_8.jpg

I could have cropped the ant closer..
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_4042_8.jpg

http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_5236_8.jpg

Mike

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:13:33 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

As to filling the frame with a butterfly or using a closeup lens, it’s hard enough getting shots of them with the zoom lens. Though sometimes they do sit and pose for me.

"Filling the frame" can refer to zooming in on the object until it fills the frame in the viewfinder, but it can also mean cropping the photo until the object fills the frame. With an image of 4272 x 2848 you can crop down to a frame-filling image if there is no motion blur and the focus is right-on.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:34:56 +1200, mike fee
scribbled:

In article ,
says…

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:45:17 +1200, mike fee
scribbled:

In article ,
says…

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 13:08:16 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

Some of my kids get Kodak EasyShare
cameras (around the $200 range) and doesn’t seem like they can be enlarged very much. I think Kodak is a ‘known" brand, but I have come to believe it’s not that great.

You should never enlarge any pictures. You can’t add material that’s not there. …

Now that _is_ funny. Voivod appears to believe that photographs taken on a 35mm camera should remain at 35×24 mm, and presumably has some misguided viewpoint regarding the dimensions of digital images.
Tell me voivod, how big is the picture taken by a digital camera, so I can avoid the crime of enlarging it?

If only stupidity were a crime we could have you jailed… ah well.
You and Ulysses should get together with Grandma Stupid… I mean Carrie. Ya’ll deserve each other.

Just as I thought – all piss and wind.

Yeah, like you’ve ever had an original thought.

"Ulysses" wrote:

back in the old days of 35mm slr cameras
you would set the shutter opening (f-stop) to shorten the depth of field then set the shutter speed accordingly.

Not quite. An SLR camera has a focal plane shutter. The f-stop is set by the aperture (diafragm) in the lens.

—
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com

yes you are so right with the correct discription
years go by and one forgets
thank you

Actually, nothing has changed. A digital SLR still works the same way.

—
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:43:00 +1200, mike fee
scribbled:

In article <VGrSp.58503$>, starchild1124
@charter.net says…

"mike fee" wrote in message

In article ,
says…

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 13:08:16 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

Some of my kids get Kodak EasyShare
cameras (around the $200 range) and doesn’t seem like they can be enlarged
very much. I think Kodak is a ‘known" brand, but I have come to believe it’s
not that great.

You should never enlarge any pictures. You can’t add material that’s not there. …

Now that _is_ funny. Voivod appears to believe that photographs taken on a 35mm camera should remain at 35×24 mm, and presumably has some misguided viewpoint regarding the dimensions of digital images.
Tell me voivod, how big is the picture taken by a digital camera, so I can avoid the crime of enlarging it?

You can enlarge pictures that are high resolution. Though I mainly reduce mine, because most of the time I put them online or share them. And to a point, you can add something that’s not there. Enhance what there is.

Yes, I quite agree – you can sometimes ‘rescue’ a low-resolution image by careful up-scaling, as long as you accept that something artificial

Ah, the Idiot’s Guide to Photoshop, written by a REAL Idiot!

may have been added to the image. But the best way to get good pictures of small things like butterflies is to fill as much of the frame as is possible to start with – and that is most easily done with a nice macro- lens (along with a fair bit of patience) and fairly bright sunlight so you can ensure a reasonable depth of field. Have you considered upgrading to such a lens (assuming you don’t already have one)? An enthusiast-grade third-party lens like a Sigma shouldn’t break the bank, but if budget is a constraint you can do OK with a set of close-up lenses that screw on top the end of a standard lens (a bit like a filter).

I see you know as much about cameras as you do Photoshop.

"tony cooper" wrote in message

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:13:33 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

As to filling the frame with a butterfly or using a closeup lens, it’s hard enough getting shots of them with the zoom lens. Though sometimes they
do sit and pose for me.

"Filling the frame" can refer to zooming in on the object until it fills the frame in the viewfinder, but it can also mean cropping the photo until the object fills the frame. With an image of 4272 x 2848 you can crop down to a frame-filling image if there is no motion blur and the focus is right-on.

If I do that with the butterfly pictures and repost them, will that make you feel better?

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

"Ulysses" wrote:

back in the old days of 35mm slr cameras
you would set the shutter opening (f-stop) to shorten the depth of field
then set the shutter speed accordingly.

Not quite. An SLR camera has a focal plane shutter. The f-stop is set by the aperture (diafragm) in the lens.

—
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com

yes you are so right with the correct discription
years go by and one forgets
thank you

Actually, nothing has changed. A digital SLR still works the same way.

I agree. I usually do use the auto settings, but have been using the manual focus more lately. And sometimes using the manual settings (like if I take pictures of the moon) I also got so I could take pictures of falling snow this way. The auto focus was missing it (the snow falling) and using manual I could get he actual snow in the picture more. Rain is the same way, though if the sun is in back of it, and it’s raining hard, it shows up more.

—
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:09:27 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:13:33 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

As to filling the frame with a butterfly or using a closeup lens, it’s hard enough getting shots of them with the zoom lens. Though sometimes they
do sit and pose for me.

"Filling the frame" can refer to zooming in on the object until it fills the frame in the viewfinder, but it can also mean cropping the photo until the object fills the frame. With an image of 4272 x 2848 you can crop down to a frame-filling image if there is no motion blur and the focus is right-on.

If I do that with the butterfly pictures and repost them, will that make you feel better?

No, but it should make you feel better.

You can drop the attitude, Grandma. I’m a grandfather, and my grandkids are cuter and smarter than your grandkids.

If you don’t want suggestions, just say so. If you want to share your images and have everyone rave about them whether they are good or bad, post them on Flickr. No one on Flickr ever gives any useful commentary.

When someone makes a suggestion for change in your post-processing technique, it shows you how others see your photograph. It should give you a perspective that you aren’t aware of. Many of us learn by offering our photographs for critiques.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

"tony cooper" wrote in message

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:09:27 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:13:33 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

As to filling the frame with a butterfly or using a closeup lens, it’s hard enough getting shots of them with the zoom lens. Though sometimes they
do sit and pose for me.

"Filling the frame" can refer to zooming in on the object until it fills the frame in the viewfinder, but it can also mean cropping the photo until the object fills the frame. With an image of 4272 x 2848 you can crop down to a frame-filling image if there is no motion blur and the focus is right-on.

If I do that with the butterfly pictures and repost them, will that make
you feel better?

No, but it should make you feel better.

You can drop the attitude, Grandma. I’m a grandfather, and my grandkids are cuter and smarter than your grandkids.

If you don’t want suggestions, just say so. If you want to share your images and have everyone rave about them whether they are good or bad, post them on Flickr. No one on Flickr ever gives any useful commentary.

When someone makes a suggestion for change in your post-processing technique, it shows you how others see your photograph. It should give you a perspective that you aren’t aware of. Many of us learn by offering our photographs for critiques.

I just posted them as an alternative to posting about keyboard shortcuts to keep the board active. I thought I made that clear. You are the one who continually had a problem with them. If my pictures are so no good they bother people, I won’t post them anymore.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:01:32 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"tony cooper" wrote in message

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:09:27 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:13:33 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

As to filling the frame with a butterfly or using a closeup lens, it’s hard enough getting shots of them with the zoom lens. Though sometimes they
do sit and pose for me.

"Filling the frame" can refer to zooming in on the object until it fills the frame in the viewfinder, but it can also mean cropping the photo until the object fills the frame. With an image of 4272 x 2848 you can crop down to a frame-filling image if there is no motion blur and the focus is right-on.

If I do that with the butterfly pictures and repost them, will that make
you feel better?

No, but it should make you feel better.

You can drop the attitude, Grandma. I’m a grandfather, and my grandkids are cuter and smarter than your grandkids.

If you don’t want suggestions, just say so. If you want to share your images and have everyone rave about them whether they are good or bad, post them on Flickr. No one on Flickr ever gives any useful commentary.

When someone makes a suggestion for change in your post-processing technique, it shows you how others see your photograph. It should give you a perspective that you aren’t aware of. Many of us learn by offering our photographs for critiques.

I just posted them as an alternative to posting about keyboard shortcuts to keep the board active. I thought I made that clear. You are the one who

It’s not a board, dipshit, it’s a newsgroup and it doesn’t get lonely if you skip prattling on mindlessly for a day or three.

continually had a problem with them. If my pictures are so no good they bother people, I won’t post them anymore.

Oh no! She’s going to take her ball and go home!

Dear Grandma Dipshit,
If you don’t want people to comment on your shitty pictures taken with the camera you don’t know how to use don’t post links to them here on usenet.

In article <i%sSp.38660$>, starchild1124
@charter.net says…

I have a (regular)18-55mm and a zoom 75mm -300mm I usually use the zoom one for butterflies, because they are in the middle of thick brush and wildflowers (usually) I don’t mind low depth of field, I kind of like the soft, blurred background. I take pictures on the highest quality (next to raw) and they open in PS as 4272×2848 pxls. I can pretty much crop or print them full page, whatever I want.
As to filling the frame with a butterfly or using a closeup lens, it’s hard enough getting shots of them with the zoom lens. Though sometimes they do sit and pose for me.
One summer I went through a stage of taking pictures of really small things (with my Canon Powershot G-8 which had an extra closeup lens. I could pretty much put the camera on the bug. If it would sit there and let me (LOL)
These are saved at 72 res to put online.
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_6745_8.jpg
I could have cropped the ant closer..
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_4042_8.jpg
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_5236_8.jpg

Yes – much easier with ants, caterpillars, and assorted bugs than with butterflies. Th elatter just seem to know when you ar eabout to take a shot and will wait patiently till you get them _almost_ in frame/focus/position before deciding to flutter to the next bush.

Mike

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:06:01 -0400, Voivod wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:01:32 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"tony cooper" wrote in message

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:09:27 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:13:33 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

As to filling the frame with a butterfly or using a closeup lens, it’s hard enough getting shots of them with the zoom lens. Though sometimes they
do sit and pose for me.

"Filling the frame" can refer to zooming in on the object until it fills the frame in the viewfinder, but it can also mean cropping the photo until the object fills the frame. With an image of 4272 x 2848 you can crop down to a frame-filling image if there is no motion blur and the focus is right-on.

If I do that with the butterfly pictures and repost them, will that make
you feel better?

No, but it should make you feel better.

You can drop the attitude, Grandma. I’m a grandfather, and my grandkids are cuter and smarter than your grandkids.

If you don’t want suggestions, just say so. If you want to share your images and have everyone rave about them whether they are good or bad, post them on Flickr. No one on Flickr ever gives any useful commentary.

When someone makes a suggestion for change in your post-processing technique, it shows you how others see your photograph. It should give you a perspective that you aren’t aware of. Many of us learn by offering our photographs for critiques.

I just posted them as an alternative to posting about keyboard shortcuts to keep the board active. I thought I made that clear. You are the one who

It’s not a board, dipshit, it’s a newsgroup and it doesn’t get lonely if you skip prattling on mindlessly for a day or three.

continually had a problem with them. If my pictures are so no good they bother people, I won’t post them anymore.

Oh no! She’s going to take her ball and go home!

Dear Grandma Dipshit,
If you don’t want people to comment on your shitty pictures taken with the camera you don’t know how to use don’t post links to them here

I didn’t say, or even imply, that her photos were shitty. I said only that the composition could be improved by better cropping. However, it seems like she’s the type that takes any suggestion as criticism.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

"mike fee" wrote in message

In article <i%sSp.38660$>, starchild1124
@charter.net says…

I have a (regular)18-55mm and a zoom 75mm -300mm I usually use the zoom one for butterflies, because they are in the middle of thick brush and wildflowers (usually) I don’t mind low depth of field, I kind of like the soft, blurred background. I take pictures on the highest quality (next to raw) and they open in PS as 4272×2848 pxls. I can pretty much crop or print
them full page, whatever I want.
As to filling the frame with a butterfly or using a closeup lens, it’s hard enough getting shots of them with the zoom lens. Though sometimes they
do sit and pose for me.
One summer I went through a stage of taking pictures of really small things (with my Canon Powershot G-8 which had an extra closeup lens. I could
pretty much put the camera on the bug. If it would sit there and let me (LOL)
These are saved at 72 res to put online.
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_6745_8.jpg
I could have cropped the ant closer..
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_4042_8.jpg
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_5236_8.jpg

Yes – much easier with ants, caterpillars, and assorted bugs than with butterflies. Th elatter just seem to know when you ar eabout to take a shot and will wait patiently till you get them _almost_ in frame/focus/position before deciding to flutter to the next bush.
Mike

I know. I try and second guess them. The same with bees, you can kind of tell how long they will stay in one place before moving to another. I’m always trying to get a clear picture of a bee (like honeybee) in flight. I end up taking rapid sequence pictures of things that move around a lot. If I’d thought about it more, I’d have cropped the butterfly pictures closer before posting them here. I sometimes put affirmations and sayings on pictures like that, and use them on my desktop (or print notecards) so I like a pretty color, slightly blurred background.
Didn’t realize there was a right and wrong way of taking/cropping butterfly pictures I’d get lectured about.

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

"Ulysses" wrote:

back in the old days of 35mm slr cameras
you would set the shutter opening (f-stop) to shorten the depth of field
then set the shutter speed accordingly.

Not quite. An SLR camera has a focal plane shutter. The f-stop is set by the aperture (diafragm) in the lens.

—
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com

yes you are so right with the correct discription
years go by and one forgets
thank you

Actually, nothing has changed. A digital SLR still works the same way.

I have a digital SLR and it seems to have all the settings I remember my 35mm film cameras did (one was a Pentax K1000). It never really mattered to me how it worked. Just the results. And now I can take hundreds of pictures and see them instantly. For someone who loves to take pictures and film/processing was expensive, this is a dream come true. (now watch someone tell me I should have developed and printed my own… I did do b&w ones for awhile)

—
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com

wrote in message

On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 07:55:33 -0400, "Ulysses"
wrote:

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 21:11:32 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

You should marry Ulysses and raise a pack of moron children. 7-11 is always going to need night clerks.

Just ignore Voivod. He’s just an asshole that insults everyone to make himself feel better. I guess he’s just an insignificant piece of crap that has no life and is constantly being stepped on in real life, so he takes out his frustrations by insulting everyone here and using really crude language….as if that makes him feel special. He is special…..he’s a special asshole, so ignore him. He/she/it only responds with bad language and insults on the computer. If he/she/it responed like that in real life, he/she/it would get it’s face smashed in, so assholes like it hide behind their computers to insult people.
If you were to read his posts, you will never see one where he doesn’t use bad language or insults to reply to someone. He only knows how to use bad language and insults to show how ignorant he is, that’s why I killfiled him/her/it.

Switch to Agent to read the newsgroups, then you can killfile him like most of us do. The only time I see his comments are when someone replies to his comments and keeps his post with theirs.(that’s how I saw his post this time).

Voivod is nothing more than a low life troll….don’t feed the trolls. (It never ceases to amaze me why assholes like voivod reply to posts. If they have nothing useful to add, then why respond….I guess it’s because they have no life, and to show the world that they are assholes, only they are too stupid to see that they are assholes.)

Funny but I haven’t seen one post by Voivod yet. I see them in what someone else responds to. I don’t have anyone blocked. I looked on Google Groups and it says Voivod’s posts are set to be deleted after a time and not archived, maybe that’s why they aren’t showing up on the Usenet group. From what I see in the responses I’m not missing much.

You’ve NOTICED ME! My life is complete!

No it isn’t. get a new life, imbecile
what a wise-ass

— Posted via —

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:08:15 -0400, tony cooper
scribbled:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:06:01 -0400, Voivod wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:01:32 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"tony cooper" wrote in message

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:09:27 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:13:33 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

As to filling the frame with a butterfly or using a closeup lens, it’s hard enough getting shots of them with the zoom lens. Though sometimes they
do sit and pose for me.

"Filling the frame" can refer to zooming in on the object until it fills the frame in the viewfinder, but it can also mean cropping the photo until the object fills the frame. With an image of 4272 x 2848 you can crop down to a frame-filling image if there is no motion blur and the focus is right-on.

If I do that with the butterfly pictures and repost them, will that make
you feel better?

No, but it should make you feel better.

You can drop the attitude, Grandma. I’m a grandfather, and my grandkids are cuter and smarter than your grandkids.

If you don’t want suggestions, just say so. If you want to share your images and have everyone rave about them whether they are good or bad, post them on Flickr. No one on Flickr ever gives any useful commentary.

When someone makes a suggestion for change in your post-processing technique, it shows you how others see your photograph. It should give you a perspective that you aren’t aware of. Many of us learn by offering our photographs for critiques.

I just posted them as an alternative to posting about keyboard shortcuts to keep the board active. I thought I made that clear. You are the one who

It’s not a board, dipshit, it’s a newsgroup and it doesn’t get lonely if you skip prattling on mindlessly for a day or three.

continually had a problem with them. If my pictures are so no good they bother people, I won’t post them anymore.

Oh no! She’s going to take her ball and go home!

Dear Grandma Dipshit,
If you don’t want people to comment on your shitty pictures taken with the camera you don’t know how to use don’t post links to them here

I didn’t say, or even imply, that her photos were shitty. I said only

I never said you did. *I* said they were shitty… because they are.

that the composition could be improved by better cropping. However, it seems like she’s the type that takes any suggestion as criticism.

It’s no wonder she got run off whatever wackadoo religious newsgroups she was in before she decided to prattle on in here.

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:23:14 -0400, "Drogon"
scribbled:

You’ve NOTICED ME! My life is complete!

No it isn’t. get a new life, imbecile
what a wise-ass

My ass is only part of my wise-ness. Fear my nads, they’re even wiser.

In article <dGJSp.58925$>, starchild1124
@charter.net says…

"mike fee" wrote in message

In article <i%sSp.38660$>, starchild1124
@charter.net says…

I have a (regular)18-55mm and a zoom 75mm -300mm I usually use the zoom one for butterflies, because they are in the middle of thick brush and wildflowers (usually) I don’t mind low depth of field, I kind of like the soft, blurred background. I take pictures on the highest quality (next to raw) and they open in PS as 4272×2848 pxls. I can pretty much crop or print
them full page, whatever I want.
As to filling the frame with a butterfly or using a closeup lens, it’s hard enough getting shots of them with the zoom lens. Though sometimes they
do sit and pose for me.
One summer I went through a stage of taking pictures of really small things (with my Canon Powershot G-8 which had an extra closeup lens. I could
pretty much put the camera on the bug. If it would sit there and let me (LOL)
These are saved at 72 res to put online.
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_6745_8.jpg
I could have cropped the ant closer..
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_4042_8.jpg
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_5236_8.jpg

Yes – much easier with ants, caterpillars, and assorted bugs than with butterflies. Th elatter just seem to know when you ar eabout to take a shot and will wait patiently till you get them _almost_ in frame/focus/position before deciding to flutter to the next bush.
Mike

I know. I try and second guess them. The same with bees, you can kind of tell how long they will stay in one place before moving to another. I’m always trying to get a clear picture of a bee (like honeybee) in flight. I end up taking rapid sequence pictures of things that move around a lot. If I’d thought about it more, I’d have cropped the butterfly pictures closer before posting them here. I sometimes put affirmations and sayings on pictures like that, and use them on my desktop (or print notecards) so I like a pretty color, slightly blurred background.
Didn’t realize there was a right and wrong way of taking/cropping butterfly pictures I’d get lectured about.

I had no intent to lecture about anything – but it is the nature of newsgroup postings that the intended spirit of the message doesn’t always get across. But on the other hand when I occasionally post images, although I appreciate compliments (doesn’t anyone), I also accept well-meant criticism and/or advice, even if I sometimes feel it is a case of grandmothers and egg-sucking.

Mike

"mike fee" wrote in message

In article <dGJSp.58925$>, starchild1124
@charter.net says…

"mike fee" wrote in message

In article <i%sSp.38660$>, starchild1124
@charter.net says…

I have a (regular)18-55mm and a zoom 75mm -300mm I usually use the zoom
one for butterflies, because they are in the middle of thick brush and wildflowers (usually) I don’t mind low depth of field, I kind of like the
soft, blurred background. I take pictures on the highest quality (next to
raw) and they open in PS as 4272×2848 pxls. I can pretty much crop or print
them full page, whatever I want.
As to filling the frame with a butterfly or using a closeup lens, it’s
hard enough getting shots of them with the zoom lens. Though sometimes they
do sit and pose for me.
One summer I went through a stage of taking pictures of really small
things (with my Canon Powershot G-8 which had an extra closeup lens. I could
pretty much put the camera on the bug. If it would sit there and let me
(LOL)
These are saved at 72 res to put online.
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_6745_8.jpg
I could have cropped the ant closer..
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_4042_8.jpg
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_5236_8.jpg

Yes – much easier with ants, caterpillars, and assorted bugs than with butterflies. Th elatter just seem to know when you ar eabout to take a shot and will wait patiently till you get them _almost_ in frame/focus/position before deciding to flutter to the next bush.
Mike

I know. I try and second guess them. The same with bees, you can kind of
tell how long they will stay in one place before moving to another. I’m always trying to get a clear picture of a bee (like honeybee) in flight. I
end up taking rapid sequence pictures of things that move around a lot. If
I’d thought about it more, I’d have cropped the butterfly pictures closer before posting them here. I sometimes put affirmations and sayings on pictures like that, and use them on my desktop (or print notecards) so I like a pretty color, slightly blurred background.
Didn’t realize there was a right and wrong way of taking/cropping butterfly
pictures I’d get lectured about.

I had no intent to lecture about anything – but it is the nature of newsgroup postings that the intended spirit of the message doesn’t always get across. But on the other hand when I occasionally post images, although I appreciate compliments (doesn’t anyone), I also accept well-meant criticism and/or advice, even if I sometimes feel it is a case of grandmothers and egg-sucking.

Mike

I wasn’t referring to you, Mike. Sorry you took it that way. I don’t understand the grandmothers and egg sucking.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:23:12 +1200, mike fee
wrote:

In article <dGJSp.58925$>, starchild1124
@charter.net says…

"mike fee" wrote in message

In article <i%sSp.38660$>, starchild1124
@charter.net says…

I have a (regular)18-55mm and a zoom 75mm -300mm I usually use the zoom one for butterflies, because they are in the middle of thick brush and wildflowers (usually) I don’t mind low depth of field, I kind of like the soft, blurred background. I take pictures on the highest quality (next to raw) and they open in PS as 4272×2848 pxls. I can pretty much crop or print
them full page, whatever I want.
As to filling the frame with a butterfly or using a closeup lens, it’s hard enough getting shots of them with the zoom lens. Though sometimes they
do sit and pose for me.
One summer I went through a stage of taking pictures of really small things (with my Canon Powershot G-8 which had an extra closeup lens. I could
pretty much put the camera on the bug. If it would sit there and let me (LOL)
These are saved at 72 res to put online.
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_6745_8.jpg
I could have cropped the ant closer..
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_4042_8.jpg
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_5236_8.jpg

Yes – much easier with ants, caterpillars, and assorted bugs than with butterflies. Th elatter just seem to know when you ar eabout to take a shot and will wait patiently till you get them _almost_ in frame/focus/position before deciding to flutter to the next bush.
Mike

I know. I try and second guess them. The same with bees, you can kind of tell how long they will stay in one place before moving to another. I’m always trying to get a clear picture of a bee (like honeybee) in flight. I end up taking rapid sequence pictures of things that move around a lot. If I’d thought about it more, I’d have cropped the butterfly pictures closer before posting them here. I sometimes put affirmations and sayings on pictures like that, and use them on my desktop (or print notecards) so I like a pretty color, slightly blurred background.
Didn’t realize there was a right and wrong way of taking/cropping butterfly pictures I’d get lectured about.

I had no intent to lecture about anything – but it is the nature of newsgroup postings that the intended spirit of the message doesn’t always get across. But on the other hand when I occasionally post images, although I appreciate compliments (doesn’t anyone), I also accept well-meant criticism and/or advice, even if I sometimes feel it is a case of grandmothers and egg-sucking.

Granny Carrie should have been at my camera club meeting tonight. It was competition night with 91 entries in three categories: color, mono, and creative (in which any manipulation can be done). There were three judges: a university photography teacher, a professional photographer and former photo-journalist, and a member of the club.

I’d say that about a third or more of the critiques suggested the composition could be improved by cropping differently or shooting tighter. Exactly what I suggested to Granny.

In the critique of my own entry it was suggested that some of the top area should have been cropped out. Looking at my image on the big screen, I agree with the critique. Fresh eyes make you look at your own work differently.

There are some people who react to any suggestion as a criticism and get huffy about it. Granny’s one of them. People like this don’t tend to progress.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

Voivod wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:23:14 -0400, "Drogon"
scribbled:

You’ve NOTICED ME! My life is complete!

No it isn’t. get a new life, imbecile
what a wise-ass

My ass is only part of my wise-ness. Fear my nads, they’re even wiser.

The proper term would be wise-nads-ass or wise-ass-nads?

So the butterflies will know.

—
JD..

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:08:25 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

"mike fee" wrote in message

In article <dGJSp.58925$>, starchild1124
@charter.net says…

"mike fee" wrote in message

In article <i%sSp.38660$>, starchild1124
@charter.net says…

I have a (regular)18-55mm and a zoom 75mm -300mm I usually use the zoom
one for butterflies, because they are in the middle of thick brush and wildflowers (usually) I don’t mind low depth of field, I kind of like the
soft, blurred background. I take pictures on the highest quality (next to
raw) and they open in PS as 4272×2848 pxls. I can pretty much crop or print
them full page, whatever I want.
As to filling the frame with a butterfly or using a closeup lens, it’s
hard enough getting shots of them with the zoom lens. Though sometimes they
do sit and pose for me.
One summer I went through a stage of taking pictures of really small
things (with my Canon Powershot G-8 which had an extra closeup lens. I could
pretty much put the camera on the bug. If it would sit there and let me
(LOL)
These are saved at 72 res to put online.
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_6745_8.jpg
I could have cropped the ant closer..
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_4042_8.jpg
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_5236_8.jpg

Yes – much easier with ants, caterpillars, and assorted bugs than with butterflies. Th elatter just seem to know when you ar eabout to take a shot and will wait patiently till you get them _almost_ in frame/focus/position before deciding to flutter to the next bush.
Mike

I know. I try and second guess them. The same with bees, you can kind of
tell how long they will stay in one place before moving to another. I’m always trying to get a clear picture of a bee (like honeybee) in flight. I
end up taking rapid sequence pictures of things that move around a lot. If
I’d thought about it more, I’d have cropped the butterfly pictures closer before posting them here. I sometimes put affirmations and sayings on pictures like that, and use them on my desktop (or print notecards) so I like a pretty color, slightly blurred background.
Didn’t realize there was a right and wrong way of taking/cropping butterfly
pictures I’d get lectured about.

I had no intent to lecture about anything – but it is the nature of newsgroup postings that the intended spirit of the message doesn’t always get across. But on the other hand when I occasionally post images, although I appreciate compliments (doesn’t anyone), I also accept well-meant criticism and/or advice, even if I sometimes feel it is a case of grandmothers and egg-sucking.

Mike

I wasn’t referring to you, Mike. Sorry you took it that way. I don’t understand the grandmothers and egg sucking.

He is saying that he sometimes feels people are telling him things he already knows.

"Do you teach your grandmother how to suck eggs?" is an expression you might use to reply to someone who tells you how to do something you already know how to do.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:21:07 -0500, JD scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:23:14 -0400, "Drogon"
scribbled:

You’ve NOTICED ME! My life is complete!

No it isn’t. get a new life, imbecile
what a wise-ass

My ass is only part of my wise-ness. Fear my nads, they’re even wiser.

The proper term would be wise-nads-ass or wise-ass-nads?
So the butterflies will know.

I don’t think the butterflies care about my nads.

In article , tony_cooper213
@earthlink.net says…

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:08:25 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

I wasn’t referring to you, Mike. Sorry you took it that way. I don’t understand the grandmothers and egg sucking.

He is saying that he sometimes feels people are telling him things he already knows.

"Do you teach your grandmother how to suck eggs?" is an expression you might use to reply to someone who tells you how to do something you already know how to do.

And it has always struck me as a somewhat strange expression, as I have blown many an egg at Easter before painting it. But have never sucked an egg and couldn’t imagine why I, or any randomly chosen grandmother, might want to.

Mike

"tony cooper" wrote in message

On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:23:12 +1200, mike fee
wrote:

In article <dGJSp.58925$>, starchild1124
@charter.net says…

"mike fee" wrote in message

In article <i%sSp.38660$>, starchild1124
@charter.net says…

I have a (regular)18-55mm and a zoom 75mm -300mm I usually use the zoom
one for butterflies, because they are in the middle of thick brush and
wildflowers (usually) I don’t mind low depth of field, I kind of like the
soft, blurred background. I take pictures on the highest quality (next to
raw) and they open in PS as 4272×2848 pxls. I can pretty much crop or
print
them full page, whatever I want.
As to filling the frame with a butterfly or using a closeup lens, it’s
hard enough getting shots of them with the zoom lens. Though sometimes
they
do sit and pose for me.
One summer I went through a stage of taking pictures of really small
things (with my Canon Powershot G-8 which had an extra closeup lens. I
could
pretty much put the camera on the bug. If it would sit there and let me
(LOL)
These are saved at 72 res to put online.
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_6745_8.jpg
I could have cropped the ant closer..
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_4042_8.jpg
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_5236_8.jpg

Yes – much easier with ants, caterpillars, and assorted bugs than with butterflies. Th elatter just seem to know when you ar eabout to take a shot and will wait patiently till you get them _almost_ in frame/focus/position before deciding to flutter to the next bush.
Mike

I know. I try and second guess them. The same with bees, you can kind of
tell how long they will stay in one place before moving to another. I’m always trying to get a clear picture of a bee (like honeybee) in flight. I
end up taking rapid sequence pictures of things that move around a lot. If
I’d thought about it more, I’d have cropped the butterfly pictures closer
before posting them here. I sometimes put affirmations and sayings on pictures like that, and use them on my desktop (or print notecards) so I like a pretty color, slightly blurred background.
Didn’t realize there was a right and wrong way of taking/cropping butterfly
pictures I’d get lectured about.

I had no intent to lecture about anything – but it is the nature of newsgroup postings that the intended spirit of the message doesn’t always get across. But on the other hand when I occasionally post images, although I appreciate compliments (doesn’t anyone), I also accept well-meant criticism and/or advice, even if I sometimes feel it is a case of grandmothers and egg-sucking.

Granny Carrie should have been at my camera club meeting tonight. It was competition night with 91 entries in three categories: color, mono, and creative (in which any manipulation can be done). There were three judges: a university photography teacher, a professional photographer and former photo-journalist, and a member of the club.
I’d say that about a third or more of the critiques suggested the composition could be improved by cropping differently or shooting tighter. Exactly what I suggested to Granny.

In the critique of my own entry it was suggested that some of the top area should have been cropped out. Looking at my image on the big screen, I agree with the critique. Fresh eyes make you look at your own work differently.

There are some people who react to any suggestion as a criticism and get huffy about it. Granny’s one of them. People like this don’t tend to progress.

Might depend on what one is trying to make progress with. As I stated several times, the only reason I posted the pictures was because someone else had posted keyboard shortcuts, saying it was an effort to keep some active posts on the group.
Maybe you should forget about butterflies and think about your skills at getting along with other people. Though I don’t think this has always been a top priority on the internet, especailly unsenet groups. People like you tend to drive other people away.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 21:20:25 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"tony cooper" wrote in message

On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:23:12 +1200, mike fee
wrote:

In article <dGJSp.58925$>, starchild1124
@charter.net says…

"mike fee" wrote in message

In article <i%sSp.38660$>, starchild1124
@charter.net says…

I have a (regular)18-55mm and a zoom 75mm -300mm I usually use the zoom
one for butterflies, because they are in the middle of thick brush and
wildflowers (usually) I don’t mind low depth of field, I kind of like the
soft, blurred background. I take pictures on the highest quality (next to
raw) and they open in PS as 4272×2848 pxls. I can pretty much crop or
print
them full page, whatever I want.
As to filling the frame with a butterfly or using a closeup lens, it’s
hard enough getting shots of them with the zoom lens. Though sometimes
they
do sit and pose for me.
One summer I went through a stage of taking pictures of really small
things (with my Canon Powershot G-8 which had an extra closeup lens. I
could
pretty much put the camera on the bug. If it would sit there and let me
(LOL)
These are saved at 72 res to put online.
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_6745_8.jpg
I could have cropped the ant closer..
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_4042_8.jpg
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_5236_8.jpg

Yes – much easier with ants, caterpillars, and assorted bugs than with butterflies. Th elatter just seem to know when you ar eabout to take a shot and will wait patiently till you get them _almost_ in frame/focus/position before deciding to flutter to the next bush.
Mike

I know. I try and second guess them. The same with bees, you can kind of
tell how long they will stay in one place before moving to another. I’m always trying to get a clear picture of a bee (like honeybee) in flight. I
end up taking rapid sequence pictures of things that move around a lot. If
I’d thought about it more, I’d have cropped the butterfly pictures closer
before posting them here. I sometimes put affirmations and sayings on pictures like that, and use them on my desktop (or print notecards) so I like a pretty color, slightly blurred background.
Didn’t realize there was a right and wrong way of taking/cropping butterfly
pictures I’d get lectured about.

I had no intent to lecture about anything – but it is the nature of newsgroup postings that the intended spirit of the message doesn’t always get across. But on the other hand when I occasionally post images, although I appreciate compliments (doesn’t anyone), I also accept well-meant criticism and/or advice, even if I sometimes feel it is a case of grandmothers and egg-sucking.

Granny Carrie should have been at my camera club meeting tonight. It was competition night with 91 entries in three categories: color, mono, and creative (in which any manipulation can be done). There were three judges: a university photography teacher, a professional photographer and former photo-journalist, and a member of the club.
I’d say that about a third or more of the critiques suggested the composition could be improved by cropping differently or shooting tighter. Exactly what I suggested to Granny.

In the critique of my own entry it was suggested that some of the top area should have been cropped out. Looking at my image on the big screen, I agree with the critique. Fresh eyes make you look at your own work differently.

There are some people who react to any suggestion as a criticism and get huffy about it. Granny’s one of them. People like this don’t tend to progress.

Might depend on what one is trying to make progress with. As I stated

If it’s winning friends and influencing people, you’re failing.

several times, the only reason I posted the pictures was because someone else had posted keyboard shortcuts, saying it was an effort to keep some active posts on the group.

Here’s an idea, douchebag, try discussing Photoshop.

Maybe you should forget about butterflies and think about your skills at getting along with other people. Though I don’t think this has always been a

You don’t seem to be doing too good at it either, old timer.

top priority on the internet, especailly unsenet groups. People like you tend to drive other people away.

Is it working? Drive, putt, train, plane, bus… what’ll it take to get you the fuck out of here?

On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:36:46 +1200, mike fee
wrote:

In article , tony_cooper213
@earthlink.net says…

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:08:25 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

I wasn’t referring to you, Mike. Sorry you took it that way. I don’t understand the grandmothers and egg sucking.

He is saying that he sometimes feels people are telling him things he already knows.

"Do you teach your grandmother how to suck eggs?" is an expression you might use to reply to someone who tells you how to do something you already know how to do.

And it has always struck me as a somewhat strange expression, as I have blown many an egg at Easter before painting it. But have never sucked an egg and couldn’t imagine why I, or any randomly chosen grandmother, might want to.

It’s intended as a nonsense thing to say. Other versions are "Don’t teach your grandmother how to milk ducks", and "Don’t teach your grandmother to steal sheep". If you don’t want to say "I know", then give them a nonsensical reply.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

In article , tony_cooper213
@earthlink.net says…

On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:36:46 +1200, mike fee
wrote:

In article , tony_cooper213
@earthlink.net says…

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:08:25 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

I wasn’t referring to you, Mike. Sorry you took it that way. I don’t understand the grandmothers and egg sucking.

He is saying that he sometimes feels people are telling him things he already knows.

"Do you teach your grandmother how to suck eggs?" is an expression you might use to reply to someone who tells you how to do something you already know how to do.

And it has always struck me as a somewhat strange expression, as I have blown many an egg at Easter before painting it. But have never sucked an egg and couldn’t imagine why I, or any randomly chosen grandmother, might want to.

It’s intended as a nonsense thing to say. Other versions are "Don?t teach your grandmother how to milk ducks", and "Don?t teach your grandmother to steal sheep". If you don’t want to say "I know", then give them a nonsensical reply.

Makes sense, I never thought of it that way because the other sayings are new to me (although the sentiment is not). Also, a number of my not too distant ancestors may have been into a little sheep-rustling.

Mike

On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 09:30:35 +1200, mike fee
scribbled:

In article , tony_cooper213
@earthlink.net says…

On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:36:46 +1200, mike fee
wrote:

In article , tony_cooper213
@earthlink.net says…

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:08:25 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

I wasn’t referring to you, Mike. Sorry you took it that way. I don’t understand the grandmothers and egg sucking.

He is saying that he sometimes feels people are telling him things he already knows.

"Do you teach your grandmother how to suck eggs?" is an expression you might use to reply to someone who tells you how to do something you already know how to do.

And it has always struck me as a somewhat strange expression, as I have blown many an egg at Easter before painting it. But have never sucked an egg and couldn’t imagine why I, or any randomly chosen grandmother, might want to.

It’s intended as a nonsense thing to say. Other versions are "Don?t teach your grandmother how to milk ducks", and "Don?t teach your grandmother to steal sheep". If you don’t want to say "I know", then give them a nonsensical reply.

Makes sense, I never thought of it that way because the other sayings are new to me (although the sentiment is not). Also, a number of my not too distant ancestors may have been into a little sheep-rustling.

A family of sheep fuckers. That explains a lot…