Post Your Best Nature Shots!

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

Thanks everyone for the compliments [],


Chuck, thanks for pointing that out, I didn't really know about it, I'm gonna try it.

[Fast Glass]

Here are couple from me. My computer was acting up and I couldn't resize and post here for a while.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.86/0130.TIF-reduced.JPG[/img]





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.86/002-reduced.JPG[/img]





Hope you like them.


John.

[Dan Fleming]

found this little bugger while out on a hike. I wasn't sure whether to put this here or under your favorite portraits


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.31.08/_5F00_MG_5F00_0178.jpg[/img]


XTi, Sigma 150mm macro very near to 1:1, f/4.0, 1/400, ISO 100, upped saturation and contrast in PP.





Here is a side shot I don't like nearly as much, partially because the eyes are slightly OOF. Also I have no idea what is going on on the right side of the frame.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.31.08/_5F00_MG_5F00_0185.jpg[/img]


XTi, Sigma 150mm, f/3.5, 1/250, ISO 100, slight contrast increase in PP

[wickerprints]

Here is a side shot I don't like nearly as much, partially because the eyes are slightly OOF. Also I have no idea what is going on on the right side of the frame.





XTi, Sigma 150mm, f/3.5, 1/250, ISO 100, slight contrast increase in PP
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

The phenomenon on the right side of the frame appears to be a shutter malfunction. You need to take more test shots and see if the problem occurs again; if so, the body will need servicing.

[Joel Eade]

I'm still learning with the 300mm f2.8L and my 40D...I took this pic of a Downy Woodpecker using the 1.4x extender from about 10 ft. away.[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.32.28/IMG_5F00_3588.jpg[/img]

[msmaneri1991]

24-105-xsi 1/100 f4.0 ISO 100


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.33.50/IMG_5F00_6792-copy11.jpg[/img]


comments and advice are always taken.





--matt

[btaylor]

Another stunner Joel! The sharpness of that lens blows me away. That perch is starting to look familiar [:P]

[Joel Eade]

Thanks I need to find some different dead branches to place next to the bird feeder .... the lens is very sharp and also it seems you can add more sharpness in post processing without it looking too over-done compared to my other lenses. The 1.4 extender doesn't seem to take much away from the lens performance as far as I can tell so far.

[Fast Glass]

The sharpness of that lens blows me away.

Are you judging from this small web sized image? If you are that is a common mistake, if the picture was very soft you would not be able to tell. Because there is enough detail inmost pictures to make a sharp web sized image.


Here is a link to explane what I am talking about http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/judging_image_quality_photos_web.htm.


Great shot Joel.

[btaylor]

I'm judging it by the fact that when I look at it... it looks very bloody sharp!!! Pretty good strategy if you ask me.


Let's have a reality check shall we... the web is a very common medium for people to display their images nowadays. So if it's sharp when I'm looking at it on the web then I'm happy because there's a pretty real chance I won't be seeing an actual print of Joel's lovely sharp photos taken with his new lovely sharp lens.


And it would want to be sharp - because it costs a lot of money. But you get what you pay for 90% of the time which is why cheaper, equivalent focal length lensesare often inferior in image quality when compared to Canon products.