HOME | DD
UncleTerry β Sun Bathing
Published: 2013-11-02 17:52:42 +0000 UTC; Views: 768; Favourites: 23; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Common Buckeye from North Carolina, USRelated content
Comments: 28
Beautiful photo and capture, stunning detail.
π: 0 β©: 1
Great capture! These are beautiful butterflies....
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank You! Yes they are, one of my favorite!
π: 0 β©: 1
I seldom see them in an attractive environment. They're usually in/on thickets and tangles of grass...
π: 0 β©: 1
They are very timid and fly away quickly. I have the best luck with a 100 mm lens and physically set among the bushes for hours. They finally accept me, I guess, as part of the surroundings and feed within a few feet of the camera.
π: 0 β©: 1
That takes a lot of patience and endurance to sit for long periods. It's worth it though if you can do it!
π: 0 β©: 1
So true! The smart thing would be to combine a sitting area with a butterfly garden and use a zoom lens to get the shots I want, but smart has not always been my best trait. Hope your having a great weekend. Talk again, soon.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, a sitting area in your garden, it sounds delightful! You should do it if your garden is large enough...
Zoom lens don't do butterfly shots as well as a long macro lens, though I have gotten some pretty images with my 300mm.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh..I bet so, I didn't realize they made one. All I have is the 100 mm I started with. It works great, but you have to be close. That would be incredible to have the quality of a macro in a 300 mm lens. That has to be your favorite lens.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Not really, I like the 90mm Tamron best but as you say, you have to be pretty close and the critters don't like that so much. With the 300mm it requires cropping and the quality just isn't as crisp as with a macro lens but sometimes it works out. I have a 50-135 which I use for butterflies, if I happened to have brought it along....
Here are a couple I took with the 300mm.
π: 0 β©: 1
Beautiful photos..I had one in favorites already. I see though where you might say they're not as crisp. I also looked at your specs for the picture. Something you may want to try next time and see if it will help any. I had to do the same with my 100-400 mm lens.Β The lens was not getting enough light to properly focus on the image, so I raised theΒ ISO way more than normal and lowered the speed as low as I could to hand hold. It really made a big difference especially when fully extended. Now I shoot between 800 and 1600 ISO, with a speed no higher than 1/400. Hope this will help.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
I have to admit that I don't pay much attention to the settings unless there is a particular reason for it. I'd probably get better pictures if I did though.....
π: 0 β©: 1
You are getting incredible results for jpeg compression. The only way it hurts you is it limits your ability to edit your photos. Right now your camera is doing all the editing for you and from what I've seen of your images it's doing a great job.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't know, as long as I get a reasonably decent capture, my software can tweak it pretty well. It's when it's awful that I wish I had shot in RAW. Most of the time it doesn't make a big difference though. But changing the camera functions certainly does. There are many times I wish I had paid attention to the settings. But I get busy thinking of other things and forget to check.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm really lucky if I get 1 out of 10 shots to turn out good. If I use a tripod and have a still image I can do a little better, but with nature there is to many things that can go wrong.
π: 0 β©: 1
That is so true and the little creatures don't usually co-operate by posing nicely in good light and an attractive environment!
If you are on the move, a monopod is much easier and lighter to handle. There's one with a "chickenfoot", three toes on the bottom to stabilize all directions, which I am giving thought to getting. I find that I'm just not still enough for certain close up shots and they're usually out of focus or downright blurry.....
π: 0 β©: 0
