Nature

[Crotalus]

Here's another one of those green viper things from a Snakebusters snake show taken in a facility during snake training courses for people in SE Asia.

And picking up a Cobra in Africa ... lucky they only seem to bite when grabbed with tongs!

[eurasianthai]

Here is some of the nature you find in a Thai kitchen.

Sorry for the pink bucket, could not find another one, we're in Thailand after all.

And the french kiss in Safari World in Bangkok...

Edited August 9, 2010 by eurasianthai

[soohk]

S10

[Tingnongnoi]

[Rsvdude]

Snake farm Rama 4

Edited August 15, 2010 by Rsvdude

[galoubet]

The very large (in Bang Phra) .........

[galoubet]

.....and the very small (in Kanchanaburi)

[angiud]

Galoubet, wonderful pic. Just big noise (maybe too much enlarged?)

[galoubet]

Galoubet, wonderful pic. Just big noise (maybe too much enlarged?)

Noise? Photo hasn't been enlarged. It's been considerably reduced.

[angiud]

Maybe just over ISO 800?

You could try the Photoshop plug-in Topaz DeNoise to reduce the grain, can make miracles

[galoubet]

Maybe just over ISO 800?

You could try the Photoshop plug-in Topaz DeNoise to reduce the grain, can make miracles

I don't need to. I have plenty of similar photos and HD video. I studied these sunbirds for 6 weeks when they took to nesting in my kaffir lime tree at my Kan house.

But yes. ISO 3200. Needed it as was shot at 1/1000s on a Nikon D300 with an old Nikon 500mm F8 mirror lens. But it's the shot that matters, not necessarily the quality although I try for both.

Attached photo same speed/iso.

[Eureka]

Maybe just over ISO 800?

You could try the Photoshop plug-in Topaz DeNoise to reduce the grain, can make miracles

I don't need to. I have plenty of similar photos and HD video. I studied these sunbirds for 6 weeks when they took to nesting in my kaffir lime tree at my Kan house.

But yes. ISO 3200. Needed it as was shot at 1/1000s on a Nikon D300 with an old Nikon 500mm F8 mirror lens. But it's the shot that matters, not necessarily the quality although I try for both.

Attached photo same speed/iso.

Please look at this a simply a sugesstion to assist you in taking very good pictures to the next level. You know how to use a camera and handle it with great skill.

I have done a 1 minute adjustment of your image to show how software may allow your creative instints a wider latitude. As this is a small JPEG picture you could expect greater freedom and creativity using a RAW file from the camera instead.

Editing with RAW files allows you to readjust the exposure from -2 to +1 stops as a rough guide. Digital sensors lose detail in the highlights much earlier than the shadows so it is normally better to slightly underexpose than overexpose. The white feathers are slightly overexposed by about 1/2 stop. So with the RAW file you could have shot at ISO 1000 to reduce the sensor noise and still retain a correctly exposed image via software.

In Adobe Camera RAW I underexposed the image by .25 stop and added some recovery to the highlights to recover some detail. Finally I added a little Luminance Noise Reduction.

[galoubet]

Please look at this a simply a sugesstion to assist you in taking very good pictures to the next level. You know how to use a camera and handle it with great skill.

I have done a 1 minute adjustment of your image to show how software may allow your creative instints a wider latitude. As this is a small JPEG picture you could expect greater freedom and creativity using a RAW file from the camera instead.

Editing with RAW files allows you to readjust the exposure from -2 to +1 stops as a rough guide. Digital sensors lose detail in the highlights much earlier than the shadows so it is normally better to slightly underexpose than overexpose. The white feathers are slightly overexposed by about 1/2 stop. So with the RAW file you could have shot at ISO 1000 to reduce the sensor noise and still retain a correctly exposed image via software.

In Adobe Camera RAW I underexposed the image by .25 stop and added some recovery to the highlights to recover some detail. Finally I added a little Luminance Noise Reduction.

Firstly you don't know how I took the picture apart from the basic info I chose to supply because I removed all the camera specific info before posting. The photos were perfectly exposed with exceedingly low contrast to preserve any detail I might want to work with later on. If I had wanted to present a perfect photograph I would have done so. It's simply a low res picture suitable for a forum. That's all it is. If you like it that's fine. If you hate it that's fine too. Van Gogh would have loved you telling him how to put more yellow on his canvas because his giant sun was lacking detail. Just before he bottled you with his flask of absinthe.

[angiud]

Mr Eureka and me just try to give you a suggestion to improve the quality of a picture, from a passionate amateur photographer to another one. Nobody wanted to question the personal competence.

Van Gogh.....

[IanForbes]

I was swimming with the fishes yesterday. It's hard to get them to stay still long enough for a good photo...

[Eureka]

Please look at this a simply a sugesstion to assist you in taking very good pictures to the next level. You know how to use a camera and handle it with great skill.

I have done a 1 minute adjustment of your image to show how software may allow your creative instints a wider latitude. As this is a small JPEG picture you could expect greater freedom and creativity using a RAW file from the camera instead.

Editing with RAW files allows you to readjust the exposure from -2 to +1 stops as a rough guide. Digital sensors lose detail in the highlights much earlier than the shadows so it is normally better to slightly underexpose than overexpose. The white feathers are slightly overexposed by about 1/2 stop. So with the RAW file you could have shot at ISO 1000 to reduce the sensor noise and still retain a correctly exposed image via software.

In Adobe Camera RAW I underexposed the image by .25 stop and added some recovery to the highlights to recover some detail. Finally I added a little Luminance Noise Reduction.

Firstly you don't know how I took the picture apart from the basic info I chose to supply because I removed all the camera specific info before posting. The photos were perfectly exposed with exceedingly low contrast to preserve any detail I might want to work with later on. If I had wanted to present a perfect photograph I would have done so. It's simply a low res picture suitable for a forum. That's all it is. If you like it that's fine. If you hate it that's fine too. Van Gogh would have loved you telling him how to put more yellow on his canvas because his giant sun was lacking detail. Just before he bottled you with his flask of absinthe.

Sorry but it was not intended to cause derrision of an excellant photographic example.

The information was only based on the forum image which had been edited in Photoshop 7. I was unaware that you are fully conversant with all methods and artistic processes and I therefore humbly retract everything.

[IanForbes]

:lol:

Some people don't take criticism of ANY sort very well, and others don't know how to critisize without being offensive. Photo manipulation through computer art programs afterwards is an entirely different subject than just taking pictures with a camera. Today, we can change a picture entirely from what the camera originally took. 30 years ago, photographers didn't have that luxury and we were at the mercy of film developers... of which many ruined original pictures in the developing process.

I cut down the resolution and size of all my photos that I put on open forums. That is because I don't want the picture to be used elsewhere for commercial purposes. I'm more interested in the subject or the composition than the actual photo itself. I don't care if the picture isn't perfect or there is "noise" in the background.

[bprinceuk]

I was swimming with the fishes yesterday. It's hard to get them to stay still long enough for a good photo...

Nice photograph Ian, keep them coming

Brian

[angiud]

It's time to revive this beautiful thread:

Today, Canon Eos 450d with Canon 100mm Macro 1/64 f10 ISO 400 little cropped

Spider in my garden by angiud, on Flickr

[astral]

Wow.......

Thanks for the revival.

[angiud]

Today not so much time for my macro experiments:

Canon EOS 450d with 100 mm macro at f 22 0.8 sec iso 400.

coccinella by angiud, on Flickr

Edited December 12, 2010 by angiud

[angiud]

My daily walk around my home:

[IanForbes]

I love all the butterflies there are in Thailand and take photos of them at every opportunity. The problem is getting them to hold still long enough for a photo.

Too often the pictures area bit blurry because you've only got a milli-second to take the shot with a hand held camera.

And, butterflies often close their wings at rest and prevent you from seeing their beautiful markings. That is true for these lovely blue butterflies where only the dull outside of their wings show, unless they are flying.

[hughden]

It's time to revive this beautiful thread:

Today, Canon Eos 450d with Canon 100mm Macro 1/64 f10 ISO 400 little cropped

Spider in my garden by angiud, on Flickr

Great capture!

[angiud]

Thanks to you...

[angiud]

Bees by angiud, on Flickr

[angiud]

I'm particularly proud of this shot, made one hour ago (and chosen among twenty) of a simple fly on the young fruits of a palm tree.

Proud because it was a freehand shot and was nearly completely on focus, not easy with a DSRL with an heavy 100 mm with an ring flash and the subject loves to move around the branch.

EXIF: 1/40 at f11 ISO 400, 10% cropped and little color balanced.

Fly by angiud, on Flickr

[fabianfred]

insect exoskeleton

[angiud]

The Cicada, getting out from the ground, climb on a tree where the last part of the metamorphosis leaves as the only trace an old skin.

Nice bokeh

Edited December 17, 2010 by angiud

[IanForbes]

Thanks for the insect close-ups, Fred. It's something the eye can't see without a magnifying glass, and most insects don't stay around long enough to look at them carefully.