NikonGear'23
Images => Nature, Flora, Fauna & Landscapes => Topic started by: JKoerner007 on November 18, 2017, 18:40:31
-
Penultimate Carolina Mantid ... on grass.
Taken with the Canon EOS 7D and EF 180mm f/3.5 Macro Lens
(1/50, f/7.1, 400 ISO) ... in Florida 2011
-
John, it is really nice. It's always nice to see beautiful images made with non Nikon gear.
-
John, it is really nice. It's always nice to see beautiful images made with non Nikon gear.
Thanks, Jakov.
I was looking for old flower shots, in relation to this thread (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3261.msg109697.html#msg109697), and stumbled across this one in the process.
I agree and disagree: a beautiful shot is a beautiful shot (and an interesting subject is an interesting subject), regardless of what device was used to capture it.
However, I am a purist of sorts, and I believe images taken with Nikon gear should be posted on a NikonGear forum ... even if the moderation allows for differences.
Just thought I'd share a fav "blast from the past" for fun ;D
-
I agree and disagree: a beautiful shot is a beautiful shot (and an interesting subject is an interesting subject), regardless of what device was used to capture it.
However, I am a purist of sorts, and I believe images taken with Nikon gear should be posted on a NikonGear forum ... even if the moderation allows for differences.
Just thought I'd share a fav "blast from the past" for fun ;D
Just the fact that you aligned the camera precisely parallel to the mantis and the wheat (?) before any slightest movement of the main subject is amazing.
The tool should be chosen by individual according to the needs, not the brands. Unlike the name of the forum, the images taken by the tools of any brand are equally entitled to be posted here, except for the personal restrictions.
-
To elaborate, there is no "moderation" of what gear is used for images posted on NG. That would defeat the objective of a photographic-orientated web forum.
Many members do use gear from different brands these days, so it would be silly to make specific brand rules. Thus, I'm myself a Nikon user (no big secret ...), yet I also use Fuji and Panasonic gear, and have optics from Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Leica, Sigma, Tamron, and Olympus to name some of the brands.
Nice mantis by the way.
-
Few of us are up to the very best that various brands are capable of, and we certainly don't need some hare-brained sub website for non-Nikon images, as some other websites have been known to employ. An interesting image is an interesting image, and the equipment used to make it is irrelevant, it's merely the tool that the photographer used.
Giving a man a pint brush doesn't make him Rembrandt's equal. Who doesn't love well crafted image?
-
Just the fact that you aligned the camera precisely parallel to the mantis and the wheat (?) before any slightest movement of the main subject is amazing.
Thanks.
The tool should be chosen by individual according to the needs, not the brands. Unlike the name of the forum, the images taken by the tools of any brand are equally entitled to be posted here, except for the personal restrictions.
Yeah, but I can't afford to run a complete line on both brands, and (having shot both) I prefer Nikon 8)
Doesn't mean I haven't enjoyed Canon, but (having compared thousands of images of both) I am good with staying here.
Just sharing some old photos is all :)
__________________
To elaborate, there is no "moderation" of what gear is used for images posted on NG. That would defeat the objective of a photographic-orientated web forum.
Noted.
Many members do use gear from different brands these days, so it would be silly to make specific brand rules. Thus, I'm myself a Nikon user (no big secret ...), yet I also use Fuji and Panasonic gear, and have optics from Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Leica, Sigma, Tamron, and Olympus to name some of the brands.
Understood.
Nice mantis by the way.
Thanks :D
__________________
Few of us are up to the very best that various brands are capable of, and we certainly don't need some hare-brained sub website for non-Nikon images, as some other websites have been known to employ. An interesting image is an interesting image, and the equipment used to make it is irrelevant, it's merely the tool that the photographer used.
Agreed, and I wouldn't expect a sub-forum for off-label brands. Yet I still believe a Nikon forum is a Nikon forum.
If you shoot Sony cameras, with Nikon glass, okay.
If you shoot Nikon cameras, with Zeiss glass, okay.
But if you're shooting Sony cameras with Sony glass, then you belong on a Sony forum/
Just my beliefs ...
Giving a man a pint brush doesn't make him Rembrandt's equal. Who doesn't love well crafted image?
Don't believe it's that simple.
A brush is a simple tool than any artist can use. One brush (essentially) gives ZERO advantage to a user over another.
By contrast, a camera is a highly-complex, multi-dimensional tool that gives any photographer a decided advantage.
If I gave you a cell phone and told you to take photos of jungle birds, you couldn't do it.
If I gave you a paintbrush and told you to paint jungle birds ... you could do it ... from other people's photographs ... but only up to the level of your ability.
If I put a person in front of you, gave you an Otus + a D850, and told you to take a photo of this person ... you would create a decent image, regardless of your skill level.
If i put that same person in front of you, gave you the best brushes and oils available, your 'finished product' would likely be a joke compared to your camera image.
The amount of time it takes to complete a 'perfect photo' versus the amount of time it takes to complete a 'perfect oil painting' is also a joke.
What I am getting at is, your point is in err.
True, while the camera/lens don't make the photographer ... they come a helluva lot closer than the paintbrush/canvas make the artist.
This truth is also why the best paintings sell for 100x what the best photos will bring.
And rightly so ...
-
Thanks.
Yeah, but I can't afford to run a complete line on both brands, and (having shot both) I prefer Nikon 8)
Doesn't mean I haven't enjoyed Canon, but (having compared thousands of images of both) I am good with staying here.
Just sharing some old photos is all :)
__________________
Noted.
Understood.
Thanks :D
__________________
Agreed, and I wouldn't expect a sub-forum for off-label brands. Yet I still believe a Nikon forum is a Nikon forum.
If you shoot Sony cameras, with Nikon glass, okay.
If you shoot Nikon cameras, with Zeiss glass, okay.
But if you're shooting Sony cameras with Sony glass, then you belong on a Sony forum/
Just my beliefs ...
Don't believe it's that simple.
A brush is a simple tool than any artist can use. One brush (essentially) gives ZERO advantage to a user over another.
By contrast, a camera is a highly-complex, multi-dimensional tool that gives any photographer a decided advantage.
If I gave you a cell phone and told you to take photos of jungle birds, you couldn't do it.
If I gave you a paintbrush and told you to paint jungle birds ... you could do it ... from other people's photographs ... but only up to the level of your ability.
If I put a person in front of you, gave you an Otus + a D850, and told you to take a photo of this person ... you would create a decent image, regardless of your skill level.
If i put that same person in front of you, gave you the best brushes and oils available, your 'finished product' would likely be a joke compared to your camera image.
The amount of time it takes to complete a 'perfect photo' versus the amount of time it takes to complete a 'perfect oil painting' is also a joke.
What I am getting at is, your point is in err.
True, while the camera/lens don't make the photographer ... they come a helluva lot closer than the paintbrush/canvas make the artist.
This truth is also why the best paintings sell for 100x what the best photos will bring.
And rightly so ...
You have managed to misinterpret my words, as I intended them. but I am not interested in getting into an argument with you over it. However, I will point out errors when I see them.
-
Outstanding image !
-
Outstanding image !
Thanks Armando :D
-
John:
Was this mantis actually that purplish-magenta-ish color? I wonder because of the surrounding field of green can throw off my color perception of the non-green thing towards magenta.
Do mantises always turn their heads and look at the photographer? I don't see them often, but the last time I saw one, in Oregon, it did so.
-
John:
Was this mantis actually that purplish-magenta-ish color? I wonder because of the surrounding field of green can throw off my color perception of the non-green thing towards magenta.
Do mantises always turn their heads and look at the photographer? I don't see them often, but the last time I saw one, in Oregon, it did so.
Keith, mantises are the enigma of the insect world ... for a variety of reasons.
The Carolina Mantid has many color forms, some mostly-green, some grayish, but many have (yes) a 'camou' series of blotches and colorations, which can vary greatly, including magentas, browns, greens, and grays.
Also, yes, they frequently turn their heads to regard the photographer, because they are so 'aware' of there surroundings ...
Here is a video clip I made earlier this year, of a California (not Carolina) Mantid ... with a funny end demonstrating this :D
https://youtu.be/ojO8J0aGcWM
-
I kept a mantis for several months. She was probably a Stagmomantis californica for those who speak latin. :) She was a coward! One night I caught a large oriental cockroach in my backyard. I kept my mantis in a 55 gallon aquarium with a top fixed for keeping a snake. She kept her human in a single story stick construction succo house. When the roach scurried by the mantis threw up her wings to display a pair of large false eyes. Finally she got the idea that the roach was din din and grabbed it. She eat it tail first. I can honestly say this is the first time I ever felt sorry for a cockroach. The roach kept wiggling it's antenna until she eat its head.
To feed her I used an old white sheet and a black light. The sheet glows from the optical whiteners found in the cloth and added by many washing detergents. The glowing sheet attracts many insects. One or maybe two lucky insects are choosen.
Later the mantis laid eggs. When the eggs hatched the young began eating each other. I fired off an email to John Acorn “The Nature Nut” and he suggested feeding them non-flying lab fruit files. I didn't have time to find a source for these so I gave up and turned the young loose. If trying to keep a female cockroach as a pet it would be wise to find a source for non-flying fruit flies before the need arises.
That's my Stagmomantis californica story and I'm sticking to it!
Dave Hartman
-
Here is a Cryptic Mantis from South Africa. Not as beautiful a setting; this one is sitting on the wall of the cabin, I stayed in. Taken handheld with D800 + 300/4 AFS and the build in flash.
-
That's my Stagmomantis californica story and I'm sticking to it!
Well, alrighty-then :D
-
Here is a Cryptic Mantis from South Africa.
Mmm, not sure the topic was mantids ... but bokeh-licious bugs :-\
Not as beautiful a setting; this one is sitting on the wall of the cabin, I stayed in. Taken handheld with D800 + 300/4 AFS and the build in flash.
Indeed ... going from the beautiful moist splendor of the Florida outdoors as bokeh as a background ... to stucco ... would not have been the direction I would have taken the topic :-[
If you have any arthropod images with luscious backgrounds, would love to see them :D
-
Mmm, not sure the topic was mantids ... but bokeh-licious bugs :-\
Indeed ... going from the beautiful moist splendor of the Florida outdoors as bokeh as a background ... to stucco ... would not have been the direction I would have taken the topic :-[
If you have any arthropod images with luscious backgrounds, would love to see them :D
In regards to the topic of bokeh, the isolation of the mantis is nice though without your description I recognize no moist Floridian splendor, just a wash of green that could just as well be muslin.
At what point does quality bokeh transform to blandness?
-
My feeling is the equipment may be very important to the photographer taking or making the photograph. Another photographer may be curious about the equipment that was used. However the photograph itself must stand of fall on its own merits. When viewing and enjoying a photograph the equipment used doesn't matter, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc. Its all good.
Dave Hartman
-
In regards to the topic of bokeh, the isolation of the mantis is nice though without your description I recognize no moist Floridian splendor, just a wash of green that could just as well be muslin.
Mmm, disagree.
Even a cursory glance shows there are light, mid-, and dark greens represented in the background, which is clearly not muslin and in fact nature.
At what point does quality bokeh transform to blandness?
When you use muslin.
-
My feeling is the equipment may be very important to the photographer taking or making the photograph. Another photographer may be curious about the equipment that was use. However the photograph itself must stand of fall on its own merits. When viewing and enjoying a photograph the equipment used doesn't matter, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc. Its all good.
Dave Hartman
The Eternal Paradox:
(1) The image must stand or fall on its own merits, regardless of equipment;
(2) No image can be obtained without equipment;
(3) Some equipment / focal lengths / apertures are better/worse at effectively capturing colors ... isolating the background ... and rendering bokeh than others.
Hence the interest to discuss these particulars along with the display of any image :)
-
Here's another from the same sequence:
-
Mmm, disagree.
Even a cursory glance shows there are light, mid-, and dark greens represented in the background, which is clearly not muslin and in fact nature.
Disagree all you like, I was not questioning what the background is or is not.
I am questioning what good bokeh is.
If reducing the background to nothing but color constitutes good bokeh, then you have succeeded.
By the way muslin often has light, mid, and dark tones:
-
Disagree all you like, I was not questioning what the background is or is not.
I am questioning what good bokeh is.
If reducing the background to nothing but color constitutes good bokeh, then you have succeeded.
Charlie;
Methinks you're trying to be an academic pr---, nothing more.
My original post was designed to create intrigue on a bug image with nice bokeh.
(BTW, mantids aren't really bugs, but the original intent was fun.)
Another poster posted an image of a mantid on a stucco wall ... and apparently you took exception to my comment.
In your own post you rhetorically said, "I recognize no moist Floridian splendor ..."
Really? No sh-t?
Sorry, Charlie, but the "This is Florida" sign in the background got blurred with the rest of the greenery ;D
Now, you are popping-off with minutia that has nothing to do with anything.
Here is the bottom line:
If you think you have a better bokeh bug shot, post it, and (if I agree) I will respect your opinion.
If all you have is more lip, or a common bug shot on a wall, or your screen door, sorry Charlie, but you are off-topic and just a blowhard to me.
By the way muslin often has light, mid, and dark tones:
Thank you for the academic exercise ::)
Show me the wildlife bug shot excellence of which you are capable, and if I agree it is worthy of my attention, I will give it to you.
Otherwise, your comments belong in the recycle bin IMO.
Admin: This approach serves the NG community no good.
-
I sense a need for comic relief...
Well, we're having a ball just 'a bopping on the big dance floor
Well, there's a real square cat, he looks a 1974
Well, he looked at me once, he looked at me twice
Look at me again and there's gonna be fight
We're gonna rock this town
We're gonna rip this place apart
--Brian Setzer
Oops! Forgot the author
-
I sense a need for comic relief...
Well, we're having a ball just 'a bopping on the big dance floor
Well, there's a real square cat, he looks a 1974
Well, he looked at me once, he looked at me twice
Look at me again and there's gonna be fight
We're gonna rock this town
We're gonna rip this place apart
That sounds like bokebilly to me...
-
Here are 2 non-professional 'tourist' shots of insects who have turned their heads toward the camera. They are tourist shots because I had not set out specifically to photograph insects, and had only a not-suited-to-purpose 50mm close focusing lens on hand.
-
Oooh I like the personality in #2!
-
No.2 should have a leading role in a horror movie.
-
Here is the bottom line:
If you think you have a better bokeh bug shot, post it, and (if I agree) I will respect your opinion.
Sorry to have been off the topic, when I posted my picture of the Cryptic Mantid. I was simply more focused on the bug in the original posted picture than on the background, which was probably also the intension when the picture was taken. Of course, I should have read the title of the post more carefully.
-
Here are 2 non-professional 'tourist' shots of insects who have turned their heads toward the camera. They are tourist shots because I had not set out specifically to photograph insects, and had only a not-suited-to-purpose 50mm close focusing lens on hand.
I also like the second one which is even humorous!
-
Interrupted, didn't get back to this.
Sorry,
Dave
-
Charlie;
Methinks you're trying to be an academic pr---, nothing more.
My original post was designed to create intrigue on a bug image with nice bokeh.
(BTW, mantids aren't really bugs, but the original intent was fun.)
Another poster posted an image of a mantid on a stucco wall ... and apparently you took exception to my comment.
In your own post you rhetorically said, "I recognize no moist Floridian splendor ..."
Really? No sh-t?
Sorry, Charlie, but the "This is Florida" sign in the background got blurred with the rest of the greenery ;D
Now, you are popping-off with minutia that has nothing to do with anything.
Here is the bottom line:
If you think you have a better bokeh bug shot, post it, and (if I agree) I will respect your opinion.
If all you have is more lip, or a common bug shot on a wall, or your screen door, sorry Charlie, but you are off-topic and just a blowhard to me.
Thank you for the academic exercise ::)
Show me the wildlife bug shot excellence of which you are capable, and if I agree it is worthy of my attention, I will give it to you.
Otherwise, your comments belong in the recycle bin IMO.
Admin: This approach serves the NG community no good.
John, the truth is I think you are a damn fine bug photographer. Some of your stacked shots are detail rich and technically impressive feats. Because I'm somewhat familiar with the quality of your images and you seem to have experience with a wide range of lenses, I also appreciate your thoughts on lenses that work well for this type of photography and reversing.
What I don't appreciate is your constant air of superiority. So when someone else posted their bug picture and you so smugly suggested that they should not have, I thought what better time to call into question if your photograph is in fact "Bokeh-licious". Clearly you are not up for a discussion on what makes good bokeh in this bokeh centric thread of yours.
I'm not much of a bug photographer though I do have this decade old picture of a spider I took with a reversed 50mm that you can use to determine the proper level of respect I should be given:
(https://3db0168ff6984c99925f-1e09028cb6ee58c67e81540b8d00d98e.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/_DSC0138.jpg)
With that said I'm up for the wildlife bug challenge. I'll take pictures of bugs and be reminded how challenging it is and share them here. My challenge to you is to practice more tactful responses when interacting with our community. What do you say?
If all goes well maybe we can meet up for a beer, I mean we're practically neighbors.
-
I'm not much of a bug photographer though I do have this decade old picture of a spider I took with a reversed 50mm that you can use to determine the proper level of respect I should be given:
Charlie,
Really nice interesting rendering, in the out of focus flower background of the image.
Much respect!
Cheers
-
Charlie,
Excellent Bokeh-licious Arachnid.
My compliments.
-
Charlie, well done 8)
-
No.2 should have a leading role in a horror movie.
I'm thankful that the age of giant insects and the age of humans did not overlap.
-
Here are 2 non-professional 'tourist' shots of insects who have turned their heads toward the camera. They are tourist shots because I had not set out specifically to photograph insects, and had only a not-suited-to-purpose 50mm close focusing lens on hand.
The color and areas of focus are quite good :)
The total isolation of the subject (with no distracting elements in the background) not so much.
It is very difficult to angle the lens, and point to a background setting, which totally isolates your subject. (One of the advantages of longer focal length macros, e.g., 180-200mm, versus 60-105mm iterations.)
-
Sorry to have been off the topic, when I posted my picture of the Cryptic Mantid. I was simply more focused on the bug in the original posted picture than on the background, which was probably also the intension when the picture was taken. Of course, I should have read the title of the post more carefully.
Your subject (and focus of key points) were terrific ... and I share your interest :)
But bugs on a wall, or a screen, or a hand ... kinda spoil the effect (no offense, as I have taken thousands like this, if that's all I could get).
-
John, the truth is I think you are a damn fine bug photographer. Some of your stacked shots are detail rich and technically impressive feats. Because I'm somewhat familiar with the quality of your images and you seem to have experience with a wide range of lenses, I also appreciate your thoughts on lenses that work well for this type of photography and reversing.
Thanks, Charlie.
What I don't appreciate is your constant air of superiority. So when someone else posted their bug picture and you so smugly suggested that they should not have, I thought what better time to call into question if your photograph is in fact "Bokeh-licious". Clearly you are not up for a discussion on what makes good bokeh in this bokeh centric thread of yours.
I admit to being a macro snob, especially when faced with rhetorical questions, no images, and irrelevant minutia.
I am an empiricist, but once I see a person is capable of producing images to which I myself would aspire (or at least relate), then I am willing to enter into a discussion with them about the particulars. I feel the same way about Martial arts. The genre is filled with 'theorists' who have never actually had a fight. There are plenty of self-proclaimed 'black belts' who would never make it 1 round with a professional fighter. No actual experience, no chin, no heart. I would never take instruction from someone like this. However ... there are those who have paid their dues and who have authentic and serious experience. Those are the ones I would pay to train me, not a dude with a straight nose ;)
Many nature photographers are the same way. They read articles, they buy lenses, they debate products, but they only walk out to their backyard, their porch, or to their local park to take "Nature" shots. (Or, worse, a petting zoo.) It's hard to take their 'advice' on nature photography seriously.
The bottom line is I am always willing to take instruction from anyone, who can authentically produce images to which I aspire, under conditions which I consider to be truly challenging. If it seems I have a cutting style of writing, it is only to separate the theorists from those who actually take images like I am trying to take. Hope this makes sense.
I'm not much of a bug photographer though I do have this decade old picture of a spider I took with a reversed 50mm that you can use to determine the proper level of respect I should be given:
(https://3db0168ff6984c99925f-1e09028cb6ee58c67e81540b8d00d98e.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/_DSC0138.jpg)
I appreciate your willingness to share. It is a beautiful, clean image: nice color and sharp focus, but perhaps not as much depth of focus as desired.
(However, I know that live arthropod subjects can be tough to get several images in succession for a stack.)
Thanks again for sharing :)
With that said I'm up for the wildlife bug challenge. I'll take pictures of bugs and be reminded how challenging it is and share them here. My challenge to you is to practice more tactful responses when interacting with our community. What do you say?
It's a deal.
If I know someone is in earnest, I am as willing to provide constructive criticism as I am to receive it.
It's only when I think someone is being a sarcastic pr--k that I respond in a different tone.
If all goes well maybe we can meet up for a beer, I mean we're practically neighbors.
I would like that.
FYI, I am meeting up with a friend of mine Friday (that I have known since the 4th grade, and with whom I used to ditch middle-school to catch rattlensnakes) for a 10-mile mountain hike for old-time sake ;D
PM me your contact info, and I would be glad to shake your hand and continue our friendly challenge 8)
Cheers and Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family,
Jack