Graham

Funny thing is, those pics were taken years ago with my old point and shoot. And very few people notice the red spider has a size 22 realistic midge in the front pinchers. The reason I bought my Nikon was to re-take photos of all of my flies, instead I've been outdoors chasing birds and fish. But Will Milne's fly photography is very much inspiring me to get cracking on the macros. About the copied photos, I doubt there are pockets deep enough to be worth the time, energy and expense required to open them. But I'll look into it.

I'm not quite sure what this is about, but I got a few e-mails today directing my attention to it... http://forbiddenmusic.wordpress.com/2008/0...by-harun-yahya/ Graham

I really like the Wimberly brackets a lot, both the macro and telephoto. I think I have everything Wimberly sells except for the full size gimbal head. I also really like the macro brackets from Novoflex are more versatile with loads of accessories, but it is bulkier and harder to travel with when compared to Wimberly brackets. Will, I really like the look of your reflectors, and lightweight flex arm!!! Very inspiring!!! Here's a link to an interesting Polish website I recently found, haven't tried to translate it, but I found it while following links with info about Igor the master macro guy from Germany. I think it is the rig he uses, and there are links on the page to other possibilities as well as how to make a nice snoot as well as a more portable macro setup... http://www.stopa.cso.pl/technika/index.html I think you need to click on the links on the left side of the page for images to be visible. Graham

I like it and it looks like you're having lots of fun time with your camera.

That sure is a beautiful church and surroundings. To resize my photos I use Photoshop and change the image size to 2.5" wide (800 pixels) and leave it set at 300 dpi. Then I click on save for web and optimize the JPEG, and choose 60% quality. The quality setting is what determines the file size, not the image size. You can have two identically sized images on your monitor, but one could be 10 times larger and take forever to download for those on dialup. Back in the late 90's when most people were connecting with dialup ,using 28k, I set my image quality at 10% when saving files for the internet. Some forums restrict images to 600 pixels wide, but that seems to be less enforced now that so many people use broadband. The image above is getting close to half a megabite, and back when I was on dialup, it would have taken at least 5 minutes to load. I'm wondering, for those that do not have Adobe Photoshop, is there a website where one can upload photos to be optimally resized for the web? Graham

That's a great looking set up Will and your pattern photography rocks, big time. Very, very cool. Graham .

I found a new birding spot today, a nice little swampy area about 14 miles from home. Next time I go back I need to take some flash equipment to help brighten and sharpen my images. I'm not excited about the images I captured today, most look a tad soft, and the lighting in the shade didn't bring out the colors as well as expected. But, I am very excited about going back, a number of times this year, and hopefully will get some sharp action shots. This was a welcome sight... Wood ducks and Mandarin ducks... I also found some peacocks and geese. I took lots of close ups of the peacock feathers and later when I go through the rest of todays photos I'll post some... I had fun and feel like this year is off to a good start... Graham

Excellent, I think they both look Great. Did you curve the under-layment up behind the flies, or does it lay flat? Graham

Very nice images, all of them, and my favorite is the first one, makes me wish I was there. Graham

Hey Will, I actually enjoy good natured foolery. When I photoshop the suspension wires out of the pics of the realistic egrets I tyed, it makes them come alive... Thank you Will and Peter, the egret deal is what pushed me to register a new business. I'm having fun with it. Recently I printed seven different 8"x10"'s, went to a local frame store, spent $250 for mats and frames, went home, put them together, printed certificates of authenticity, signed them, drove to a local high end type of store, and sold them for $1,050. Then it was lunch time. I realize identical opportunies are not readilly available, but I like the challenge of trying to make a business thrive, and remaining fun. Last night I realized that the D200 and D300 can use the same battery, while the D300 can be used with the 4 series battery as well. Makes me think I should get the D300 instead of another D200 when I buy a second DSLR. I hope to take a day off this week and shoot humming birds on tropical flowers at the L.A. Arboretum. Lots of cool stuff there and I'll bring some macro lenses as well. Graham

If I could swing that deal weekly, life would be wonderful. The image is being put on billboards nation wide in Oman, as well as pamphlets. I asked for a photo of my photo on a billboard and was assured this would happen. I'm just dying to get that... I started with a full frame 10.2 mb image, and used Capture and Photoshop to change it into a 55mb TIFF. It was too large for me to e-mail so I uploaded it to my server and sent a link to the purchaser. In case your wondering, Western Union is a great way to recieve funds from overseas. I got the full amount, unlike a wire tranfer last month were 7% was taken along the way. That transfer was wired from Italy.

If the opening question stated DSLR then mention of film may perhaps have not occured. And he wants it to be as cost effective as possible, which also brings up issues with respect to film and digital. I agree with Peter and don't see a need for appologies. Graham

Regarding your question "Is the D300 really $1000 better then the D80" I agree with Al, you're a pro now and need pro gear. I guess since I've started selling photos recently I should consider myself a pro...lol.. But, getting back to your question, I would say with certainty that the D300 is worth $1000 more than the D80, and I would say the same thing about the D200. I recently sold an egret in flight photo to an Arabian ad agency, a photo I doubt could have been taken with the D80 focus system, which the D200 handled easily, and it sold for quite a bit more than $1000, several times more. And, I took this photo in the summer of 06, on my first attempt at bird flight photography.

One other thing, the camera LCD brightness can be adjusted in the menu section, and perhaps there are times, such as indoor flash photography, when it might be helpful to darken the LCD?

Hi Al, I asked myself the same question recently when taking some pics at a friends Christmas party. I was bouncing flash off the ceiling, mostly taking pics of kids by the tree opening presents, and the images looked perfect on the LCD screen. I haven't done much indoor flash photography, and I was surprised upon opening the files that they were underexposed by a full stop. Nikon Capture worked very well to brighten the photos and luckily none of the shadows were locked up but I was surprised to learn that the on-camera LCD could be so much brighter. But, I guess thats something I've learned while bracketing sunset shots in the Adirondacks last summer, and Will Mine is right, the Histogram is the best way to judge exposure. I have my camera set up now to show the entire pic on the LCD, with flashing white to signal any over exposed areas, and at the bottom of the screen is the RGB histogram. But I'm typically used to making sure I haven't blown the whites instead of locking up shadows. I think it takes a lot of practice to be able to look at your scene and know just how much true black there is and to balance that with the amount of true black on the histogram. I guess thats one of the things I love about photography, I have decades of learning and practice in front of me and it will allways be a challenge. Graham

I think the debate is helpful for those considering purchasing an SLR. Film based SLR's are much more affordable than digital these days, and there are hidden costs associated with Digital. Recenty I've had to buy two 1 TB external hard drives for backup. I keep one outside my house and one connected to my computer, to prevent a serious loss in the event of a house fire. I swith these drives out about twice a month. Last year I had to buy 2 500gb drives, and the year before 2 250 gb drives. I could have had a lot of film processed for that cost and these days most film processing places provide prints, negatives and digital file on disk. I keep a lot of my old negatives in a safe deposit box at my bank, don't ask me why, I guess just to make sure I have memories from old trips available to see when I'm an old man... Graham

Check out this link, and see the difference. And this is the 22mp not the 39mp... Put your mouse on each pic to see the difference... http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/h3d-1.htm

Nikon is good, but not the best, especially when it comes to still-life, fashion and product shots. But for action and faster frame shooting requirments, Canon, Nikon and others are better.

The new Nikon D3 official product shots were taken with a digital Hasselblad with a Phase1 digital back. 39mp digital, expensive, but it's likely the best system available for any size print. But useless for action and wildlife. I print 8x10 and 12x18 and they look great. My monitor is callibrated and ICC profiled for my printer. I'm very satisfied with prints from my 10mp camera.

Hey Tybugs1, I would be very wary of the D300 deal with the 18-200 for 1,699. Very, very wary. I cant think of a single lens that would satisfy your list of things to shoot, while performing each task effectively. The best camera on your list which can easily perform these tasks is the D300, especially the auto focus for action and birds. I would consider buying the D300 and a 50mm 1:8 for just under $2k, and practice using this lens to learn the camera system, while saving for future glass purchases.

Using dice was a brilliant idea! Very Cool! I've seen some amazing water drop reflections done with the drop placed on a CD, looks real psychedelic but few would guess a CD was used.

Hey Will, I've been thinking the same thing, maybe buy a second D200 as my back-up, and twin shooting outfit, for those times when a wide angle on one camera and a long lens ready on the other shoulder is the way to go. Then all of my accessories and down-loadable shooting menus match perfectly, and all 3 of my batteries will work. I think that's what I will do until the day comes that I buy a full frame, maybe when the D4 comes out... Graham

Thank you Federico, By all accounts your contest was a great success! Graham

Hi Garren, Thank you! I really love the tripple woven stonefly on your website, it looks Great! I would post a full size 300 dpi printable sheet here, but the file size is way too big. I'd offer to e-mail them but my outgoing server limits file sizes at 5mb, and the full sheet is 21mb. I printed my wingbuds smaller than the image posted here, but the larger size allows for downsizing while keeping some of the detail. The orignial file has the wing buds 7" long at 300 dpi. I was having so much fun photographing the stoneflies that it didn't cross my mind until I'd returned home, to take shots specifically for making printable wing buds, with a straight perspective and no bright highlights. I have many of the bugs in vials, but the yellow coloring has faded. Next time! I'm glad you joined the FTF, please make yourself at home, and please post some pics of your flies, they look fantastic. Cheers, Graham

Absolutely beautiful and stunning images Wulff, great technique capturing these images so clearly. I don't think the number of MP makes much difference with respect to noise and grainyness, instead it's the size of each photon receptor on the image capturing sensor. Larger receptors, such as Canon's and Nikons full frame verion have less noise becasue more detailed information is gathered with less spill over. Sort of the equivalent of filling rows of buckets with water. Wider buckets allow for easier and more precise filling when compared to rows of little buckets, which really need to be filled slower to prevent spillage. My camera has little buckets, which restricts using ISO settings above 400 without noise, or spill over. I think there are many factors that contibute to noise, with shutter speed being one of them. Slow shutter speeds used for long exposure shots can also introduce noise even at low ISO settings.