[GilesKS]

December 15, 2006 at 6:10 pm

Flower colour looks pretty accurate to me – they are naturally somewhat washed out. A bit more DOF would be nice though, especially for the flowerhead on the lower right. I quite like the square composition.

[GilesKS]

December 14, 2006 at 10:22 am

Rob wrote:

Good image, but I’m afraid that the Cuisine de France baguette just stops this being a true wildlife shot for me :lol:

If this is on the basis that baguette isn’t ‘natural’, then consider that this is an American squirrel, in Europe, sitting on a lawn of European plant species – nothing remotely like it’s ‘natural’ habitat of trees in America. However, this is totally representative of this species’s current ecology and symbiosis with man. For this it would be a great shot if the focus wasn’t off.

[GilesKS]

September 17, 2006 at 5:01 pm

This is clearly a hoverfly – wasps have twice as many wings and a narrow waist for a start. Decent capture of it though, albeit very horizontal.

[GilesKS]

September 14, 2006 at 8:04 pm

I prefer the colour of the original. The composition and exposure of it is good, the problem is that it is somewhat soft. joelsveer’s edit has been over-sharpened something awful, and the colours look wrong in SteveD’s. Oversaturated. joelsveer also seems to have blurred the background somewhat, which is strange because if anything it needs more texture, not less. I think the original would have benefitted from a slightly smaller aperture in that respect. Maybe some selective sharpening on the lions would be useful, but not too much.

[GilesKS]

September 13, 2006 at 1:42 pm

PeteTheBloke wrote:

I can’t tell whether it’s Calystegia sepium or C. silvatica without being able to see the epicalyx-bracteoles (just to keep Giles on his toes).

I have changed my mind on my plant, which is actually C. sepium. C. silvatica is growing next to it. As Pete says it is difficult to tell on this one, but probably it is C. sepium as well on the basis that the flowers look a bit small for C. silvatica. But, I wouldn’t be confident on that.

[GilesKS]

September 12, 2006 at 4:38 pm

It looks like a nice photo, but it would be better to direct link a more reasonably sized photo (800 pixels or so wide). Yours is quite similar to one I took of the same species (Calystegia sylvatica, Large Bindweed) a few days ago. Water drops and all.

http://www.pbase.com/gilesks/image/66059192

[GilesKS]

September 7, 2006 at 9:12 pm

I think it depends on the subject somewhat. For instance, I don’t think there is much room for poor quality nature photographs unless the subject is really so unusual that technical defects can be forgiven. For the vast majority of photos of plants, insects, birds etc., no matter how good the composition if the exposure is wrong, or it’s too soft, or there are distracting objects in the frame, then forget it. On the other hand, if it’s a photo of your friends then the captured moment is everything, and it doesn’t have to be perfect in every way.

I don’t really see why there should be much of a distinction between composition and other technical aspects. There is a world of difference between a good photo which doesn’t follow supposed ‘rules’, and one which is just downright poor. Practice is important in most human activities, and photography is no exception.

[GilesKS]

September 4, 2006 at 4:00 pm

ware.

They wouldn’t post me a computer monitor to Dublin when I enquired, and were less than polite about it. I haven’t tried to order smaller items from them.

[GilesKS]

September 4, 2006 at 12:01 pm

Roberto wrote:

I find much better take macros of flowers without tripod. You need to go around and find the best place and light.

I do that too – then I put the camera onto the tripod. Good flower shots without one are generally more difficult, and some are impossible handheld. Composition, focus, sharpness – all are generally better with a tripod. Plus – it slows you down so more time to think before you act.

I use a Manfrotto 055MF3 (I think that’s the name) with a ballhead and L-bracket. Fairly good combination – the main complaint is that the legs don’t lock at some shallow angles which can be quite annoying. But, they will go out flat to the ground. Whatever you get, an L-bracket and Arca-Swiss style quick-release clamp are very useful.

[GilesKS]

September 3, 2006 at 2:47 pm

Nothing looks in focus to me.

[GilesKS]

September 1, 2006 at 11:22 am

Very nice photo Danny. Glad you didn’t listen to these pseudo ‘nature’ photographers – if it isn’t there, don’t add it.

[GilesKS]

August 22, 2006 at 10:35 am

This all sounds fine if you have house insurance, but that’s not an option for everyone. I don’t have house insurance, but haven’t found anyone in Ireland (some in the the UK, but that’s no good) who will insure camera equipment on its own. I’d be interested if anyone does know of any insurer offering a suitable policy. Having said that, my view is that insurers are in the business of making money and that in the long run you are better off acting as your own insurer through taking good care of your equipment. If the chances of you wanting to make a claim are high, then the chances of them wanting to insure you are low (or else, only on a high premium). Peace of mind, though, is another matter.

[GilesKS]

August 18, 2006 at 8:32 pm

That’s something that has put me off it, but have spoken to one person who bought it with the D200 and he’s very pleased with it. Personally I don’t want one, not just because of the zoom ratio but the aperture is quite slow as well. But I can well see the convenience of it, and it looks like a more versatile alternative to the 18-70mm. It really depends on what you photograph, and whether you would rather have one do-it-all compromise lens rather than a bag full. I have the 18-70mm, and as a replacement for that I’d rather go for something on the 17-50mm f/2.8 range, maybe the Tokina one if I had any money. That and one of the 70/80-200mm f/2.8 zooms would be a very versatile, good quality two lens kit for a lot of people.

[GilesKS]

August 18, 2006 at 10:55 am

ecp wrote:

FYI, in the ROI there is no import duty on a digital camera body, only VAT at 21%. Shame we don’t share the same VAT rate that UK and NI have :cry: 21% may not seem that much more than 17.5% but it all adds up!

Are you sure about that? Information on the Revenue website gives 4.2% duty for ‘Other’ photographic cameras. 4.2% is the standard rate for film cameras, and it isn’t clear whether the ‘Other’ section includes digital or not. But, a literal reading would say 4.2% for digital cameras unless they are mentioned / excluded elsewhere in the document. However, the Irish rate is not relevant for Co. Armagh in the UK. If you order from outside Ireland, you will pay the foreign VAT rate anyway. Warehouse Express will not deliver to the Republic.

I believe the Irish 21% VAT rate is higher to compensate for all the tax dodgers in this country.

[GilesKS]

August 17, 2006 at 8:36 pm

?40 import tax on a 30D doesn’t sound like much. It should be 17.5% VAT plus duty (about 4% I think) plus UPS always charged me extra for paying the charges. On ?1450 plus ?79 delivery that potentially comes to another ?300 or so. Personally I’d buy in the UK – try AJ Purdy.