File :-(, x, )
NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
Don't be coy with me /p/
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 30DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:05:22 12:03:08Exposure Time1/50 secExposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, CompulsoryColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width655Image Height655RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
It's a photo of a snail, what do you want? The background sucks, but that's because snails live in shitty places.
>> Anonymous
>>186983

thank you for further proving the fact that nobody on 4chan, let alone /p/, has any decent artistic perspective/taste.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>186992
...it's a snail. Not a bad picture, but it's a snail. Get off the high horse about artistic perspective. It's a snail.
>> Anonymous
>>186995

And the Mona Lisa is just a woman. You said it's not a bad picture, so what are you bitching about?
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>186992
It's. A. Snail. It would be fine for an article about snails. Beyond that, I don't fucking care about snails. Maybe if it was picturesque and inching its way along a leaf or branch with some nice extraction from the background, but this shit is just muddy, dark, and uninteresting. SNAIL.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>187004
well the snail was happy to see you, but I'm not so sure now
>> Anonymous
laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
>> Anonymous
>>187004

>I don't like snails so I don't like this picture, because there's a snail in it. I don't care if the photographer captured great detail and tones, It's a snail, so what's the big deal? Say, anyone know how I can get my grade up for my high school photo class?
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
     File :-(, x)
>>186983
does tickle your tootsie better?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 30DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:05:22 14:02:56Exposure Time1/40 secExposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, CompulsoryColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width655Image Height655RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
Well it's a lovely picture with a lot of crisp detail in it.


Alas, snails don't do it for me.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>187008
hahaha, I missed that meme. Totally forgot about it too. Laaaaaaa.
>>187007
Aww :(
>>187009
Great detail does not make a great photo. I can take a picture of my desk at f/16 and get OMFG CRAZY DETAIL but it's still not a good picture. Also, lurk more.
>> The Pentacon !!XucVlAk1mCB
>>186983
>>186995
>>187004
>>187007
Agreed. OP is a whiny bitch with a crappy picture.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>187013
I like getting the antennae or whatever those are in there, and the lower angle, but it still seems like a discard to me. I'd like to see more of the shell in that one. The spiral of a shell can be very visually appealing, but the crop doesn't show it off really.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>187003
The Mona Lisa is more than just a woman, you idiot. Gb2 studying art. The Mona Lisa is a work of art because it is not only a fine painting, but she has a perfectly androgynous face and tons of subtle details that draw the eye in without actually making themselves completely obvious. Yeah, it's a painting of a woman, but it's not just that. This is a picture of a snail. And just that.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
More academic than art. Not bad, but uninteresting. You'll need to do something a little more inventive to spice it up. The background isn't helping either.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>187019
OP isn't whiney or annoying at all, I don't mind NatureGuy. He's cool enough.

Anonymous whining about "artistic perspective/taste" and comparing a picture of a snail. snail. snail. to the Mona Lisa however, can fuck right off.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
     File :-(, x)
>>187020
The shell really didn't interest me photographically. I still like the first one posted because it is the easiest to personify in that captures something in the semblance of an expression on a lower organism. I like making portraits of animals rather than art with animal in it. This image and the second image don't do that very much at, so I don't like them as much.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 30DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:05:22 14:17:57Exposure Time1/40 secExposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, CompulsoryColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width983Image Height655RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>187029

Yeah, NatureGuy has done some good stuff before. This just happens not to be one of them, but he's here asking and wants to know and is taking it well.

NatureGuy: With snails like this I'd say you should not feel too timid about disturbing them. Grab one or two and put them on nicer rocks, leaves, whatever. Give yourself a nice background that way or possibly better light. They'll usually retreat into their shell for a while, but they will come back out again soon enough. They aren't fragile as long as you are careful. You aren't doing a photojournalistic piece on the snail, so there's nothing wrong with arranging the scene a little.
>> Anonymous
>>187034
laaaa?
>> The Pentacon !!XucVlAk1mCB
>>187019
>>187029
Ooops, I didn't notice that OP and the whiny Anonymous were different. I was too busy shooting with my Pentax.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>187029
You can apply several things from the Mona Lisa to a photograph actually. For example the way he drew the eyes in relation to the horizon line creates that illusion of the eyes following when you walk past which could be applied similarly to a portrait in which you wanted that effect.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>187035
I'm having light problems as usual actually. Originally I set it up with a nice earth brown red paint and then a rich green background, but at f20 I end having to have my 430ex at 1/1 to get usable shots. This was in my preferred light overcast shooting conditions. So it partially comes down to light issues with a telephoto on a bellows.

After it became apparent I was going to have light issues I abandoned most of the props I had laying around, particularly a large collection of bones that became hopeless blown-out by the flash. However you are right so I'll dink around with it tomorrow. Any ideas on the light issues?
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>187039
definately, good composition is good composition regardless of what you're working with. Anon stated that the Mona Lisa was "only a woman" because of the "It's a snail." comments.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>186981
>>187013
>>187034

Superior snail shot from my Nikon Coolpix 4300
>> Anonymous
>>187064

actually>>187034is superior my snail shot, but the statement still stands for the others.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>187042

I take it you have this at f20 due to the make-shift macro nature of the set up? Are you far away or close up? The closer and tighter the shot, the more you'll get out of that flash. If you are a few feet away then obviously you could end up wasting a lot. The only thing I could suggest is trying to add in extra lights, reflectors and try moving the snails into bright and direct sunlight, the kind that hurts the eyes and then balance it with your reflectors and flash. If you go out on a dull and overcast day and find the light is insufficient then a brighter day is all you can try. Perhaps you could try a reflecting snoot to direct the light more? Cardboard tube with white or tinfoil/mirror inside as a lining in the snoot to reflect and direct more of the light at the small subject? Perhaps mounting the flash off-camera and closer to the subject if you can. f20 is never going to be anything but light-hungry.

At least with a snail you can use a relatively slow shutter speed for moving wildlife...

I take it you're not wanting to spend the money on a macro lens and this would not be a helpful suggestion?
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>187067

Oh yes, higher ISO than 100 too if you can would go a long way to helping.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>187067
The flash is around a foot away, front of the lens is significantly closer. I'll try the reflector thing if such a day pops up between now and the 27th, don't have these snails in Nebraska. I don't have an external flash set up at this time and lens wise that 1-5x canon macro lens is #2 on the list, behind the 100-400IS. Though the 1-5x really needs a macro ring if reviews are to be believed.

Reflectors are a good idea though and easy to jimmy up. I'll get back to you on it with some better shots hopefully.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>187079
I am constantly underwhelmed by my 30D iso performance. I have a bunch of 400iso shots that I can't stand due to the visible noise which is all the more apparent due to the large areas of flat tones from the shallow dof.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>187083

f20, such a bitch.

Shame. I've not found ISO 400 to be too bad personally, but it's up to you. Even if you had it at ISO 200 you are still making a significant gain. Noise Ninja and editing not giving you any joy for those images? You're already going to be losing some image quality in that set up, a little noise shouldn't hurt. Especially if you shoot RAW to allow for more play with the balance and colours or pushing exposure later on.

The 1-5x can be used without flash from the shots I've seen and I've seen it used hand held with flash at maximum magnification, but on maximum magnification and requiring a deep DOF it seems to be a tricky beast altogether and the macro ring or external flashes make all the difference. You can also mount your flash so that the body of it is pointing forwards rather than up or to say it another way, the whole flash is mounted along the top of/above the lens and then you angle the flash head down onto the subject, if you see what I mean. Remember that the 430 will be very powerful compared to the typically weak macro flashes and I've seen a lot of macro lovers using that set up with the 580 or 430. The ring flash is more for getting the light in the right position rather than as much as possible.
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
You should have taken these pictures in a better environment. Like on top of high tension power lines, for example.