Jump to content

randapex

Member
  • Content Count

    683
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by randapex

  1. Thanks guys. Congrats to Larry, Joe, Linda, John and Judy. Lots of good shots there. I might mention, even though it's not real apparent from the small photo, that I used Alex's magic filter on that shot. It really needs to be seen big to appreciate what it did. Especially for the small baitfish. Anyway, what a thrill. Rand
  2. Great work Alex. The cover alone will sell it! Look forward to seeing it soon. Rand
  3. Congrats Guys! Some fantastic images in that contest. Cool macro Karl! Vazuw, Excellent. Nice to see some familiar names placing too. Special Congrats to John Johnson for his win. Beautiful shot. Rand
  4. Great set Alex. Some pictures, you never get tired of looking at, and all these fall in that category. I can't remember when I bought mine But I was thinking it was getting close to a year old. I did roll the counter over in Lembeh last week (10,000). Really looking forward to your book when it's out. Rand
  5. Stephen, I didn't really expect that Seacam would adapt it to others but I can always hope... Dang Tony, You write that after the shots I've posted here with the 2xTC and a Woody's Yes, I'm a big fan of it and would just like to see a more powerful version. They are so flexible, as you know, a great piece of kit. Rand
  6. Hi Stephen, What I really like about the shot you posted is the overall coverage. Close enough so the Pygmy is prominent, but far enough back to capture more of the environment. Better DOF as well. Keeper rate probably a bit higher than with the 2xtc. I find you're Fire dartfish shot comparison amazing. Reason enough to invest in that diopter. Have you considered a more "Universal" model? Rand
  7. After resting my left brain... Let me try this again. When I was doing fluorescent photography, as it was explained to me, you were not recording reflected light, maybe some, but mostly "emitted" light back at you. Therefore, the slower the shutter speed, the brighter the strobes, the more intense colors for the resultant image. Some people have submitted pictures of fish that have a certain amount of fluorescence. Check out Jason Hellers' Gobi, Lizard fish and Scorpion fish shots on the NightSea website: NightSea I think it's safe to say, it's generally accepted that fluorescent colors typically are "Gaudy", perhaps even "Over processed looking". Yet with the proper filter on your dive light, you can see them with the naked eye, these loud colors. Sometimes, you even see normally lit photos of certain corals emitting fluorescense. Especially in the under lit area. So, if you took a tight super macro fish portrait, where the strobes are positioned very close to the subject, and the subject has been shown to exhibit major fluoresence under the right photographic conditions, wouldn't you expect some as well in a normall shot? Especially if the exposure were longer than normal? Where's the asprin... Rand
  8. kriptrip, great shot. I've attached a similar one from T&C. Not as nice and please excuse the dirt that I've since learned needs to be cleaned from the port glass. It's also full frame. 2xtc with the Woody's diopter. This shot took for ever and I'm not sure I'd want to add any more magnification. The Gobies are not real co-operative as it is. I'm hoping to try the 150mm and maybe gain some working distance. Then maybe use a diopter on the lens. The problem I've run into is finding small enough subjects to shoot. So, you could add the 2xtc, +3 and then the Woody's. My shot went through PS and I'm too lazy to search out the orginal file. As is obvious, the colors are quite different. But that's possibly due to the difference in settings. Mine was f29 @ 1/30. When I was shooting underwater fluouresecence, it was always best to use slow shutters. I'm just wondering if that had any affect. As I look at your shot, I can see the pattern of color is not the same. But you can see what I call the "pixelating" of the color under the higher magnification. What looks solid is actually individual bits of color. Not sure I'm explaing myself well here.
  9. 10.5 So it's a bit deceiving as to how close the Sealion really is. Maybe 3 or 4 feet away. Because of the opportunity to fill the frame with the friendly Tigers... I'd try the 10.5 for sure. Edit: Just looked at you sig...never mind. Rand
  10. Joe, I understand what you're saying. And the reality is, of course, if it's perceived to be oversaturated, then, it is. I've started toning down my entries because of those comments. Kinda counter productive to be editing your photos based on some one else's perceptions vs reality. But that's a no win argument. Rand
  11. Definite yes Bruce, IMHO. In fact, I really wish I'd had it on my trip with Shearwater. Especially if it's a sunny day you'll find the results will be quite different than with the strobes. I shot Sealions in 8-15' in Mexico with and without the filter and the natural colors of the Sealions was much better with the Magic filter without strobe light. Rand
  12. Alex brings up an excellent point. Especially after Kathy Mendes' comments that photos in the Ncups competition were judged to be "Oversaturated" in some cases. We need more information on this subject. I know when I first posted D2x images, and I believe Alex as well, there were many comments about the colors looking oversaturated. Based on what, I've no idea. As was mentioned earlier, no one can claim to see the correct colors underwater. Too many variables can effect final appearence. As I get into some of my super macro shots, I'm seeing details of colors that are quite incredible, not only in intensity but the way the eyes of some subjects seem to sparkle with what I can best describe as individual pixels of color. Does the camera capture more than the eye can see? Rand
  13. So this would help with the slow shutter/rear curtain as well? Rand
  14. There were 4 Pygmy's on the fan at Nudi Falls. We'd go from one to the next as it seemed to stress them after a few shots. I could see them turning down and away in the viewfinder. Something about that bothered me so I'd move on. The arm under method works well on another site that the Yellow ones were on. There it seemed that the bigger around their mouth got, the harder they were breathing. So I'd wrap it up if I saw that as well. Rand
  15. Joe, the shot of the hermit crab is nuts sharp. All falls away if the eyes aren't in tack focus and this is a great example. I see many people post some great macro shots that would jump to extrodinary had the eye been there. Beauty. And, my new challange in April, no shots unless the Polyps are out. I've got enough with them closed. It's probably no secret that if it weren't for the guides to find them, we would have very few Pygmy shots. But I paid attention. Joe, I'm not sure if you're implying that the only way for me to get these was to wedge myself into the reef. There's no way to prove otherwise of course but I didn't. Yes, stuff lives on the reef and yes, I've used the two finger method to hold steady to it. But to get a shot at any cost, no. Anyone who's shot the fan at Nudi falls is aware of the convenient finger hold on that wall I'm sure. But I've also come up with a way to acquire my subjects quicker B) which makes it doable to capture them free hand if there's no current. By doable I mean one shot might be in focus, but sometimes one's enough. When I put the port extension on the Subal, and the TC on the 105mm, the front end becomes tippy and both hands are needed to stable-ize the housing. So at times, it was a bi*ch. Much cursing and knashing of teeth. One handing the housing, requires good hand strength. That might be an issue for some. Alex, your shots remind me of the size results from the 105mm and the Woody combo. But I'd give a percentage (no, I'm not going to actually use a number) increase to your set-up. But this may be more reasonable set for shooting them with the polyps out. Rand
  16. James, no problem at all with your comments. And I appreciate the headline Rand
  17. Sloss, no offense taken. It's the left brainers that drive me crazy. So, in reponse, I'll post this snoot shot for something completely different: FULL FRAME!!!!!
  18. You're right, I made the estimation based on the reduced image size on the width and didn't add in the length. I also corrected the orginal estimate. You're two for two. Didn't realize the nit-picking negativity this thread would generate. I won't start another. Rand
  19. Hi Sloss, First off, let me say thankyou. Saying you have doubts about the photos only re-inforces the reason why I posted this information. Guess you could say the results are: "Unbelievable". Here's the full frame of the Bartender. In retrospect, it probably should have been posted this way to begin with as I feel it stands on it's own with out the negative space removed: Rand
  20. cor, your wife indeed is very talented. I checked your website. Very nice. I agree, with you. There are others ranges to be explored with the Teleconverter. My goal, and the main subject of this thread, was getting maximum magnification with the specific subject, Pygmy Seahorse. Rand
  21. Andre, f25 was a compromise between DOF and the diffraction at the higher f stops Herb mentions. Follow the links he posted and you'll see the conversation from some of my earlier efforts with the 2xtc. I use the 60mm for macro if I'm not using the 2xtc as the working distance is reduced. Here is a shot using the 60mm with the Woody and yes, the DOF is much better:
  22. Herb, I think the initial thrust of the thread has run it's course. And I'd like to see examples of FF sensor camera using the same or similar (I know, Canon has the 100mm vs the Nikon 105mm) set up. Not as a Canon vs Nikon so much as to actually see the differences in field of view and DOF on similar subjects. It's of interest as I've heard much about the ff sensor covering a larger FOV, I've no argument with your statements regarding diffraction. You've stated them clearly. But I must ask, since at f25 with the 105mm racked all the way out and with Teleconverter, DOF is almost nil, what are we talking here? 25% 50% better DOF with the FF camera? My point would be, 25% more of nothing is still basically nothing. So are you talking multiples of increase in DOF? 100% or higher? Rand
  23. And thanks Alex for highlighting the thread. To me, it's a perfect example of how digital cameras allows us to blow off 100's of shots perfecting a techinique that probably took years with film, especially for the casual U/W photographer. The D2X is a big part of this as well and I should have mentioned that. I just hate to get into the camera thing as it seems to go a certain direction when the comparisons are made. In any case, I looked through my shots for an example of something more people might have seen in the past and relate to the subject size relative to the frame. Here's one of those little Hairy Crabs that are fairly common in Indonesia. I just find it fascinating to see the details and the fact it's almost too big in the frame: Full Frame, 105mm 2xtc.
  24. Michael, if you don't mind, I'd like to save that photo and show it to the dive guides. I'm returning in a couple months and since I've gotten the Pygmy bug cured, I'd love to try for some nice shots of these guys next. Rand
×
×
  • Create New...