mbird

This next sequence was quite fascinating to watch. He seemed to be after some little shrimp type critters, which we could see through the clear water.

Hi All This weekend we mudweighted for a few hours in Barton Broad and explores the fringes in the canoes. Just behind the Nancy Oldfield Trust pontoon, we found a small inlet, which opened into a little sheltered lagoon. Unfortunately it was only about 3" deep and we had to practically punt along in the canoes, disturbing the silt which absolutely reeked. Sharon spotted a Kingfisher, which took flights as soon as the lens cap was off my camera, so we sat tight for ten minutes. Sure enough, the little fellow returned, and I managed to get my best ever shots of one of these delightful creatures

We are afloat this weekend, so out come the poles again I suppose I better buy some licenses this week too ......

Some really nice pics there Jonny Did you glue that bee/hover fly to the flower? They never sit still long enough for me

I like that a lot Simon, but you need to do the dusting before taking a shot like that

Cygnets are just the cutest babies out of all the water fowl.

Many thanks Perry. It's the first time I've tried to shoot seriously in low light conditions and I was really quite impressed how well the 50D coped. The noise I expected, and as you say the "grainy" effect I think adds to the atmosphere of this style of picture (more so on the greyscale rather than the colour). The 50D has and ISO range extendable to a max of 12,800, but I shudder to think what the noise would look like on that! I guess if it's a question of a noisy shot or no shot at all then it has a purpose. What I was quite surpirsed about was just how well the AF worked under these conditions, with the stage lights flashing and changing colour so quickly. There weren't too many shots that had poor focus, even being hand held at 1/30 (as long as you don't pixel peep of course )

I think most of the shore power towers have one 32a and one 16a outlet. Seems a bit daft if you ask me as the things are obviously designed for at least 4 outlets. A standard caravan type hook-up lead will only fit the 16a socket.

Nice one Simon That look to be a perfect candidate for a bit of "light painting" one gloomy overcast evening.

OKay, so I know this has nothing to do with the Broads at all, but a small Rock gig was staged at our local village fair this weekend, which is in the Broadland area, so there is a loose connection ...... Our friends eldest son is the singer in the Brioadland High School rock-band and had a couple of slots to perform 4 numbers at the fair (luckily inside a huge inflatable yert as it tipped down with rain). We just got there in time to see the first session, and I thought "I wish I'd brought my camera". I spoke to the teacher who is coaching them, and decided to go home and get my gear for the second session. We tried posing the band, but it just didn't work, so I decided to shoot whilst they, and the other scholl band, were performing. I did not want to use any flash, so I was limited to just the stage lights and high ISO settings (1250 to 2500) to see what happened. It was a great learning experience for me, only using available light with constantly changing subjects and it looks as though a lot of the images have come out pretty well. All were shot in manual exposure mode (basically left it at 1/30-1/60 shutter speed and fiddled with the aperture for varying DOF's compensating with the ISO at the same time. This is where having the controls for these adjustments at your fingertips rather than buried in menus really comes into it's own. So far I've only post-processed a few shots (out of the full 4gb card!) but here's a taster of our friends son, Sam, giving it some vocals. This first shot was cropped quite heavily from a full length portrait shot (1/30 f6.3 ISO1600) This next one was basically taken from the same angle as the last. I have rotated and cropped it, and then gone for a heavy contrast grey-scale to give it that rock magazine look. I think this is my favourite just because of the attitude it conveys. (1/30 f6.3 ISO1600) This last one, another greyscale, was shot just as the red spotlight flashed, so in colour Sam is totally red. In greyscale, however, I think it again gives a real rock image. (1/30 f5.6 ISO1250) Hope you like them, and if there are any others worth posting as I go through them, I'll stick em up!

Oh, so you spent all day taking brilliant shots of rags and sticks, and then just happened to get a stunning shot of a Kingfisher on the way home .... You can really go off people you know Paul, you smart ****!

Isn't it interesting how you learn things sometimes....! My import dialogue has develope settings set to "None" which is probably why I've never noticed the issues you have had Simon. I knew at soem point I would have to delve into the world of presets, and it seems like this could be that time, as I always seem to add a similar basic tweak to my photos. Out come the Luminous Landscape videos again then ......

Hi Simon I may be a million miles off the mark here, as this is only my interpretation of what Lightroom does.... The initial preview you are seeing when first importing files I believe to be built from an embedded jpg within the raw file. This is only to give you something to look at quickly whilst LR renders the raw data into a picture. What you are therefore seeing when the picture is finally displayed is just the raw data as captured by the sensor. Assuming you are not using any global presets when you import, I don't believe LR is adding anything at all to the raw image. Therefore I would have thought any difference between the raw files from the Nikon and the Sony are purely down to the sensors in the camera. Personally, I don't use any presets when importing, preferring instead to add these to the pictures as I see fit. I also shoot in raw only, not raw+jpg as I can't see the point in having an image post-processed by the camera, when I intend to develop the raw files myself anyway. With the Canon raw files, I find that LR first displays a slightly soft image (probably lower resolution for speed I guess) and then sharpens up once the preview is rendered. However, the raw files are always fairly flat and dull, requiring some tweaking with saturation and exposure/fill light/recovery, but this is just because that's what the sensor saw. Like I said, I may have this completely wrong, so one of our LR experts will need to confirm, but I think that is what happens anyway

You left out the bit about running aground near Caens Meadow, Roy!

I love the "crew relax" photo in that last batch. The dof is just right, and makes the guys look almost 3d

Ok, as promised on Simons "Strumpshaw" thread here beginneth a discussion on how we all store our images, which I think will throw up some vastly different approaches. Personally, have my pictures folder divided into years, then each of these subdivided by month. Finally, each of the months is then divided into subjects (eg Strumshaw Steam Festival, Easter Weekend etc) or by date if there is no common theme. When I import into Lightroom, I add basic keywording in the import dialogue such as Norfolk, Broads and then run the import of the RAW files. I then do a rough cut to delete and crap shots, and then, when I am feeling disciplined, I go back and add more specific keywords (landscape, windmill, boat, wildlife etc). This makes it very easy to filter images across the whole catalogue and also creat Smart Collections. I have only just started using these and have found them to be a very powerful tool. Once I have done any post processing I want to do and added and status flag that is basically job done, as I maintain my catalogue as RAW files only. I export to JPG only images I want to either have printed or upload to the web, and these are exported to a jpg folder as a subfolder of the main import folder. Once I have done what I want with the jpg's I then delete them to save space, as I can easily recreate them if necessary. This method I find allows me to store all the "negatives" but with the advantage of being able to view them, unlike their real-world counterparts! Over to you guys......

Maybe just a hint of Deputy Dawg for good measure

Again, some wonderful shots SImon. I would be proud of any of those The storage of images has got me thinking as to how others do it, and could I better my own method, so I'll start another thread on this I think

I gots ta get me one o' them!

Ah I see now, Simon. I do it slightly differently where I keep all my files on the PC as RAW, and only export those I intend to upload here as jpg, with a preset size and quality.

Count us in Julz.

Some fantastic shots their Simon! What Lightroom preset did you use, as they all seem wonderfully vivid and sharp? ps, Why do you use a Flickr account rather than just uploading here straight from your pooter. I can't quite see the advantage, so I'm obviously missing something. I have a Flickr pro account but rarely use it these days ..... maybe I should!

Thanks for posting those Perry. The sky looks a bit like a grad filter has been used, but the marked difference is in the reduction of the glare from the water. It's subtle but definately worth using one by the looks of it.

To be honest Jill, I don;t really know. I don't think it would help with the lines Jonny is seeing on his photos where there is a strong light source, as to me this looks more like something in the electronics of the camera, by way of some sort of interference. If my understanding is correct from another thread on the subject, polarising filters are more for cutting glare and showing true colours, rather than cutting out light that is aimed directly at the lens.

Jack, just before his capsize! Look at the water pouring over the top of his kayak, and without a spray deck, it was also filling up the boat