Sunbathing

Digital Matt · Apr 18, 2004

I got these shots today with my new lens, and I'm very happy with them and wanted to share. I did a little tweaking in photoshop for contrast, and to enhance the color, and USM of course.

I've never seen so many turtles out sunbathing like this. There were probably 15 turtles on this little pond. It was so amazing. Anyway, here's the pics.

Harpper · Apr 18, 2004

Cool shots Matt. I see you are still testing out the lense for me. :wink:

I like the first one again for the composition and of course the clarity is amazing.

Sigma makes the same version of yours for my Nikon body. Basically the same lense but different mount. I actually found one for $145 compared to the $177 link you gave me, but it's on my "to get" list which maybe for along time. I have to start saving up again.

Prime_vci · Apr 18, 2004

i foudna cannon one for 150... now i jsut need to come upw ith the 150 hehehe

danalec99 · Apr 18, 2004

Amazing clarity!

Jeff Canes · Apr 18, 2004

Very nice work, like #1 just little more that #2, also little disappointed about the sunbather :wink:

Digital Matt · Apr 18, 2004

Thanks everyone

Jeff Canes said:
Very nice work, like #1 just little more that #2, also little disappointed about the sunbather

Haha, you were expecting a different species of sunbather I take it?

drdan · Apr 19, 2004

Composition on the first is excellent, very nice picture.

Amazing clarity on the second one, you can definitely tell it's a red-eared turtle. That's they kind you used to be able to buy in almost any pet shop. They were about an inch and a half long, bright green with a bright red spot on the side of their head.

danalec99 · Apr 19, 2004

How can the pictures be so clear like this?

Sharkbait · Apr 19, 2004

danalec99 said:
How can the pictures be so clear like this?

My guess...

1. Good lens
2. Good camera
3. Probably a tripod mount (or monopod, or some sort of bracing)
4. Some skillful USM (unsharp masking) in photoshop.

Digital Matt · Apr 19, 2004

Shark said:
danalec99 said:

How can the pictures be so clear like this?

Click to expand...

My guess...

1. Good lens
2. Good camera
3. Probably a tripod mount (or monopod, or some sort of bracing)
4. Some skillful USM (unsharp masking) in photoshop.

1. Well, Sigma 70-300 APO Super Macro II. (Decent lens

)
2. DRebel - great sensor, make your own judgement on the camera itself

3. Tripod
4. USM at 25%, 5 pixels, again at 300% 0.3 pixels, then, after resizing, 500%, 0.2 pixels. I may have done that last one twice after the resize. I had someone else tell me they were oversharpened, but I don't think so. I didn't see any artifacts.

Thanks for lookin guys, and DrDan, thanks for the info. I didn't know what kind of turtles these were.

Here's two more pics I took today. I thought I posted these already, but I guess not.

Cancer · Apr 19, 2004

I love the first one, ****ing rocks.

photobug · Apr 19, 2004

Red Sliders! Man I don't know how I missed this post before. Those last 2 shots are super Matt, particularly the last one.

I got 2 of these for my 4th birthday. One got away within the first 2 years. The other ended up at the San Diego Zoo 35 years later. Weird story. We were going to let it go at one of the local bird refuges, but Mom decided it needed to go to the zoo.

We're all going "sure Mom, the San Diego Zoo wants our stupid turtle." Mom calls, the zoo says "bring it down & we'll check it out." Mom & Dad drove from WA to San Diego on the way to Phoenix and hit the zoo.

They (the zoo staff) were amazed the turtle had survived that long. Other than a slight calcium deficiency that caused a dip in the edge of the shell above one right leg she was in perfect health. The zoo put her (always thought of it as a "he" for some reason) in quarantine for 45 days and put her in with the rest of the turtles on display.

Sometimes life (& mothers) is just too weird for words. And now you know more than you ever imagined you wanted to. :lol:

Sharkbait · Apr 19, 2004

Digital Matt said:
1. Well, Sigma 70-300 APO Super Macro II. (Decent lens )

I've never shot a sigma lens. How does it compare to Canon's fodder (oooo, I just made a pun!)

2. DRebel - great sensor, make your own judgement on the camera itself

Same thing I shoot. For bang-for-the-buck, you can't go wrong. I love my 300D!!

3. Tripod
4. USM at 25%, 5 pixels, again at 300% 0.3 pixels, then, after resizing, 500%, 0.2 pixels. I may have done that last one twice after the resize. I had someone else tell me they were oversharpened, but I don't think so. I didn't see any artifacts.

I've never tried that multi-stage USM. I'm going to have to have a go at that!

:thumbsup:

Digital Matt · Apr 19, 2004

Thanks Cancer. Thanks Photobug, and thanks for sharing that great story

Shark said:
I've never shot a sigma lens. How does it compare to Canon's fodder (oooo, I just made a pun!)

Hah, good one. Well, I'd love to compare it to an equivalent focal length Canon lens, but I haven't shot Canon in that range. I've heard from other people that this lens is better than the Canon 75-300 USM, it's competition. I'm sure this lens pales in comparison to Canon L glass with IS, but hey, it sure was cheap

The AF has a tendancy to hunt. I had problems even when shooting these shots in direct sunlight, but I don't mind manual focusing. These shots on full resolution are a little bit soft, even though I was using a tripod, so the next day I went back and used the self timer, and didn't touch the camera at all. Still a bit soft at 300mm. This could be from mirror slap I suppose, but I think the lens is just a bit soft. It probably won't be noticeable in a print, unless I print a 20x30.

Shark said:
I've never tried that multi-stage USM. I'm going to have to have a go at that! :thumbsup:

Yeah, try it. Do you think those shots are over sharpened?

Sharkbait · Apr 19, 2004

Digital Matt said:
Thanks Cancer. Thanks Photobug, and thanks for sharing that great story

Shark said:

I've never shot a sigma lens. How does it compare to Canon's fodder (oooo, I just made a pun!)

Click to expand...

Hah, good one. Well, I'd love to compare it to an equivalent focal length Canon lens, but I haven't shot Canon in that range. I've heard from other people that this lens is better than the Canon 75-300 USM, it's competition. I'm sure this lens pales in comparison to Canon L glass with IS, but hey, it sure was cheap The AF has a tendancy to hunt. I had problems even when shooting these shots in direct sunlight, but I don't mind manual focusing. These shots on full resolution are a little bit soft, even though I was using a tripod, so the next day I went back and used the self timer, and didn't touch the camera at all. Still a bit soft at 300mm. This could be from mirror slap I suppose, but I think the lens is just a bit soft. It probably won't be noticeable in a print, unless I print a 20x30.

Shark said:

I've never tried that multi-stage USM. I'm going to have to have a go at that! :thumbsup:

Click to expand...

Yeah, try it. Do you think those shots are over sharpened?

I shoot the Canon 75-300, so keep an eye out on some of my shots and you can see the results with it. It's not bad, but kind of the same results you're getting--just a tad soft, especially at the high end of the zoom. I too have tried using a tripod and cable release, and it's still a bit mushy.

I'm playing around a bit with the multi-stage USM tonight, Interesting results! Much cleaner than just using a 1.0 at 150% or so (what I had been doing).

(And no, I don't think your shots are oversharpened at all. At first glance they appear much sharper than many of the shots you see on here, but they don't have that sharp, 'glassy' look that way oversharpened photos seem to end up with.)