The Epic Saga - Weeds II, The Retribution

[I X L R 8]

There comes a time in a mans life when he realizes he was born to fail, at something.
I think I have homed in on my " something" with pinpoint accuracy.
I shot this photo in Sony's smart telephoto mode at 300mm through a 14 year old Sigma 70-300 APO/Macro Lens. It made everything like really big, almost like it was 600mm or something.
All was going well and I was enjoying my time with my new camera, and all my failures, that is until the Carnivorous Beast entered the scene and would not LEAVE.
I shoo-ed him and he retreated from the frame but when I got back behind the camera, there he was again. I poked him with a twig and once more he retreated. I was certain that I had defeated the 8 legged critter and once and for all rid him from my subject without going to the extremes of shooting him with a .22 rifle.
At the end of the day, as the sun faded, the wretched beast won the territorial battle.
His persistence overcame my resistance.

Ladies and Gentleman, and children of all ages, " I give you my most recent failure.

 

[DanFinePhotography]

its a little odd, cant tell if its overpixelated* just looks way too enhanced

 

[Mauravdl]

And here I was thinking it would be "Weeds: Revenge of the Arachnid"

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I was thinking the spider should be in focus.

Also, no need to post 2288x1500ppi images. 800x600 will suffice.

 

[Brutus]

Get a new subject, please. Stop wallowing in failure and making a joke out of it to lessen the impact of your mediocrity, get a new subject that's actually interesting and improve.

 

[I X L R 8]

its a little odd, cant tell if its overpixelated* just looks way too enhanced

I do not know about " overpixelated" But I did enhance it with lightroom3.
I reduced noise, ( I think) and there is a sharpener in there and I bumped that up +5, or something.
I may have reduced the original exposure -5, I don't remember.
AND I don't know how to use this software so I didn't want to do too much.
Oh yeah......I adjusted the tone a little bit.

I was thinking the spider should be in focus.

Also, no need to post 2288x1500ppi images. 800x600 will suffice.

The spider was a nuisance. I knew he would cause problems. And just look at where we are.
Back to the spider again. I need to crop him out of the image , then be once and for all done, with him.
Seriously though, I was shooting Live view ( camera LCD) in a telephoto mode at 300mm X2 , manual configuration. If you blow on the camera slightly, you can see movement in this configuration, yes even on a tripod.
The viewfinder is not usable while in Telephoto mode. With a screen protector covering the camera's monitor, I did not see the spider. I was too busy manually focusing on the LCD, trying to capture those hairs growing on the leaf.
After I was done............and viewing them 64 bit windows 7 on a new 50,000 to 1 contrast ratio, high resolution 22 inch monitor........OH LOOK!!!!!!!!! IT'S A SPIDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where did he come from????????????????????? And I only caught him on one frame.
Aperture was small, slow shutter, but not small or slow enough.
It was a moment in time, that happened.

Sir, you'll have no argument from me on posting images in 800x600.
It is my understanding that in both film and digital, the more you blow the image, the more distortion.
Computer monitors cannot handle 5 meg files with a DSLR's 14 megapixel output/resolution.
The image starts to separate from itself the more it's expanded. If that makes sense.

Pleased to meet you, and I appreciate your constructive criticism.

 

[I X L R 8]

Get a new subject, please. Stop wallowing in failure and making a joke out of it to lessen the impact of your mediocrity, get a new subject that's actually interesting and improve.

As for you.
You'd be well advised to improve your insults.
You do not know what you're reading when you're reading it, nor does the impact of your cerebral slosh impress me.
I'm a beginner photographer. Not a stupid person.
I'd make quick work of you, yet prefer to remain a gentleman.

 

[Brutus]

Get a new subject, please. Stop wallowing in failure and making a joke out of it to lessen the impact of your mediocrity, get a new subject that's actually interesting and improve.

As for you.
You'd be well advised to improve your insults.
You do not know what you're reading when you're reading it, nor does the impact of your cerebral slosh impress me.
I'm a beginner photographer. Not a stupid person.
I'd make quick work of you, yet prefer to remain a gentleman.

I didn't try to insult you :meh: I gave you genuine advice. Find an interesting subject.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Sir, you'll have no argument from me on posting images in 800x600.
It is my understanding that in both film and digital, the more you blow the image, the more distortion.
Computer monitors cannot handle 5 meg files with a DSLR's 14 megapixel output/resolution.
The image starts to separate from itself the more it's expanded. If that makes sense.

Pleased to meet you, and I appreciate your constructive criticism.

Umm, I am not exactly sure what you are going on about here. I work with 21 mega pixel (OOC) images regularly, and viewed full size, the image is sharp as a tac. Yes, if you increase the size of an image from it's native camera resolution, you will introduce problems because the software has to "create" pixels. Reducing from native resolution removes pixels, but often, for the web, this makes soft images appear sharper.

I think people, like Butus, are wondering why you needed to create three threads, of the same subject, and you really haven't asked for critique, or how it could be better, or how to deal with the problems not getting a proper sharp exposure.

 

[OrionsByte]

I do not know about " overpixelated" But I did enhance it with lightroom3.
I reduced noise, ( I think) and there is a sharpener in there and I bumped that up +5, or something.
I may have reduced the original exposure -5, I don't remember.
AND I don't know how to use this software so I didn't want to do too much.
Oh yeah......I adjusted the tone a little bit.

I think you over-did the noise reduction, for one. When you zoom in it almost looks like plastic; there's no texture.

 

[I X L R 8]

Umm, I am not exactly sure what you are going on about here. I work with 21 mega pixel (OOC) images regularly, and viewed full size, the image is sharp as a tac. Yes, if you increase the size of an image from it's native camera resolution, you will introduce problems because the software has to "create" pixels. Reducing from native resolution removes pixels, but often, for the web, this makes soft images appear sharper.

I think people, like Butus, are wondering why you needed to create three threads, of the same subject, and you really haven't asked for critique, or how it could be better, or how to deal with the problems not getting a proper sharp exposure.

Ok. Then you tell me.
Deal??
Without offending you, I can promise you that what you are seeing here on the pic, is not what I'm seeing on my end as sharpness goes. By this I mean , Internet web site versus computer equipment and software.
That could be a discussed problem, for one.
Secondly, what about composition, .....of a weed??????????
I could use some advice there. And everywhere else.

Do I need new lenses?

What can I digitally do with this image from a digital camera?
And why do I have that choice?
Should I go with what the camera spits out? Or should I take advantage of its technology?
Where are the limits with Digital?

Again , thank you.

 

[I X L R 8]

When you zoom in it almost looks like plastic;

That is being discussed.

 

[Brutus]

When you zoom in it almost looks like plastic;

That is being discussed.

It looks like a painting to me.

 

[I X L R 8]

Umm, It's not a painting.

 

[Raizels]

Dude, what? just - what?