My new website

[morgoth]

Hi guys,

Just thought I'd pop in and let you know that I have my own website now:

http://www.macro-images.com/

Feel free to drop in and browse and have a look. Comments are appreciated, you can email me at:

david at dia dot net dot au

This is only a rough website at the moment, planning something special etc but will take me some time to setup ;-)

That said, JAlbum is excellent software (and yes, I donated US $20 to the developer I was that impressed).

Dave

[fos]

Very nice work. I'm still impressed!

fos....

[bluesdog]

Oo... this one (http://www.macro-images.com/slides/F79C4561.html) is REALLY quite startling! Shocking, even!

:biggrin:

[greybeard]

Hi, Dave, thanks for the link...Awesome photos!!!

(& a post from morgoth makes it feel like the libranet forum is "back"!!!)

greybeard

[krp]

Amazing Dave, simply amazing.

[autek]

Dave, I sent this on to both of the grandsons. A 12 year old Boy Scout and my 5 year old autistic grandson. Absolutely amazing work. I applaud your excellent efforts. Thank you for sharing............

Ed

[morgoth]

Oo... this one (http://www.macro-images.com/slides/F79C4561.html) is REALLY quite startling! Shocking, even!

:biggrin:


hahaha, yeah, my ugly mug. Had to do a self portrait for my digital photography course, so this was it after half a dozen attempts. Single light source, from my right, tungsten based source. Original shot in colour, converted to black/white with my own custom conversion process in Photoshop.

Dave

[morgoth]

Hi, Dave, thanks for the link...Awesome photos!!!

(& a post from morgoth makes it feel like the libranet forum is "back"!!!)

greybeard

hehehe, thanks greybeard :) Sadly, Libranet is dead, I'm very disappointed in Tal, but I've made my thoughts on that clear elsewhere. He didn't even have the common decency to announce that the forums were closing, just one day they didn't work. Anyways, glad you enjoyed the images :)

Dave

[morgoth]

Amazing Dave, simply amazing.

A lot of hard work goes into getting these images. My favourites are the Jumping Spiders - if you hadn't guessed by the high amount of their images in the gallery ;-) They are delightful, inquisitive, intelligent Arachnids, full of personality. I've got a few more images to add to the site, but have around 90 images to process on top of that, so will wait until I get a few more worthy images and upload them all. :)

Dave

[morgoth]

Dave, I sent this on to both of the grandsons. A 12 year old Boy Scout and my 5 year old autistic grandson. Absolutely amazing work. I applaud your excellent efforts. Thank you for sharing............

Ed

Thanks krp :) Nature is very beautiful isn't it? I think we spend too much time worrying and thinking about things that don't really matter, and not enough time being one with nature. I'm glad I started macro photography back at the beginning of the year, and I'm thoroughly glad that I went totally digital. Film is totally archaic imho.

Dave

[fos]

// Film is totally archaic....

I still marvel at some of Ansel Adam's work with B&W. He was an artist.

fos....

[morgoth]

One can still use the zone system with digital - in the end, a good photography will create excellent images with any medium, but to me, and many others, digital is far more flexible than film. I'm only human, and can, and do, make mistakes. As an example, say I'm shooting film indoors and forget to either use a filter, or the right balanced film (tungsten/fluro) and the shot is ruined. Rescuing that negative and final print is all but a lost cause. Underexposed slot? The negative is screwed, you *might* be able to rescue the image during printing, but it's unlikely. With digital, and a RAW file, I *can* make those adjustments. My personal experience is that if I've underexposed a shot by a stop or so, the image is pretty screwed, even with digital. With that underexposure, as soon as I increase exposure in my RAW editor, I'm going to get a *hitload of noise from the extra amplication applied to the image. Finer steps of adjustment (usually around 0.5-0.3 stop either way) are more tolerable. You simply cannot do this with a film negative. White balance adjustment? Far easier with digital, simply select a different WB from a drop down menu.

True, if you're shooting jpeg, you're screwed, stuck with whatever the final image was.

In the end, I've shot 5,000 shots or so in 7 months. That's around 140 rolls of 36 roll film. At an average of $8 a hit, that's a grand total of $1120. Then let's development/printing costs, roughly $14 a hit there - $1960. That's a grand total of $3080. Since I paid 2 grand for my camera, I'm already a grand up. My point: If i was shooting film I'd have long since given up on macro photography. After a few 'wasted' rolls of crap shots, I'd have said to myself "stuff this", it's waste of money, I'm no good at it. With digital, I persevered and got better by practice and knowledge, something that I could never have afforded with film in all honesty.

Film is still nice, I'll probably pick up a 2nd hand medium format kit in the next year or so, especially as prices plummet. I will be selling my film eos1n + power booster (35mm) and my original eos D60 digital SLR. That, and a nice bonus at Christmas plus some saved funds should hopefully allow me to get a new eos1D Mark IIn by the end of February, or a new 400mm f2.8 IS by the end of April or May. Tossing up between the two, I could do with the lens for bird and motorsport shots, I could do with the camera for the extra refinements and mp. I'll probably bite the bullet and save for the 400mm as it's the biggger of the two evils ;-)

Dave