Now you've started something!They're gingers, what do you expect
Cheers
Hugh
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Photo of the Day May 2016
- Thread starter oblomow
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They're gingers, what do you expect
Cheers
Hugh
I prefer fiery redheads...
[doublepost=1462816797][/doublepost]
I am counting to 10 right now... I know you guys have good hearts and I dont want to be a dick so lets just say...
Please never ever ever use that term with my girls or any other girl with red hair... that hurts as much as calling a gay person a fairy. Lets not do that anymore.
but yes, the colouring is indicative of their temperament... so I am indeed toast at some point in the future...
I am truly sorry to have offended you
There's a couple of people at work who use that term to describe themselves so I thought it was acceptable.
Cheers
Hugh
Ditto.I am truly sorry to have offended you
There's a couple of people at work who use that term to describe themselves so I thought it was acceptable.
Cheers
Hugh
I am truly sorry to have offended you
There's a couple of people at work who use that term to describe themselves so I thought it was acceptable.
Cheers
Hugh
Not offended mate because I know you arent "that guy"... but no, it is one of those things, if you know the person is cool with it then game on and in a self deprecating way we may use it but best not to as girls in particular are sensitive.
We once went to Glasgow Uni, in fact it was the day I took the cloisters pics. Anyway, two idiots said "urgh, look at those gingers there, and ooo! They are multiplying". I have never seen my wife so close to violence in all the time I have known her.
Anyway, now you know...
Now go take some pics!!!
Went out looking for ospreys , but this is the best I could do ...
Maybe I'll try again tomorrow , but closer to home .
5D2 , 100-400@400 , f11@1/1500 , IOS 800
Maybe I'll try again tomorrow , but closer to home .
5D2 , 100-400@400 , f11@1/1500 , IOS 800
Still got a nasty peck, thoughWent out looking for ospreys , but this is the best I could do ...
Maybe I'll try again tomorrow , but closer to home .
5D2 , 100-400@400 , f11@1/1500 , IOS 800
Cheers
Hugh
Nice and sharp though.Went out looking for ospreys , but this is the best I could do ...
Maybe I'll try again tomorrow , but closer to home .
5D2 , 100-400@400 , f11@1/1500 , IOS 800
[doublepost=1462825355][/doublepost]So here's an interesting thought. When ever I've tried to capture bluebells in the woods, I always encounter this issue. When I'm over here I look over there and notice the bluebells are much nicer looking and densely populated. When I head over there, they look more densely populated where I just was.
Typically I'd be shooting with a 14-24 or 24-70.
However this shot was taken with the 200-500 and I was able to get that densely looking shot I was after.
_DSC9795 by apple fanboy1, on FlickrDo you know what I mean or does that just make sense in my head?
Nice and sharp though.
[doublepost=1462825355][/doublepost]So here's an interesting thought. When ever I've tried to capture bluebells in the woods, I always encounter this issue. When I'm over here I look over there and notice the bluebells are much nicer looking and densely populated. When I head over there, they look more densely populated where I just was.
Typically I'd be shooting with a 14-24 or 24-70.
However this shot was taken with the 200-500 and I was able to get that densely looking shot I was after.
Do you know what I mean or does that just make sense in my head?
I know exactly what you're saying , I've seen the same . I think the shot taken with the 200-500 maybe benefited from foreshortening , making everything look denser.
Nice and sharp though.
[doublepost=1462825355][/doublepost]So here's an interesting thought. When ever I've tried to capture bluebells in the woods, I always encounter this issue. When I'm over here I look over there and notice the bluebells are much nicer looking and densely populated. When I head over there, they look more densely populated where I just was.
Typically I'd be shooting with a 14-24 or 24-70.
However this shot was taken with the 200-500 and I was able to get that densely looking shot I was after.
Do you know what I mean or does that just make sense in my head?
Cracking shot. Is it the benefit of the Telephoto flattening the perspective that is making them look so dense? Fantastic colours
Hi, not posted in this thread before, but here goes. Please be gentle.
I love this kind of photography.
Nikon D7000, 300mm f5.6 ISO110 1/1000
Jason
I love this kind of photography.
Nikon D7000, 300mm f5.6 ISO110 1/1000
Jason
Thanks. I'd never have thought to try that lens for that type of shot, but I was out bothering birds at the time.
[doublepost=1462857869][/doublepost]
Welcome to the group. Nice shot. Are you in another plane to get this perspective?
Thank you!
[doublepost=1462859559][/doublepost]Mucking about on a rainy day...
Raindrops on Phormium by MCH-1138, on Flickr
Nikon D750 • Nikon 300mm f/4D (AF-S) w/1.4x TC • 1/1250 @ f/8
No, not at all. In Wales, there is a designated Low Fly Area called the Mach Loop. Basically, you climb to the top of a mountain and the planes fly through the valleys and you can look down on them. They're really close too. It is one heck of an experience.
Jason
Nice and sharp though.
[doublepost=1462825355][/doublepost]So here's an interesting thought. When ever I've tried to capture bluebells in the woods, I always encounter this issue. When I'm over here I look over there and notice the bluebells are much nicer looking and densely populated. When I head over there, they look more densely populated where I just was.
Typically I'd be shooting with a 14-24 or 24-70.
However this shot was taken with the 200-500 and I was able to get that densely looking shot I was after.
Do you know what I mean or does that just make sense in my head?
Maybe it's also a matter of the angle? When you're looking at them further away you're looking across at them but when you get close you're looking down on them and can see the spaces in between. I like to dial in a bit of negative exposure compensation when shooting bluebells, helps bring out their true colour. I couldn't get a shot like yours though, big lenses aren't for me!
Wivenhoe, Essex...
If you could write a little about your travels as well I'm sure there'd be a book in there. Very few people do what you're doing.
Check out my blog: http://broken-cloud.blogspot.co.uk/
I am writing a book. Not about specific places... but about how to look. And not so much about a technique... but more about exploring some of the obstacles that we put in our way. Not about what to add... but what to let fall away.
An old zen saying gives a flavour of what I'm trying to do: “Before I studied Zen, mountains were mountains, trees were trees. Then as I began to study Zen the mountains and trees were no longer just mountains and trees. After I experienced satori the mountains were mountains, the trees trees”. My idea is that we can see clearly... if we want to. But I'm not convinced we do want to. Skating over the surface of things is far less tiring!
Heron up close. I might have been 6 feet from him.
GET OFF MY LAWN!
[doublepost=1462881614][/doublepost]
Really? I could see you with one of these!Maybe it's also a matter of the angle? When you're looking at them further away you're looking across at them but when you get close you're looking down on them and can see the spaces in between. I like to dial in a bit of negative exposure compensation when shooting bluebells, helps bring out their true colour. I couldn't get a shot like yours though, big lenses aren't for me!
Thank you Doylem, I'll do that. Looking forward to reading it. When your book is available would you let me know? I'd like to buy it.
Lol! Even he looks a bit silly with it, trying to hand hold it like that. I'm sure I'd fall flat on my face if I managed to lift it that far.