Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Misc Forums > Digiscoping/Digital Photomicroscopy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 10, 2005, 2:11 PM   #1
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

Hi All

I just made my first net site to show my wildlife photography and related landscape images. I would love to have some feedback. All the imnages were shot with a Nikon D1x and most with a Swarovski AT 80 HD scope.

www.davidbarkinphotography.com

Dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 10, 2005, 3:46 PM   #2
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,139
Default

Hi Dave,

Overall some really nice bird shots. The one constructive critism I would have is that your opening page is really "busy". By this I mean the beautiful backdrop of animal and birds and intense greens simply overwhelms the choices and makes it a bit difficult to find things. Perhaps a single pastel color or perhaps a gradient might be easier on the visitor's eyes.

Best regards,

Lin
Lin Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2005, 9:55 AM   #3
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

Your criticism is noted! You're probably right. It's even worse than you know. I used Dreamweaver 3, which is a fairly old program.

All those little birds that you see are supposed to peel off the page and start flying around, not all at the same time, but, well, it was a thought.

I found that the animation only works in older browsers. With the newer browsers, all that happenes is that the bird flys in place. So I left a small animation of a Black capped Heron on the page and I'm waiting for the arrival of Dreamweaver MX to finish the job. Your critique is noted and (sob) I'll probably take your advice.

At least I didn't spell "miscellaneous" wrong! :-)

I believe the best images are actually those in the "landscape" section, which is interesting, because who thinks of shooting landscapes with a spotting scope?

Also keep in mind that, more or less, every bird that is in the air was taken handheld, with a monopode attached. I found that when I started to do this only one in twenty images came out. After a year it's now one out of two. None of the images were shot with a tripod. So persistance in stupidity sometimes works out...

Dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2005, 10:00 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 23
Default

Hi:

I'll put in 2 cents. As new people, like myself, try and find our way intodigiscoping it is nice to see the websites where each picture has the camera,lens, scope, eyepiece, settings, etc.

That way we can determine what equipment to buy or use to get the best results.

You have some really nice pictures but I have looked at so many different websites in my trying to find what is the best equipment for what I can afford that I can tell a dslr with a mm lems versusjust d and a scope. Sometimes I can even tell what scope was used by difference in color, contrast and clairity.

I find it irritating when you do search after search on the internetand follow one link to another to a website that is supposed to be a person using a certain camera and scope; only to find out thatthe person isn't even using any of the stated equipment.

There really is no compairison between a dslr and a mm lens verses a digital and scope.

I can tell that your bird pictures are mixed between the mm and scope.

Maybe you should have different pages for each setup.

John




jrdeahl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2005, 10:53 PM   #5
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,139
Default

Quote:
There really is no compairison between a dslr and a mm lens verses a digital and scope.

I can tell that your bird pictures are mixed between the mm and scope.
Hi John,

Though I'm not trying to answer for David, I would like to address the above comment. You really "can't" tell by looking at an image whether the image was captured with a dSLR and lens or a digicam and scope. Good digiscoping images are in every way equal to good captures with a dSLR and good lens.

I have images which I've taken with a wide variety of scopes and digicams which are equal in every way in quality and appearance to images I've taken with my best dSLR's and best professional quality lenses.It's just not possible to generalize like that because there are way too many variables.

Best regards,

Lin
Lin Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2005, 9:47 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 23
Default

Here are some typical pics I see on the net. These are from one persons website. All are a 995 and a top ranked scope. One pic is with a d100 and Nikon 300mm. The one on the bottom is from the d100 and 300mm.



As you look at the pics, pay attention to depth of field and feather definition (clarity).



MM lens seem to have better range on depth of field and I see greater definition.

Granted, some people take really good scope pics. Nobody would be using the Nikon $7,500 lens if they weren't any better than a $1,500 scope.



Just the other day I was looking thru some pdf digital photo manuals after viewing some pics on digiscoping websites. I opened this one pdf and it was about dslr and 500 and 800 mm lenses. The pictures in there made digiscoping pics look like amateurs.



We do what we can afford though. The equipment he must have talking about must have totaled $25,000. I know I can't afford that!



Maybe the depth of field and clarity is because most pics with mm lenses are shot closer to the subject.



[img]file:///d:/9951.jpg[/img]







[img]file:///d:/9952.jpg[/img]





[img]file:///d:/d100.jpg[/img]
jrdeahl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2005, 10:07 PM   #7
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,139
Default

Hi John,

It looks like broken links - can't see anything.

Lin
Lin Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9, 2005, 8:49 AM   #8
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

Hi Lin

Sorry, no one responded for so long to this thread that I stopped monitoring this topic...:O

Now, I believe my Swarovski has far better optics than a lens, certainly better than the optics on MY lens. (Sigma 50-500)

Here are some images from the Swarovski

[img]www.davidbarkinphotography.com/Temp/BLKHER3.JPG[/img]

[img]www.davidbarkinphotography.com/Temp/BLKHER1.JPG[/img]

[img]www.davidbarkinphotography.com/Temp/BLKHER5.JPG[/img]

[img]www.davidbarkinphotography.com/Temp/BLKHER2.JPG[/img]

[img]www.davidbarkinphotography.com/Temp/BLKHER4.JPG[/img]


Now the above images, are of course just thumbnails, in comparison to the REAL images, and much detail is lost.

There certainly are depth of field issues shooting with a scope, win some, lose some

Finally, I've abandoned shooting with a lens at all, carrying a cheap point and shoot Olypmus for my landscapes of where I'm shooting. On my site, I've been updating the "New Gallery" every month, at it's all Swarovski...

In addition, I've been having a lot of fun posting images in the "Wildlife" section of this forum. I have quite a few posts and they are all from the 'scope.

dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2005, 11:45 AM   #9
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

Whoops, sorry about that, I deleted the images from my site forgetting that I had posted on this topic. I replaced them with some other shots (in the proceding post) that make my point...


dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:52 PM.