Cool Nature Photos

[MossRoad]

We shot newspaper layouts on a full-size camera to make negatives to lay on the printing plates for exposure. The film was 400mm wide. So poo poo on that 35mm stuff. :laughing: Anyhow, digital is very amazing and so much more cost effective than film.

 

[snymat68]

On my wish list is a good telescope with adapter to (and) a good camera. Anyone have recommendations?

I've only ever shot astro stuff with a wide angle lens (milkyway, etc), but I've looked into the telescope stuff a little. It gets very involved very fast. Not trying to turn you off by any means, but there's a lot to decide before you spend a bunch of money on stuff.

Do you want to shoot wide field stuff or deep space stuff? Different telescopes are needed.
Do you want to be able to track stuff (needed for a lot of telescope astrophotography). If so, you'll have to research the various equatorial mounts and what they're capable of.
Some cameras are made specifically for astrophotography and have specialized sensors/coatings. Depending what you want to shoot, that may be better/worse than a "regular" digital camera for everyday shooting.
A full frame camera sensor will absorb more light than an APS-C sensor.
Generally, higher resolution sensors are worse at absorbing light. It all comes down to the physical size of the photosites (pixels) on the sensor. Bigger photosites are better at absorbing light than smaller ones.
Newer sensor tech has made leaps and bounds over stuff from a few years ago. (A newer camera will (probably) be better in low light applications.)

I could go on and on, but like I said, I'm no expert in the matter. The best thing you can do if you're serious about it, is join some of the many astrophotography forums or groups on Facebook, etc. There are a ton of people there with a wealth of knowledge.

 

[snymat68]

We shot newspaper layouts on a full-size camera to make negatives to lay on the printing plates for exposure. The film was 400mm wide. So poo poo on that 35mm stuff. :laughing: Anyhow, digital is very amazing and so much more cost effective than film.

Nice. There's no doubt I have an appreciation for the way things like that use to be done. I love digital, and I'd never want to go back. But it doesn't come without it's own set of headaches.

 

[goeduck]

I've only ever shot astro stuff with a wide angle lens (milkyway, etc), but I've looked into the telescope stuff a little. It gets very involved very fast. Not trying to turn you off by any means, but there's a lot to decide before you spend a bunch of money on stuff.

Not so interested in Astro stuff. I live on the water and mostly want to be able to take pictures of stuff I see in the water. Killer whales, terns, eagles, otters, osprey, etc. When people come over they always want to look at stuff with my binoculars and zi think a telescope would suit them better. And if I am getting a telescope I might as well get one that I can adapt a camera to.

 

[snymat68]

Not so interested in Astro stuff. I live on the water and mostly want to be able to take pictures of stuff I see in the water. Killer whales, terns, eagles, otters, osprey, etc. When people come over they always want to look at stuff with my binoculars and zi think a telescope would suit them better. And if I am getting a telescope I might as well get one that I can adapt a camera to.

Cool. Definitely not what I pictured when you said telescope! In that case, disregard everything I said! :laughing:
I would just treat the telescope as a supertelephoto lens at that point.

 

[Big Barn]

Yep. It would be nice if the forum was smart enough to do that by default.

Tapatalk has a setting for that but I don’t know if works here. I always try to manually delete pics or unnecessary text from quotes.

 

[drivesitfar]

Geoduck: I picked up some self adjusting binoculars at Costco for about $75 maybe 30 years ago that still work great. i've also got a spotting scope that can either be held by hand or put on a stand. I doubt that looking through a telescope will do better on the short range (under 5 miles) stuff, but maybe you've can tell me different. sounds like you've got a great place if you can see whales and other animals in your part of Puget Sound. let us know what you find out works best??

ALL: thank you all for posting about not only my sizing of pictures, but of the quality and some of it's history. I still recall going into darkrooms and developing pictures and sort of still recall that wonderful smell (sort of like outside the back of the dairy farms).

I resized this picture 7:5 cause I think I need to go into my Paint program to get the #'s setting again that I set at 1,000. we get a lot of clouds here in the PNW and these might not have been the reason I took this picture cause there is a lot going on here from ALKI looking back at Seattle. not usually any wildlife out here in this part of PUGET SOUND, but we do occasionally get a whale and a fair amount of seals.

 

[Xfaxman]

The pixel size of your picture is 1283x916 and the file size is only 212 KB:

The pixel size of my screenshot above is 1020x611, 127.6 KB and posted "FullSize".

 

[drivesitfar]

xfax: I totally appreciate yours and everyones help!!! that said I think I need to go to photo editing school. I opened up PAINT to try and find the resizing option and I couldn't find it. i'll keep trying and if you have any other ideas how I take pictures off my Iphone 8+ and make them the right size I'm all ears and i'll give it a try.

ALL: here's another picture off my laptop and this time taken by another. (can I resize pics if not mine?) somebody had fun that day!!

 

[Alien]

This is the Paint version I use with the Resize option top left. Are there different versions??