RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (74) < ... 49 50 51 52 53 [54] 55 56 57 58 59 ... >   
  Topic: Wildlife, What's in your back yard?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2012,20:39   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 13 2012,17:05)
 
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 13 2012,15:54)
And lastly, one for Lou to add to his "I disapprove of you!" file:

White Throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis)

lol, I have started a meme.

Excellent shots, Robin!

Thanks Lou. Getting there. Still practicing, but they're getting better. Working on getting familiar enough with my camera to figure out what settings work better in what situations. Need to get a monopod at some point or something like that to help steady my shots more.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2012,22:32   

Quote (Robin @ Mar. 13 2012,21:39)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 13 2012,17:05)
 
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 13 2012,15:54)
And lastly, one for Lou to add to his "I disapprove of you!" file:

White Throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis)

lol, I have started a meme.

Excellent shots, Robin!

Thanks Lou. Getting there. Still practicing, but they're getting better. Working on getting familiar enough with my camera to figure out what settings work better in what situations. Need to get a monopod at some point or something like that to help steady my shots more.

Y'know, I'm looking at your shot of the Kestrel, and it's a bit noisy. If you're using Lightroom to process them, there is a tool for Luminance Noise Reduction that might help smooth some of that out.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2012,11:21   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 13 2012,22:32)
Y'know, I'm looking at your shot of the Kestrel, and it's a bit noisy. If you're using Lightroom to process them, there is a tool for Luminance Noise Reduction that might help smooth some of that out.

I'm not using Lightroom, but whatever Nikon ships with their cameras (ViewNX 2  I think). I know that I get a lot of noise in my shots and I have a vague understanding of what the "noise" is in my shots, but not enough to know how to reduce it, either shooting or in post-production.

ETA: Oops...the Nikon software us Capture NX2, not ViewNX 2 (though View comes with the package as well). It does not have a good noise reduction module on it, so I'll have to look into a separate one.

Edited by Robin on Mar. 19 2012,11:25

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3576
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2012,12:51   

Noise is an inevitable result of a high ISO. Anything above 400 will have noise if you blow it up enough. the guys who do nature photography professionally use heavy tripods or Steadicams.

Noise reduction software helps, but at the cost of sharpness and detail.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2012,13:16   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 19 2012,12:51)
Noise is an inevitable result of a high ISO. Anything above 400 will have noise if you blow it up enough. the guys who do nature photography professionally use heavy tripods or Steadicams.

Noise reduction software helps, but at the cost of sharpness and detail.

A succinct summary of the number one cause of noise in photography Midwife. However, that brings up the question  - since I don't shoot anything over 400 ISO (and the shot of the Kestrel was at 200 ISO), what's the main issue creating all the noise in my pics? Is it that I'm not getting close enough or using a big enough lens (300mm) and thus I'm enlarging my shots beyond what my camera can really grab? A possibility, but I would think if that were the case, my closer shots - like the one of the female Cardinal -  wouldn't be so noisy, but they seem like they are just as noisy to me. I think I enlarged the female Cardinal shot by .25X...maybe .5X, but not that much. OTOH, I think I enlarged the Kestrel by 4X, which can be quite a bit on a 200 ISO shot.

I really don't know. It could just be the D3100's sensor is particularly sensitive to direct full sun, though I've not read anything to indicate that such is the case. All the reviewers and tester articles I've read indicate that the D3100 has one of the better noise compensation algorithms built into it.

Bottom line, while I know that noise is one of the big factors reducing the quality of my shots, I don't know where it is coming from.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2012,13:37   

Quote (Robin @ Mar. 19 2012,13:16)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 19 2012,12:51)
Noise is an inevitable result of a high ISO. Anything above 400 will have noise if you blow it up enough. the guys who do nature photography professionally use heavy tripods or Steadicams.

Noise reduction software helps, but at the cost of sharpness and detail.

A succinct summary of the number one cause of noise in photography Midwife. However, that brings up the question  - since I don't shoot anything over 400 ISO (and the shot of the Kestrel was at 200 ISO), what's the main issue creating all the noise in my pics? Is it that I'm not getting close enough or using a big enough lens (300mm) and thus I'm enlarging my shots beyond what my camera can really grab? A possibility, but I would think if that were the case, my closer shots - like the one of the female Cardinal -  wouldn't be so noisy, but they seem like they are just as noisy to me. I think I enlarged the female Cardinal shot by .25X...maybe .5X, but not that much. OTOH, I think I enlarged the Kestrel by 4X, which can be quite a bit on a 200 ISO shot.

I really don't know. It could just be the D3100's sensor is particularly sensitive to direct full sun, though I've not read anything to indicate that such is the case. All the reviewers and tester articles I've read indicate that the D3100 has one of the better noise compensation algorithms built into it.

Bottom line, while I know that noise is one of the big factors reducing the quality of my shots, I don't know where it is coming from.

This is probably something you're aware of, so feel free to ignore..

Are you shooting the images in RAW mode?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2012,15:24   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 19 2012,13:37)
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 19 2012,13:16)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 19 2012,12:51)
Noise is an inevitable result of a high ISO. Anything above 400 will have noise if you blow it up enough. the guys who do nature photography professionally use heavy tripods or Steadicams.

Noise reduction software helps, but at the cost of sharpness and detail.

A succinct summary of the number one cause of noise in photography Midwife. However, that brings up the question  - since I don't shoot anything over 400 ISO (and the shot of the Kestrel was at 200 ISO), what's the main issue creating all the noise in my pics? Is it that I'm not getting close enough or using a big enough lens (300mm) and thus I'm enlarging my shots beyond what my camera can really grab? A possibility, but I would think if that were the case, my closer shots - like the one of the female Cardinal -  wouldn't be so noisy, but they seem like they are just as noisy to me. I think I enlarged the female Cardinal shot by .25X...maybe .5X, but not that much. OTOH, I think I enlarged the Kestrel by 4X, which can be quite a bit on a 200 ISO shot.

I really don't know. It could just be the D3100's sensor is particularly sensitive to direct full sun, though I've not read anything to indicate that such is the case. All the reviewers and tester articles I've read indicate that the D3100 has one of the better noise compensation algorithms built into it.

Bottom line, while I know that noise is one of the big factors reducing the quality of my shots, I don't know where it is coming from.

This is probably something you're aware of, so feel free to ignore..

Are you shooting the images in RAW mode?

No. Fine JPEG.

ETA: removed extra letter

Edited by Robin on Mar. 19 2012,15:25

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2012,15:56   

Quote (Robin @ Mar. 19 2012,15:24)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 19 2012,13:37)
 
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 19 2012,13:16)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 19 2012,12:51)
Noise is an inevitable result of a high ISO. Anything above 400 will have noise if you blow it up enough. the guys who do nature photography professionally use heavy tripods or Steadicams.

Noise reduction software helps, but at the cost of sharpness and detail.

A succinct summary of the number one cause of noise in photography Midwife. However, that brings up the question  - since I don't shoot anything over 400 ISO (and the shot of the Kestrel was at 200 ISO), what's the main issue creating all the noise in my pics? Is it that I'm not getting close enough or using a big enough lens (300mm) and thus I'm enlarging my shots beyond what my camera can really grab? A possibility, but I would think if that were the case, my closer shots - like the one of the female Cardinal -  wouldn't be so noisy, but they seem like they are just as noisy to me. I think I enlarged the female Cardinal shot by .25X...maybe .5X, but not that much. OTOH, I think I enlarged the Kestrel by 4X, which can be quite a bit on a 200 ISO shot.

I really don't know. It could just be the D3100's sensor is particularly sensitive to direct full sun, though I've not read anything to indicate that such is the case. All the reviewers and tester articles I've read indicate that the D3100 has one of the better noise compensation algorithms built into it.

Bottom line, while I know that noise is one of the big factors reducing the quality of my shots, I don't know where it is coming from.

This is probably something you're aware of, so feel free to ignore..

Are you shooting the images in RAW mode?

No. Fine JPEG.

ETA: removed extra letter

OK, try shooting in RAW mode.  Even fine jpg is a lossy compression.

With RAW you don't get as many shots in the memory, but they are not compressed in any way and you can avoid that noise due to compression.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Freddie



Posts: 366
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2012,16:48   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 19 2012,15:56)
 
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 19 2012,15:24)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 19 2012,13:37)
   
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 19 2012,13:16)
     
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 19 2012,12:51)
Noise is an inevitable result of a high ISO. Anything above 400 will have noise if you blow it up enough. the guys who do nature photography professionally use heavy tripods or Steadicams.

Noise reduction software helps, but at the cost of sharpness and detail.

A succinct summary of the number one cause of noise in photography Midwife. However, that brings up the question  - since I don't shoot anything over 400 ISO (and the shot of the Kestrel was at 200 ISO), what's the main issue creating all the noise in my pics? Is it that I'm not getting close enough or using a big enough lens (300mm) and thus I'm enlarging my shots beyond what my camera can really grab? A possibility, but I would think if that were the case, my closer shots - like the one of the female Cardinal -  wouldn't be so noisy, but they seem like they are just as noisy to me. I think I enlarged the female Cardinal shot by .25X...maybe .5X, but not that much. OTOH, I think I enlarged the Kestrel by 4X, which can be quite a bit on a 200 ISO shot.

I really don't know. It could just be the D3100's sensor is particularly sensitive to direct full sun, though I've not read anything to indicate that such is the case. All the reviewers and tester articles I've read indicate that the D3100 has one of the better noise compensation algorithms built into it.

Bottom line, while I know that noise is one of the big factors reducing the quality of my shots, I don't know where it is coming from.

This is probably something you're aware of, so feel free to ignore..

Are you shooting the images in RAW mode?

No. Fine JPEG.

ETA: removed extra letter

OK, try shooting in RAW mode.  Even fine jpg is a lossy compression.

With RAW you don't get as many shots in the memory, but they are not compressed in any way and you can avoid that noise due to compression.

Right ... but as soon as you turn them into JPGs for viewing you re-introduce compression artifacts!  

I think the point is that when you shoot RAW you can control what happens in the compression stage to get the optimal result/filesize you are looking for, whereas if you use the camera's compression algorithm you have a fixed compression algorithm that can't be undone through post-processing.  I shoot RAW+JPG as its easier to see which images are which once I get them onto the PC to play with.

To me, the Kestrel picture looks over-sharpened slightly, you can see a slight halo around the bird as well as the noise in the blue areas. But some of the others are great!  
It's getting towards Spring here in the UK so hopefully I'll have the chance to get out and shoot some birds other than the bloody wood pigeons, crows and magpies that seem to infest my neck of the woods at the moment.

--------------
Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.
Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.
Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

  
Cubist



Posts: 351
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,02:07   

Just in case someone is curious: The JPE file format divides an image up into small (8x8 pixel) chunks, and it uses a Fourier Transform-type compression algorithm on each individual chunk. This algorithm is intrinsically lossy, which means it's explicitly and deliberately throwing away some of the image's information; when you save an image as JPEG and your machine asks you what "quality" level you want, it's really asking you how much of the image-info you want to throw away. At really low "quality" levels, the individual 8x8 image-chunks become increasingly obvious.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,02:17   

doesn't it do that everytime you save the image?  like if you have .jpg in a draft manuscript and you open/close and save multiple times, it will degrade the quality of the img

or is that some academic bullshit i should be mad about falling for

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Cubist



Posts: 351
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,05:24   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 20 2012,02:17)
doesn't it do that everytime you save the image?  like if you have .jpg in a draft manuscript and you open/close and save multiple times, it will degrade the quality of the img

or is that some academic bullshit i should be mad about falling for

If you don't edit the image, re-saving it shouldn't change anything. If you do edit the image, and save the changed image as JPEG, it will lose some quality.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3576
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,14:32   

The first thing lost in jpeg compression is not detail, but contrast information. High quality jpegs are a bit like high quality MP3 audio files. It is very difficult to demonstrate the loss.

What you get with RAW images and TIFF and PSD files is a wider dynamic range, which allows you to revisit the interpretation as your skills and your software improve.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
dhogaza



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,17:52   

Quote
the guys who do nature photography professionally use heavy tripods or Steadicams.


Or modern image-stabilized lenses, I've been very impressed with the results I've gotten with my 300/4 IS.

Of course, 500/4 and 600/4 lenses are heavy enough to require use of a monopod even with IS though Canon's latest 500/4 only weighs 7 lbs (but costs roughly 7 lbs of gold to purchase :( ).  If I choose to sell my 13.3 lb 600/4 (non-IS) for the new lightweight 500/4 it will change my life almost as much as switching from chrome to digital did ... 500/4 + 1.4x and excellent IS with my homemade shoulder stock?  Now that's an attractive vision of the future!

I've never seen a professional still shooter use a steadicam, but for video it's a very useful device.

Regarding noise, severe underexposure is another source (along with high ISO) ... but it has to be severe.

  
dhogaza



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,18:01   

Quote
What you get with RAW images and TIFF and PSD files is a wider dynamic range, which allows you to revisit the interpretation as your skills and your software improve.


Depending on the camera, RAW's pretty good for pulling out about 14 stops of dynamic range.  Black and white paper gives about 7 stops, velvia about 5, some chrome perhaps a stop more.

B&W negative film's capable of recording oh about 10 stops, which is why various contrast grades of paper are made (low contrast B&W paper lets you compress those 10 stops from a contrasty scene onto 7  stops, likewise a low-contrast scene printed on high-contrast paper can take advantage of the full dynamic range of the paper).

Shooting digital and capturing only JPEG is a bit like shooting chrome, i.e. you'll end up with saturation and the dynamic range of the image adjusted to fit whichever JPEG mode you've chosen (most cameras let you select various saturation levels, etc).

Shooting RAW is more like shooting a B&W neg with even better dynamic range, with the work required to adjust the dynamic range of the image to match the output device you're working with (print media, screen, etc) being much easier than learning the huge bag of darkroom tricks required to make top-notch B&W prints (without requiring a PhD in the Zone System :) ).

Sigh, there are probably younger people here who've never photographed on film and who don't know what a darkroom is! :)

  
Freddie



Posts: 366
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2012,12:40   

Well - I managed to get out in the great weather today and walked a few miles up the local canal path with my camera.  It's woodland bordering wetlands in the South of England, therefore I was hoping to perhaps see a few slightly less obvious birds.  Oh well.

Robin - F8, 1/125, 250mm, ISO100



Blue Tit - F8, 1/125, 250mm, ISO100



Shot in RAW then Adobe Camera Raw / Photoshop.

--------------
Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.
Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.
Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2012,16:52   

Nice shots!

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2012,11:09   

Quote (Freddie @ Mar. 24 2012,12:40)
Well - I managed to get out in the great weather today and walked a few miles up the local canal path with my camera.  It's woodland bordering wetlands in the South of England, therefore I was hoping to perhaps see a few slightly less obvious birds.  Oh well.

Great stuff Freddie! Beautiful shots! And thanks for the shot info.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
George



Posts: 313
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2012,15:53   

A couple of seasonal non-birdy photos.

Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) in flower:



Lesser celandine (Ficaria verna):




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2012,16:04   

I haven't been out much to shoot wildlife lately, mostly due to OChem, which is thoroughly kicking my ass. But here are a few of the highlights, such as they have been from the last few weeks.

Horned Grebe, from down Fort Fisher way, new for the life lists.



This shot shows his "horn" better



and a willet, from the same day.



I popped off a couple shots at a Northern Gannet, also new for the life lists.





Fred has been out early this year



...mostly because Spring seems to have sprung so early



The Butterbutts were randy early



My new best shot of a Cedar Waxwing



This Northern Pintail is new for the life lists



So nothing overly spectacular lately, but some stuff I like and a few new additions to the life lists.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2012,16:24   

Oh, here's a better shot of the Northern Pintail, from a day or two later.



And to follow George's lead on the non-birdy shots, here's some Azaleas from out front of my apartment.





I think that cultivar is called "Pink Pube"

Edited by Lou FCD on Mar. 26 2012,17:25

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2012,14:32   

As always Lou, great work!

Here are a few photos I took on Sunday that I'm really proud of:


Eastern Tailed Blue (Cupido comyntas) - I think this is my favorite so far.


Clouded Sulphur (Colias philodice)


I think it's a snapping turtle taking a peek at us, but I'm not sure.


Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius)

ETA: All but the Yellow-bellied I shot on manual focus. I think that part of my problem is that I'm not understanding where my autofocus is actually focusing.

Edited by Robin on April 03 2012,19:35

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2012,08:39   

Very nicely done, Robin!

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3576
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2012,22:05   

Something to shoot for:

http://www.flickr.com/photos....3739594

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2012,08:38   

Quote (Robin @ April 03 2012,14:32)
Here are a few photos I took on Sunday that I'm really proud of:

And you should be proud! Excellent shots. I love the eastern tailed blue; that's a tiny butterfly and a great shot.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2012,10:23   

<sigh> So many beautiful pictures and just one desktop ... I think I'll start with the Blue Tit.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2012,10:24   

Quote (midwifetoad @ April 04 2012,22:05)
Something to shoot for:

http://www.flickr.com/photos.....3739594

Whoa!

Man...every time I see a Saw-whet or a Screech Owl, I just want to take one home or carry it around in my pocket. They are just the cutest things from my perspective. Of course, having chatted with a few raptor rehab folks apparently one gets over this type of attraction real quick the moment one of them bites or claws you. Whodda thunk something so cute could be sooo aggressive (something about them being well-equipped predators I guess...)

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2012,10:31   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 05 2012,08:38)
And you should be proud! Excellent shots. I love the eastern tailed blue; that's a tiny butterfly and a great shot.

Thanks Alby and Lou!

Yeah, that Blue was really patient with me while I crawled up and shot pics. It really was amazing when I got down on the ground eye to eye with him and he just didn't care. It amazes me there are so many given that kind of temperament. I'd think that kind of trust would not be a very good survival mechanism.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Henry J



Posts: 4083
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2012,22:02   

Is it trust, or is it good at judging what's hungry and what isn't? (Assuming of course that it gives a hoot! )

Henry

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2012,09:55   

Easter Morning



Just taken with my little instacam.

This tree is just outside our kitchen window.  One of the cats just sits on the counter crying pitifully that the birdy won't come out and play.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
  2214 replies since Jan. 24 2008,14:26 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (74) < ... 49 50 51 52 53 [54] 55 56 57 58 59 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]