• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ElenaGwynne

  • Rank
  1. I only started doing that thanks to the suggestions made here. Thanks!
  2. Well, I've tried using the PS Elements photomerge once - I will try it again though. What I got though was a disaster. The photo was meant to be rolling hills (Eastbourne South Downs). What it did was make the horizon line of the hills dead straight like a ruler. Clearly I need to figure out the Photoshop settings a bit better. As to the comment up-thread about the focal lengths, I'm finding that I am all over the map for the most part - however, you are right in that quite a bit of the time it is in and around the 35 mm mark. I'm not changing over to the 35 mm most of the time though right now due to limited time constraints. What's happening a lot of the time is I'm going from 18-20mm range to zooming in to a 35ish photo and then back out for a full landscape. I'm more likely to change over to the 28-200 lens to zoom in to some detail or statue, then back to the 18-35. (Touring around on vacation - so participating in a number of tours where I don't have a ton of time). Loving the 35 mm in museums though, where the wider aperture is definitely to my advantage. Haven't taken the time to really go over my photos for a while and see the results as of yet though (got a nice backlog of over a thousand photos to investigate right now).
  3. Lovely photos!
  4. Nifty ideas. I've been trying to do some stitching-work - manually with Photoshop Elements 11. So far, I've been frustrated by slight changes in color between photos, and then (on the one that was working a bit better), my computer crashing and eating the whole thing. As to the lenses, I got the VRII for the 18-55, which I've been fairly happy using previously - have the same lens on our other camera and we'd started fighting over who was going to be using it. The 35 mm prime is the Nikon AF-S 35mm DX NIKKOR F1.8G. So far, as I said, I'm amazed at the clarity - I'll admit I haven't used it a ton as of yet though.
  5. Well, I went with neither option. And I kept the 28-200 lens. Instead I got a used 18-55 and a 35 mm prime lens. My first prime lens, so I'm working out the ins and outs of using one rather than a zoom lens. I am definitely enjoying figuring out the depth of field with that! Much wider than any of my other lenses.
  6. You've got some eggscelent photos
  7. Quite possibly the same. An Olympus Stylus Tough 12 megapixel. And yes, the battery was never great. I remember running out of battery pretty quickly when swimming at Hanauma Bay. Still it might be fun to use around tide pools again. I know of one with some pretty spectacular anemones and other life - same one that I most recently got lucky at in that I fell and the camera got a bit wet (in this case a D7100).
  8. Thanks! Think I'll take a good look at it sometime soon. Also hoping the battery life on it is still good - been a while since I charged the camera. Either way, it's probably a better camera to use around tide pools and waves than my DSLR. I've gotten lucky once too often now.
  9. Just adding - I was able to salvage the eagle shot more or less - well enough that Shutterstock accepted it. Of course, I'm still hoping to do better in the future. Still, this is one of the best I've gotten to date. Unfortunately two days later, I missed the eagle flying off with a fish in it's talons - way too out of focus. Did get some decent shots at a missed fishing attempt though.
  10. Wishing you all the best with hopes that everything turns out to be better than it sounds right now.
  11. I have an older Olympus waterproof camera dating back to 2011. I haven't used it a ton in the last few years and I'm wondering if I should be worrying about the seals on it. I remember hearing somewhere that they can go pretty easily. Bought for a trip to Hawaii (who doesn't want to swim in Hanauma Bay with a camera?), and I'm kind of thinking I'd like to bring it back into use for things like tide-pools at Tofino. However, I don't know of any way to test the seals - and I don't want to discover after the fact that they're no good. Ideas?
  12. Those eyes! I knew a cat with eyes like that, but haven't seen any others before or since.
  13. Better camera bag this time!! In other words, I got lucky, very lucky again. Photographing in a tide pool (I really should know better by now) and the sand underfoot crumbled away. This time the camera got a bit wet - my new camera too. Thankfully, I got lucky - everything still works properly. For the rest of the camping trip though, about half my warm clothing was sopping wet! As to the photos taken at the beach, I'm not showing a lot of them because I'm not all that happy with the earlier ones. The ones I am happy with are on my portfolio - mostly some sea stars and sunset photos I think. The most recent lot are still on my camera and I've barely had a chance to look at them yet. Maybe I'll get them loaded onto the computer tomorrow. On the other hand, the photos I was the most excited about have turned into a disappointment - had an eagle flying towards me while I was climbing on the rocks. Unfortunately, the focus ended up on his tail rather than his head. I might be able to salvage it, but haven't really had a chance to try - my freelance job pretty much went into overtime hours until Sunday to get it all done and sent off. Now though, I have a chance to get the photos off the card and see if there's anything I want to try submitting. However, seeing as you asked... here are some of the Tofino photos I've got in my portfolio:
  14. Good information to have. Thing is, my budget is used or nothing - and most of the time nothing! But that's good information to have on the Tamron. Might be one of the reasons the Sigma is slightly pricier possibly? The other reason that came to mind is that one might work with the D3100 and similar as well as the D7100 - yes I've discovered that there are lenses which require the camera to have the motor in order to auto-focus (both my lenses are like that as it was less expensive to replace the camera than it was to buy a longer zoom which would work with the D3100 (which I find generally has less noise in the photos)). Lovely heron photo btw! And yes, I know one the things I don't have on either lens is most of the specs. What' I'm hoping for is a reasonably inexpensive lens that's good enough for photos I can be happy with (around submit here to slightly under that levels - some of my favorite photos to date have been rejected here, but they're still good enough for my enjoyment) that will let me go from "Can I get a photo of that cathedral from the bus" to "architectural detail on a building a floor or two up" without needing to swap out lenses too much - Husband will have the 18-55 and I think we'll be sharing the 55-300 lens. I'm not planning to haul around the 80-400 lens, although I really would love the chance at a few decent European Robin photos. However, I don't want massive noise (that's one thing I've been noticing a lot of the time on the D7100 with my lenses) or soft focus - working on teaching myself manual focus, but I save that for occasions where if it turns out I don't have it right I'm not going to be kicking myself for not getting it. I do know that I can't blame the lenses entirely for those issues though.
  15. I'm contemplating buying one of these two lenses: **18-250 F3.5-6.3 OS SIGMA NIKON DC HSM **18-270 NIKON AF II VC PZDTAMRON (FITS ALL AF DX NIKON B008 62mm Until I see them, this is literally all the information I have - it's off my "local" camera store's used list (local in this case being on the other side of a two hour ferry ride). Interestingly, the shorter focal length lens is slightly more expensive. My reasoning is that I want one lens for traveling. I thought I'd found said lens in a Tamron 28-200 lens, but I'm really not happy - I didn't think I would but I miss the extra distance I had in the 18-28 range. I guess I used the outer range more than I thought I would. I want that back! Especially given some future travel plans to the UK (I want to be able to get some of the landmarks without having to back away for miles (or trying to cross busier streets to get the full image). Worries about potential cabin electronics bans are another issue altogether. Of course, if there's anything obvious about one over the other re aperture when I see the lenses, that would make the choice for me. However, if anyone recognizes either of these lenses by the minimal description I have and has any recommendations one way or the other I'd love to hear it. Thanks in advance,