# Sheri's Practice Picture Thread



## Sheri (Apr 2, 2005)

Finally, a new camera. Like with a macro setting. 

This will be my practise thread.

Yes, and then when I am used to the camera, I will start a new one or delete this one.

Thanks for all the advice as I learn.


----------



## Sheri (Apr 2, 2005)

Here is another attempt. I have a super macro and regular macro setting, so just playing to find out when I need which etc.

Thanks for bearing with me.


----------



## Nerri1029 (Apr 2, 2005)

What software do you use for editing and resizing?


----------



## moricollins (Apr 2, 2005)

Sheri, you might want to play with the white balance to lighten the picture up (you can do this on your camera i would expect)  

Looks promising though 

Mori


----------



## Sheri (Apr 2, 2005)

Yes it looks as though I am going to have to relent and read the manual.

Sigh.

And I use a program called PhotoImpression, though I am going to install Photoshoppe later today.


----------



## Cerbera (Apr 2, 2005)

*Photo advice...*

Its not white brightness thats necessarily wrong - that is concerned with the colour / tone of the white, not its relative level - its pure and simple exposure problems here...

You can either...

Get Photoshop CS, and use the levels control to bring out the light / mid tones. And while you're there, a sharpen can't usually hurt either.

or...

You could use a longer exposure time, or a bigger aperture on the camera, or just let more light into the room 

Also, macro mode is fine for shots where the spider is between 10 inches - 2 ft away from the lens. Super macro is generally fine between 1-8 inches away. 

Other 'useful stuff' ? Spiders (or at least mine) couldn't care less about flash, either, unless its repeated, and right in front of them.

Taking photos through glass / plastic...

Don't use the flash if at all possible - brighten the room, and turn it off instead. If you have to use it, don't face the glass straight on (reflections), attach a polarising filter if you can , and it may sound obvious, but CLEAN the glass first ! oh - and super-macro doesn't work so great with a flash either - light ranges are all wrong.

Hope thats of some use... here's one of mine that got the levels treatment to compensate for the piss-poor room lighting 




Lookin forward to your new pics - I'm sure your spider is beatiful when we can see her... 

Jay


----------



## Sheri (Apr 2, 2005)

Thanks for the tips!

You will now be known as the manual. 

Ok, I changed one setting to what I think gave it a longer exposure time and I certainly noticed now that macro seems to suck up the light... that pics not taken with macro look fine, with marcro they are dark.

Any better?


----------



## Apocalypstick (Apr 2, 2005)

That's a good pic.... LOLOLOL, that curly hairy rump is something else!! 
Looks like it just came from Videl Sassoon's Hair Salon


----------



## David Burns (Apr 2, 2005)

Nice pics Sheri. I'd like to see one of the G.pulchra. I want to see how big she is after the roach.


----------



## Nerri1029 (Apr 2, 2005)

alot of it comes down to how much of the CCD plate in the camera ( that is the plate that the light from the image is turned into digital info)

depending on your lenses the entire plate can be used .. OR in macro or with digital zooms you can use LESS of that plate to gather the data.. thus decreasing the image quality some and the total light available to form the image..


----------



## becca81 (Apr 2, 2005)

For editing, I use "Microsoft PictureIt! Publishing."  I think I paid 40 or 50 dollars for it a few years ago and I LOVE it.

The last pic looks really good.  I love the abdomen!


----------



## Rob1985 (Apr 2, 2005)

Two words Adobe Photoshop!!!!!!! ;P  BTW nice pics sheri!!!!!!


----------



## shogun804 (Apr 2, 2005)

great looking second pic sheri, im sure they will get better and better  , look forward to seeing more pics.


----------



## Spider-man 2 (Apr 2, 2005)

Not to be mean or anything,   but instead of having to get Photoshop/ Paint Shop Pro (which I recommend for you, Sheri, because it is fairly cheap and can everything you would want it to) and such, you could just learn to take good pictures.  All you need to the proper lighting (3-point Hollywood Light System (Key, Fill, and Back)), the proper setting, and angle.  It usually comes naturally over time.


----------



## Sheri (Apr 2, 2005)

Yes, I actually totally agree with you.



I will learn, slowly maybe, but I shall dominate that damn camera before long.


----------



## moricollins (Apr 2, 2005)

for the record what make and model of camera is it?

the latest pic you posted looks awesome sheri.  It's a X. immanis right>?


----------



## Sheri (Apr 4, 2005)

Ok David, here ya go!

These are really not the quality I want yet... but alas.


----------



## Sheri (Apr 4, 2005)

And a female Homoeomma sp. "blue"....


----------



## pronty (Apr 4, 2005)

Sheri said:
			
		

> Ok David, here ya go!
> 
> These are really not the quality I want yet... but alas.


Still a bit of motion blur there Sheri 
Can you support the camera or your hand with anything?  
More light would fix the problem  A lamp maybe? The flash works too but at such close proximity it might overexpose part of the pic. Can you zoom in from farther away?


----------



## Spider-man 2 (Apr 4, 2005)

A little trick Sheri, when I can't get my macro to focus on up close shots, I use a flashlight.  A very easy way to have movable light wherever you want it.

BTW, you spelled practice wrong in your thread title. I know how much it bothers you.


----------



## Sheri (Apr 4, 2005)

Spider-man 2 said:
			
		

> A little trick Sheri, when I can't get my macro to focus on up close shots, I use a flashlight.  A very easy way to have movable light wherever you want it.
> 
> BTW, you spelled practice wrong in your thread title. I know how much it bothers you.



Dammit! LOL

I will take that under consideration, though right now I think I am battling the whole steady hand thing and I can't see how holding another object will help me overcome that.

A good idea though!


----------



## metallica (Apr 4, 2005)

also see this post:
>>>here<<< 

Eddy


----------



## Sheri (Apr 4, 2005)

Thanks Eddy.

And the cam is a Fuji FinePic E510.


----------



## Rob1985 (Apr 4, 2005)

My buddy has a very good and expensive Sony digital cam. It has an orange light for complete dark pics. The pics of my avic and N.chromatus were taken in complete dark!!!


----------



## Sheri (Apr 4, 2005)

Ok, I am going to go back to the store and see if there is a model in the the same line that has a built in macro light. 
And I think I need a tripod.

Yup! Found another time sinkhole, a hobby within a hobby within a hobby.


----------



## gothmog (Apr 4, 2005)

Something like a Nikon Coolpix 5200 (or whatever the latest version in the 5X00 range is) would be a good bet. They have an excellent macro mode and the required focus illuminator 

-- Jon


----------



## Vys (Apr 4, 2005)

Sheri said:
			
		

> And a female Homoeomma sp. "blue"....


Oooh. Cutest spider there is.  Against better judgement another one is heading my way right now, from the same source. 

A tripod is in all likelihood a good bet, especially when taking those non-flash pictures.


----------



## harrymaculata (Apr 4, 2005)

Rob1985 said:
			
		

> Two words Adobe Photoshop!!!!!!! ;P  BTW nice pics sheri!!!!!!


cheers for attempting to back me up against know it all on the brachy thread much appreciated.


----------



## Sheri (Apr 4, 2005)

Vys said:
			
		

> Oooh. Cutest spider there is. Against better judgement another one is heading my way right now, from the same source.



Not MY source though? Wow, wouldn't that be funny?

I was happy to see the blue come out. I have two younger ones in hopes I am growing up a male, which I think I am based sheerly off growth rates between the 2 slings.


----------



## bugsnstuff (Apr 4, 2005)

the E510 is an excellent camera, BUT to use macro the flash doesn't really illuminate the subject that well, and using SuperMacro the flash is altogether useless. basically it 'misses' the subject.
take the photo's in a well lit area, the brighter the better, then you will find everything comes together.
the pics will be naturally brighter and the focus will be much crisper and cleaner


----------



## Vys (Apr 4, 2005)

Sheri said:
			
		

> Not MY source though? Wow, wouldn't that be funny?
> 
> I was happy to see the blue come out. I have two younger ones in hopes I am growing up a male, which I think I am based sheerly off growth rates between the 2 slings.


I doubt it  Especially as you say slings...I wasn't aware this species had been successfully bred in the hobby as of yet?


----------



## Sheri (Apr 9, 2005)

Some more....

Guess


----------



## Sheri (Apr 9, 2005)

Nhandu coloratovillosus, juvenile female...


----------



## Sheri (Apr 9, 2005)

Pamphobeteus platyomma


----------



## Sheri (Apr 9, 2005)

And the freshly molted 3"plus Cyriopagopus sp. blue


Feel free to sex it. 

(Though this will merely be confirming suspicions.)


----------



## Cirith Ungol (Apr 9, 2005)

It's definitely a male... or female...   

But I'm curious about that bundle of legs you got a bit way up... what's that?? Is that the same T as the sex me T? Funny pic anyway!


----------



## Sheri (Apr 24, 2005)

Some more... L. parahybana, mature female.

Bonnetina cyaneifemur, not sexed, sub-adult.

B. vagans, needing a molt.


----------



## Apocalypstick (Apr 24, 2005)

Those last two were great....


----------



## Fred (May 31, 2005)

nice Pics Sheri, I like the P platyomma.


----------

