I'm reading this Understanding Exposure book, and it's great. Even when the author talks about stuff I know, I'm inspired. All of those recommendations sure weren't wrong. I'm only a weensy-eensy way into the book, but I'm already hot to master all-manual shooting.
And this guy has more books? Wow.
Although my photography goals have barely bubbled above "take snapshots that usually don't suck," I realize we have some nice (for the price) lenses around the house here and therefore should aim to step up the game. (I can't believe we haven't gone gallivanting with the new telephoto. There are some plans for it, though, and they involve.... SPACE ALIENS! Stay tuned.)
The lens we got for our 10-year anniversary last year was the 100mm macro. Tonight, when a tiny praying mantis hopped onto the sofa arm, I got my chance to play the "how fast can I jump off this sofa, cross the room, grab the camera, take 20 or so photos, hate them even through the tiny screen, marvel that the mantis hasn't moved, change lenses, still be disgusted, change shutter speeds at least fifteen times, add the shutter-release cable, frown again, thank the mantis for still barely moving, add the mini tripod, hold the whole contraption against my face, and hold my breath the entire time, and finally get one shot I don't mind" game. This was the prize:
No, it's not amazing. (And hello? Our sofa is green, not brown.) BUT! It was fun. And the only reason Miss Shakyhands here got any picture at all is because I switched the ISO to 1600.
(I didn't bother to set the tripod up; I just used it as a handle, kind of like a battery grip without the batteries.)
ISO 1600 - do you have any idea how much I fear it? Memories of museum "no flash!" photos taken with a film camera at 1600, and all the grain, grain, grain.
But, a recent Pioneer Woman tutorial enbravened (as The Simpsons would say) me to go ahead and fly at 1600. I mean, who cares about grain when the alternative is almost certain blur?
So, a bow to Bryan Peterson's book for showing me that "Manual" mode doesn't mean giving up cool camera features, and a curtsy to PW's Miz Booshay for selling the 1600.
Now, who will be the mentor for reminding me to CHANGE THE ISO BACK? With the external flash going, this one's ISO sure didn't need to be dialed up so high:
But he's cute, no? And really tuckered out. He and his sister/daughter/wife/alloftheabove? are the two hamsters we bypassed at the shelter before finding Cricket and Susan.
I'm sorry they had to wait a few extra days for us to cave in, to decide that if we want "gummies," we ought to get them from a sweet hamster who is likely to already be pregnant, but if we hadn't waited, we wouldn't have C&S. And I am pretty darn crazy about C&S. And C&S&S&E&S&A&P. And now ?&?.
It's nice having a big hamily again (11!) of assorted ages. (I doubt we'll ever hit the 20+ days again - that's the lifestyle of a telecommuter.) I wish I knew more about these two hamsters, other than someone dropped them off a few weeks ago. They're easy-going and friendly, that's for sure. The big guy (pictured above) seems pretty old - greying with bald spots. However, because they're "satin" hamsters (think "wet look"), it's harder to judge their ages, and of course the baldness could be due to stress/environment. (They were living in a rather filthy shoebox wire cage with no wheel, chew toys, etc. The encrusted poo actually stained the plastic hideyhole that came with them.)
The older hammies, being older, were still asleep during picture time last night. I did finally get a better one of Susan, though:
Still at 1600. Argh. I have to end this post and go across the room and change it right now. 1600 is a nice place to shoot, but you wouldn't want to default there.
Comments