![Image](http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd306/ptkip/P1210196001.jpg)
The best of the rest were....
![Image](http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd306/ptkip/P1210177001-Copy.jpg)
![Image](http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd306/ptkip/P1210172001-Copy.jpg)
Paul,Paul wrote:Well, finally took the plunge, and now am proud if somewhat nervous owner of a Canon D7
Yeah - Paul's photos have been truly awful to datepadfield wrote:Can I have your old camera, Paul?![]()
Guy
You are quite right Pete about the quality of the results from an electron microscope. The latest edition of National Geographic has some stunning photos including an amazingly beautiful one of an Adonis Blue egg. But it’s such a pity that National Geographic follows the modern trend of displaying many of its pictures over two pages. I simply cannot understand this policy as the middle gets lost in the fold of the magazine and - to my eyes at least – ruins the photos. Newspapers and books are just as guilty and spoil many superb photographs.I wonder how much an electron microscope costs?
Paul,Paul wrote: you may get the bl*%$y new one if I can't cope![]()
![]()
Looks like this discussion point came in a page or so back, so I'll get me coatMichaeljf wrote: Faded backgrounds are mostly due to aperture value, but you can lose definition of the whole of the butterflies wings with a big aperture, especially when hand-holding shots. Please stop me if I am teaching Granny to suck eggs!
Paul,Paul wrote:First go.... Canon 7D with Canon 100mm macro IS ......... fifty photos... all out of focus