SPIDERS! YAY!

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
c h u n k
OP c h u n k Senior Member • Posts: 1,564
Re: SPIDERS! YAY!

colacat wrote:

c h u n k wrote:

colacat wrote:

c h u n k wrote:

colacat wrote:

I enjoy everyone of it, really nice photos!

I recently tried to make my new diffuser with new material, I don't remember how many version I have been done , but I think this will be the final version

Will try to post some photos soon

I actually just made another diffuser too. Primarily for longer working distances that is the main issue I have with the 100mm macro. Amazing how just a few inches make it so much harder to get good, nice light. Im very happy with the results Im getting with it though. And, yeah, its like the 20th diffuser Ive engineered. Im about to make another one for my twin flash, and Im excited about the idea - hopefully results justify my excitement. Ive had other "good ideas" they ended up with subpar results.

Diffusers are all about making good quality, soft light, controlling specular highlights. Ideally they would be quickly adjustable for different scenarios, but that is difficult. The other big thing for me is that they can quickly fold down to being able to stuff in my bag without damaging them. I really want a 3d printer solely for diffusion designs. Its really odd how this need has been entirely overlooked even if considering how niche it is. Kazillions of Gary Fong knock offs, and other diffusers, let alone the massive market for larger softboxes, umbrellas, reflectors, etc etc. but if you want to find a good manufactured macro diffuser, nothing exists. At least nothing that even comes close to our diy designs.

We are on the same boat , I keep searching for a commercial products for the twin flash for many years , and not found anything yet until recently I've found a guy with his terrific macro work , he actually quite generous to share how he makes the diffuser for his work , he even sells the whole set (a modified version of third party speed light + diffuser )online. I didn't bother to buy the whole set because I already have the Canon MT-24ex , so I asked him about the material that he uses to make the diffuser , he told me that he uses vinyl lampshade as diffuser material. I am still working on it , hopefully will get it done by the end of the week.

Talking about the size of the diffuser , I would want a portable size as well, but I found that if the diffuser's too small, it would give harsh hot spot no matter how many layers of material I put on to diffuse the light. The larger the better , I am looking for a perfect size which would give me beautiful diffused light but not turning the diffuser into 2 light bulb. I will post my work later on

Can't wait to see your work with your next generation of diffuser

Remember, its not the size, or lack of that controls how soft or hard light is. It is also the distance from subject. The sun is a HUGE light source, but its light to us earthling is very hard because its distance makes its effective size very small (about the size of my thumb). Some macro lenses or rigs cause very close working distances which makes it much easier to light. My last design is a lot smaller, but the light is much softer because the diffuser stays right along the lenses field of view.

Totally agree with you , the size is not all about the diffuser, the distance between the lens and the subject and the distance between the light and the diffuser both need to be considered in making a diffuser as well. I've not yet found any solution to diffuse the light with smaller diffuser since the mt-24 dual light is attached in front of the lens. They are so closed to the subject, I got 2 of the mini ball head to bring up the height of the light , but I hope it could be taller. I might try the dual arm if my version doesn't work well .

I have 2 7 inch friction arms on my twin flash. Here is recent shot with new diffuser for single flash

-- hide signature --

**********-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**********
Some of my photos here: https://flic.kr/ps/2i6XL3
“You're off to Great Places! Today is your day! Your mountain is waiting, So... get on your way!” --Dr. Seuss

 c h u n k's gear list:c h u n k's gear list
Canon EOS 70D Canon 6D Mark II Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Tamron AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) +7 more
John K Veteran Member • Posts: 7,749
Re: SPIDERS! YAY!

c h u n k wrote:

John K wrote:

c h u n k wrote:

...At least nothing that even comes close to our diy designs.

This is the only diffuser I know of and if memory serves me correctly it didn't cut the hot spot out of the MT-24EX. Not the diffuser's fault though, the MT-24 doesn't really have a built in diffuser. The Fresnel plastic on the front of the flash heads is a joke.

I have the MT-26EX-RT version of Ian's diffuser on my desk and hope to field test it this weekend for a review. I expect it to perform better just because the MT-26 does have a built in diffuser that works, and the flash heads are a little bigger than the MT-24.

The only down side to the diffuser is that they are a little wider than I'd like them to be, so it's not possible to position the flash heads at 12 and 3 for a traditional key and fill effect, but I think I can get them close enough to get the shadow control that I want.

Oh yeah, I saw a post with that guys design and couldnt find it. Can you link me, please. Also, if you could share your review and some results, that would be great. I know you primarily shoot bees, but if you come upon any jumping spiders, ladybirds/ladybugs or other shiny beatles to really see how it holds to hot spots, that would be great.

Here's the review

I recently saw polarizers being used, and the results, though a bit flat, were extraordinary as there was literally no specular highlights.

I tried polarizers many moons ago. Yes, they will cut out the hot spot, but they'll also drop the light out from the flash by two full stops and to me the colors were off.

-- hide signature --

Also known as Dalantech
My Book: http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2010/01/extreme-macro-art-of-patience.html
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder...

John K Veteran Member • Posts: 7,749
Re: SPIDERS! YAY!

c h u n k wrote:

Remember, its not the size, or lack of that controls how soft or hard light is. It is also the distance from subject. The sun is a HUGE light source, but its light to us earthling is very hard because its distance makes its effective size very small (about the size of my thumb). Some macro lenses or rigs cause very close working distances which makes it much easier to light. My last design is a lot smaller, but the light is much softer because the diffuser stays right along the lenses field of view.

Called apparent light size . <--That article at Strobist was a game changer for me. It explained a lot of the issues I was having shooting flash macro with a 100mm macro lens. Too much working distance.

-- hide signature --

Also known as Dalantech
My Book: http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2010/01/extreme-macro-art-of-patience.html
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder...

John K Veteran Member • Posts: 7,749
Re: SPIDERS! YAY!

c h u n k wrote:

NikonNature wrote:

These are fantastic! The lighting is excellent. May I ask what the approx. working distance is? Most jumping spiders are quite small aren't they?

They are small indeed. I honestly forget what my magnification was or if I used an achromat, but think its just 1x because they are cropped much more than I normally crop. With that said, I think cropping gets a bad rep considering most of us just share online. If printing, that changes things, but if sharing on FB and instagram you can crop a lot and noone will ever know the difference. I still try to not crop, or crop as little as possible, but Im not as opposed to it as I used to be.

That mentality works until your photos get popular and suddenly those cropped images end up getting printed. I know of a pretty well known macro shooter who got published in Popular Photography magazine, one who cropped his photos. To this day I don't understand how the editors ran the images, cause they looked almost as bad as the genitalia in a Japanese porno.

-- hide signature --

Also known as Dalantech
My Book: http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2010/01/extreme-macro-art-of-patience.html
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder...

NancyP Veteran Member • Posts: 6,332
Yay! SPIDERS! YAY!

Lovely photos.

This is also the season for orb weavers to string their webs across trails, showing themselves to photographers, and also giving said photographers the guilts if there's no way to move past without breaking their web.

-- hide signature --

NancyP

 NancyP's gear list:NancyP's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill
colacat
colacat Contributing Member • Posts: 546
Re: SPIDERS! YAY!

last night I played a bit with my new diffuser , I cheat by picking up a beetle with shiny shell from my garden and put it on my house plant to shoot, so all shoots are indoor.  I would say it works better than my previous diffusers, but still too big.

 colacat's gear list:colacat's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM +7 more
c h u n k
OP c h u n k Senior Member • Posts: 1,564
Re: SPIDERS! YAY!

John K wrote:

c h u n k wrote:

NikonNature wrote:

These are fantastic! The lighting is excellent. May I ask what the approx. working distance is? Most jumping spiders are quite small aren't they?

They are small indeed. I honestly forget what my magnification was or if I used an achromat, but think its just 1x because they are cropped much more than I normally crop. With that said, I think cropping gets a bad rep considering most of us just share online. If printing, that changes things, but if sharing on FB and instagram you can crop a lot and noone will ever know the difference. I still try to not crop, or crop as little as possible, but Im not as opposed to it as I used to be.

That mentality works until your photos get popular and suddenly those cropped images end up getting printed. I know of a pretty well known macro shooter who got published in Popular Photography magazine, one who cropped his photos. To this day I don't understand how the editors ran the images, cause they looked almost as bad as the genitalia in a Japanese porno.

John, I know you are being cool with how you are discreet about who that was. Was it TS? Ive been dying to know. PM me and I will never say a word.

-- hide signature --

**********-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**********
Some of my photos here: https://flic.kr/ps/2i6XL3
“You're off to Great Places! Today is your day! Your mountain is waiting, So... get on your way!” --Dr. Seuss

 c h u n k's gear list:c h u n k's gear list
Canon EOS 70D Canon 6D Mark II Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Tamron AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) +7 more
c h u n k
OP c h u n k Senior Member • Posts: 1,564
Re: SPIDERS! YAY!

John K wrote:

c h u n k wrote:

NikonNature wrote:

These are fantastic! The lighting is excellent. May I ask what the approx. working distance is? Most jumping spiders are quite small aren't they?

They are small indeed. I honestly forget what my magnification was or if I used an achromat, but think its just 1x because they are cropped much more than I normally crop. With that said, I think cropping gets a bad rep considering most of us just share online. If printing, that changes things, but if sharing on FB and instagram you can crop a lot and noone will ever know the difference. I still try to not crop, or crop as little as possible, but Im not as opposed to it as I used to be.

That mentality works until your photos get popular and suddenly those cropped images end up getting printed. I know of a pretty well known macro shooter who got published in Popular Photography magazine, one who cropped his photos. To this day I don't understand how the editors ran the images, cause they looked almost as bad as the genitalia in a Japanese porno.

Also, I have plenty I would pick from if anyone wanted to publish. The reality is that many peoples work just ends op on social media, and even flickr, if viewed large, wont blow up to screen size if its cropped a lot. I wouldnt allow photos to be printed if they looked bad.

-- hide signature --

**********-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**********
Some of my photos here: https://flic.kr/ps/2i6XL3
“You're off to Great Places! Today is your day! Your mountain is waiting, So... get on your way!” --Dr. Seuss

 c h u n k's gear list:c h u n k's gear list
Canon EOS 70D Canon 6D Mark II Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Tamron AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) +7 more
John K Veteran Member • Posts: 7,749
Re: SPIDERS! YAY!

c h u n k wrote:

John K wrote:

c h u n k wrote:

NikonNature wrote:

These are fantastic! The lighting is excellent. May I ask what the approx. working distance is? Most jumping spiders are quite small aren't they?

They are small indeed. I honestly forget what my magnification was or if I used an achromat, but think its just 1x because they are cropped much more than I normally crop. With that said, I think cropping gets a bad rep considering most of us just share online. If printing, that changes things, but if sharing on FB and instagram you can crop a lot and noone will ever know the difference. I still try to not crop, or crop as little as possible, but Im not as opposed to it as I used to be.

That mentality works until your photos get popular and suddenly those cropped images end up getting printed. I know of a pretty well known macro shooter who got published in Popular Photography magazine, one who cropped his photos. To this day I don't understand how the editors ran the images, cause they looked almost as bad as the genitalia in a Japanese porno.

John, I know you are being cool with how you are discreet about who that was. Was it TS? Ive been dying to know. PM me and I will never say a word.

LMAO! No need to PM you my friend...

I think that he single highhandedly set macro back a decade or more. There hasn't been another macro photographer featured the way that he was since.

Edit: I want to set the record straight. About 6 months before he was published I was chatting with him about his photos via Flickr mail, and I told him that he needed to find a way to get the framing that he wanted without cropping (I don't crop, for a lot of reasons). He pretty much ignored me, and hindsight being what it is I think that he was under an NDA at the time and knew he was gonna get published. Fast forward 6 months and someone tells me that TS was published in Popular Photography and I was excited -really. Finally someone that created well composed and well exposed images was getting some publicity -maybe this was gonna propel macro into the spotlight. I bought a copy of the magazine and was instantly disappointed at the fuzzy photos. I really thought that macro as a discipline had died cause no one was gonna take it seriously after TS's images were printed in a main stream magazine, and in fact no one has been published since. To this day I think that he had a friend or fan that worked for Pop Photo and that's the only reason why his images were printed.

-- hide signature --

Also known as Dalantech
My Book: http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2010/01/extreme-macro-art-of-patience.html
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder...

c h u n k
OP c h u n k Senior Member • Posts: 1,564
Re: SPIDERS! YAY!

John K wrote:

c h u n k wrote:

John K wrote:

c h u n k wrote:

NikonNature wrote:

These are fantastic! The lighting is excellent. May I ask what the approx. working distance is? Most jumping spiders are quite small aren't they?

They are small indeed. I honestly forget what my magnification was or if I used an achromat, but think its just 1x because they are cropped much more than I normally crop. With that said, I think cropping gets a bad rep considering most of us just share online. If printing, that changes things, but if sharing on FB and instagram you can crop a lot and noone will ever know the difference. I still try to not crop, or crop as little as possible, but Im not as opposed to it as I used to be.

That mentality works until your photos get popular and suddenly those cropped images end up getting printed. I know of a pretty well known macro shooter who got published in Popular Photography magazine, one who cropped his photos. To this day I don't understand how the editors ran the images, cause they looked almost as bad as the genitalia in a Japanese porno.

John, I know you are being cool with how you are discreet about who that was. Was it TS? Ive been dying to know. PM me and I will never say a word.

LMAO! No need to PM you my friend...

I think that he single highhandedly set macro back a decade or more. There hasn't been another macro photographer featured the way that he was since.

Edit: I want to set the record straight. About 6 months before he was published I was chatting with him about his photos via Flickr mail, and I told him that he needed to find a way to get the framing that he wanted without cropping (I don't crop, for a lot of reasons). He pretty much ignored me, and hindsight being what it is I think that he was under an NDA at the time and knew he was gonna get published. Fast forward 6 months and someone tells me that TS was published in Popular Photography and I was excited -really. Finally someone that created well composed and well exposed images was getting some publicity -maybe this was gonna propel macro into the spotlight. I bought a copy of the magazine and was instantly disappointed at the fuzzy photos. I really thought that macro as a discipline had died cause no one was gonna take it seriously after TS's images were printed in a main stream magazine, and in fact no one has been published since. To this day I think that he had a friend or fan that worked for Pop Photo and that's the only reason why his images were printed.

Well, in his defense...kind of I guess, it was him that really inspired me to really get in to macro. I mean, there were other things, but it really was his work that 1st introduced me to contemporary insect photography. Because of that, I dont know what the style of macro was before he blew up..or during that time by other photographers, but it really does seem like many, many other photogs went after his "look". I still think his work is super impressive but I admittedly didnt see it printed there. Nat Geo published him too. With that said there are others that I aspire to just as much...if not more than him now. I just found another guy on instagram that is putting out INSANE images. 30-50 image stacks, handheld. Causing massive time for his edits in like the tens of hours, but the results are pretty nuts.

Funny, I have kind of put together the pieces over the past couple years and always wondered if it was him. He just happened to go viral right after I bought my 1st set of tubes. To think all I wanted at 1st was to be able to see an insects compound eyes when I started. Ive gotten awfully more picky since then

-- hide signature --

**********-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**********
Some of my photos here: https://flic.kr/ps/2i6XL3
“You're off to Great Places! Today is your day! Your mountain is waiting, So... get on your way!” --Dr. Seuss

 c h u n k's gear list:c h u n k's gear list
Canon EOS 70D Canon 6D Mark II Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Tamron AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) +7 more
John K Veteran Member • Posts: 7,749
Re: SPIDERS! YAY!

c h u n k wrote:

John K wrote:

c h u n k wrote:

John K wrote:

c h u n k wrote:

NikonNature wrote:

These are fantastic! The lighting is excellent. May I ask what the approx. working distance is? Most jumping spiders are quite small aren't they?

They are small indeed. I honestly forget what my magnification was or if I used an achromat, but think its just 1x because they are cropped much more than I normally crop. With that said, I think cropping gets a bad rep considering most of us just share online. If printing, that changes things, but if sharing on FB and instagram you can crop a lot and noone will ever know the difference. I still try to not crop, or crop as little as possible, but Im not as opposed to it as I used to be.

That mentality works until your photos get popular and suddenly those cropped images end up getting printed. I know of a pretty well known macro shooter who got published in Popular Photography magazine, one who cropped his photos. To this day I don't understand how the editors ran the images, cause they looked almost as bad as the genitalia in a Japanese porno.

John, I know you are being cool with how you are discreet about who that was. Was it TS? Ive been dying to know. PM me and I will never say a word.

LMAO! No need to PM you my friend...

I think that he single highhandedly set macro back a decade or more. There hasn't been another macro photographer featured the way that he was since.

Edit: I want to set the record straight. About 6 months before he was published I was chatting with him about his photos via Flickr mail, and I told him that he needed to find a way to get the framing that he wanted without cropping (I don't crop, for a lot of reasons). He pretty much ignored me, and hindsight being what it is I think that he was under an NDA at the time and knew he was gonna get published. Fast forward 6 months and someone tells me that TS was published in Popular Photography and I was excited -really. Finally someone that created well composed and well exposed images was getting some publicity -maybe this was gonna propel macro into the spotlight. I bought a copy of the magazine and was instantly disappointed at the fuzzy photos. I really thought that macro as a discipline had died cause no one was gonna take it seriously after TS's images were printed in a main stream magazine, and in fact no one has been published since. To this day I think that he had a friend or fan that worked for Pop Photo and that's the only reason why his images were printed.

Well, in his defense...kind of I guess, it was him that really inspired me to really get in to macro. I mean, there were other things, but it really was his work that 1st introduced me to contemporary insect photography. Because of that, I dont know what the style of macro was before he blew up..or during that time by other photographers, but it really does seem like many, many other photogs went after his "look". I still think his work is super impressive but I admittedly didnt see it printed there. Nat Geo published him too. With that said there are others that I aspire to just as much...if not more than him now. I just found another guy on instagram that is putting out INSANE images. 30-50 image stacks, handheld. Causing massive time for his edits in like the tens of hours, but the results are pretty nuts.

Funny, I have kind of put together the pieces over the past couple years and always wondered if it was him. He just happened to go viral right after I bought my 1st set of tubes. To think all I wanted at 1st was to be able to see an insects compound eyes when I started. Ive gotten awfully more picky since then

When Nat Geo published a couple of his shots they were for some back of the mag sidebar pieces, so they were small enough not to look pixelated. Me thinks that the editors knew that they wouldn't look good printed large.

TS claimed that he was editing his images on an old laptop that didn't have a very good screen, so he was pushing the saturation pretty hard. Personally I liked the over saturated look, and his images were popular outside of the macro community because of the color, light, and composition. Most of the macro community didn't like his work because they thought it looked too saturated (a complaint that has been leveled at me from time to time). But in order for anyone's work to get popular it has to appeal to a wide audience, so catering to the whims of the macro community isn't a good thing.

Everyone was also convinced that TS was refrigerating his subjects. I view every jumping spider shot with a healthy dose of scepticism unless it's with prey because they typically do not stay put long enough even for a single frame. TS was managing to photograph a lot of them, and when he went to New York to be on The Today Show (for a very short segment on his photography) he had some jumping spiders in a plastic container...

If his photos weren't cropped the wave he was on could have turned into a tsunami. But his shots just weren't usable outside of the web. Yet another reason why I don't allow myself to crop in post. The other is that the view finder will hone your composition skills, and the cropping tool in post won't. Cropping just leads to some bad, lazy, habits that are best avoided.

As for social media: There are better photos on Instagram and Facebook than all of the online forums combined. I don't post much on forums because the general mentality is that absolute image sharpness is the only thing that counts, and I'm tired of arguing with people who can't see the photo cause the pixels are in the way. I was never inspired or impressed by the macro images I saw until I got on IG. I still get most of my inspiration from portrait photographers though. Me thinks that razor sharp photos of stationary subjects has had it's day -the shark was jumped a while ago. Maybe not to the extent of water drop photography, which is really dead, but it's getting close.

Something to keep in mind: The general consensus with John Q. Public is that focus stacking isn't photography -it's just another form of computer generated art. So John Q. doesn't think too highly of focus stacked images...

-- hide signature --

Also known as Dalantech
My Book: http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2010/01/extreme-macro-art-of-patience.html
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder...

John K Veteran Member • Posts: 7,749
Re: SPIDERS! YAY!

c h u n k wrote:

Well, in his defense...kind of I guess, it was him that really inspired me to really get in to macro. I mean, there were other things, but it really was his work that 1st introduced me to contemporary insect photography.

TS's work was resonating with people who were not into macro because his photos are well lit and composed, unlike the razor sharp garbage you see posted all over forums today. Right now there's a thread on this forum about flowers that the shooter spent a month focus stacking. Not one of those shots, except for maybe the one with the insect in it, needed to be stacked and I don't like any of them cause the light and composition is poor. But every little pixel is sharp though.

*Sigh*

Because of that, I dont know what the style of macro was before he blew up..or during that time by other photographers, but it really does seem like many, many other photogs went after his "look".

The same as it is today -razor sharp, poorly composed, and poorly exposed images. Photos that don't get any play outside of the forums that they're posted on. As unpopular as this next statement is gonna be I'll say it anyway: All of the current macro forums are nothing more than useless circle jerks of mediocrity. Lots of people thinking that they're photography is the neatest thing since sliced bread because of all the feedback that they get. But they get feedback on their work only because they give it, and getting a present on your birthday doesn't mean that you're special -the person giving expects to receive at some point. The important feedback is when someone outside of the macro community says something positive about your work, or someone who normally doesn't like the subjects that you photograph feels better about them after viewing your work...

The saddest part to me is the almost total lack of personal growth. I see macro shooters today that I've know for years and the quality of the images that they take hasn't changed. No one gives constructive criticism anymore, but then again most people really don't want honest feedback on their work anyway. People just want to be "liked"...

I don't know of anyone that went after TSs look. Most of the people in the macro community thought his images were over saturated. I thought he was on to something special because he had a large fan base that didn't shoot macro.

Personally I think that TS's light is very diffused, but it's also pretty flat for my tastes. Too even.

I just checked TS's Flickr accounts (yup, he has more than one) and he's still cropping his photos...

-- hide signature --

Also known as Dalantech
My Book: http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2010/01/extreme-macro-art-of-patience.html
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder...

Papi Picante Junior Member • Posts: 26
Re: SPIDERS! YAY!

Love these shots. The first one is a stand out for me. It is just killer. So clear and dimensional.

 Papi Picante's gear list:Papi Picante's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 20D Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake +10 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads