unidentified flying objects land for photo

Today's snap shot in the back yard:




click "view image" to count the nose hairs.



best regards,
mike

Excellent "macro" shot there Mike.  The color register makes me think Nikon.  (I shoot a D60).

It was probably the polarizer.  Lots of folks don't like the way that Nikons "saturate the color" but I happen to like it very much.  As I do your wonderful picture.  Thanks for sharing!

Nice.

Back in the day I used a Canon FX series (think that's right) ....old school 35mm film, with an assortment of lenses to shoot some pretty amazing close up shots of a praying mantis that took up residence on my flower pot for a few weeks. It would feast on the other bugs that came to the flowers.

I still have the Canon and all the lenses. It seems all the digital stuff has caused the price and value of the 35mm stuff to really crash. The camera and lenses were totally, 100% manual. The only thing remotely "high tech" on that Canon was the fact that it has a light meter..... but focus, F-stops, exposure, is all up to the discretion and expertise of the user.

I also used it to shoot a number of comets and other night time sky stuff.

It was a fun hobby, and even provided a bit of income to offset the costs of the hobby.... I did some aerial photography and sold the pics.... I shot one wedding and swore.... never again, and I didn't.

digital cameras were the "death" of film cameras.  I, too, have a lot of 35mm equipment.  but the camera bodies are worthless, while the lenses are still worth at least something.

digital cameras give the population "instant gratification" - no more waiting on film to be processed - even at the 1 hour photo labs.

kodak stopped making kodachrome film in 2009.  that's a BIG deal towards killing the value of the film cameras.

I agree with both of you.  I have a couple of 35mm bodies that haven't been used in a few years.  There is one advantage to digital, though--it makes learning basic photography much less expensive than it used to be with 35mm.  On the other hand, learning to use a darkroom does facilitate a deeper appreciation and knowledge of the process of seeing the image.  I'm afraid that will be lost to future generations of photographers.  I guess Photoshop will have to take its place. 

A couple of years ago my dad, whose had macular degeneration for a few years, offered me his darkroom equipment, but I turned it down since it's so much easier (usually) to make adjustments via the computer.

Anyway, it also occurs to me how "un-green" all those chemicals probably are, not to mention that most people just dumped them down the drain.  So, perhaps, there's another benefit to going digital.