Would U be more jealous if I took ur digicam and took *better* pix of MS's grow? Unless U have a very old digicam, or very inexpensive one that has a really lousy lens, has a silly high MP sensor (12MP or greater), little other than full auto mode; then I could do betterDeej wrote:Awesome buddage!
You have great pics too.my dig cam won't let me get that close.
I am jealous
. Not sure if I could help instruct u how *u* could do better, but if this site is still here after May, if I'm still here, if U have loads of patience (seemingly almost always the downfall :D) I'll give it a shot 
Deej wrote:I live in an apartment so grow has to be as simple as possible.
Wish I still had the set-up I used for 6 years but I don't...
My girls will give me good bud & that's what counts,eh?
If what U mean by you live in an appt, and need to be able to disassemble and leave as when U moved in w/o a trace, that does pose some obstacles/issues. If not, U could do a cabinet grow like MS's or smaller. There are numerous 400w & 250w cabinet grows where the cabinet is split in 2, so you can keep a cloning system going in just one enclosure.
Hmm, won't get into a debate w/U on Canna nutes, PK stuff, but someday u might come around to what is being discussed over on RIU in UB's thread:Marabou Stork wrote:The site is allowing me to post bigger files than I think it use to. Camera is a Canon 300D Rebel and the macro lens is an EF100mm. It can do more than I know how so most of my photos will be taken on one of the auto modes.
Nutrients are mostly Canna Nutes A and B and for these Trainwrecks, I don't give more than 800~900 ppm (EC 1.6~1.8). It just occurred to me that usually I have given them some PK13/14 by now.
http://www.rollitup.org/marijuana-plant ... bloom.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Is Ur TW one of the 'clone' only, or from a seed source?
Should be finishing right about (70-75days) the time this site is supposed to self-destruct like Mission Impossible.
I can help instruct on how to better utilize that 300D, with or w/o the Macro lens. But 1st U'll have to do me a favor and learn to take the additional step of compressing your images for the web. On the old PG, as well as OG, it was automatically done to all images uploaded, the forum software would re-compress all images to make the file sizes smaller to save bandwidth. Unfortunately even w/auto compression, the site Admn decide to have silly high limits on file sizes, 2MB. Try that on other sites where they are trying to save costs of bandwidth...TCC had a very low limit of around 296k, IIRC. It took some hard-nosed lobbying to convince Shoddy Noody, the benefit of upping that limit to 500k (text and graphic overlay layers utilized in PS would have 'jagged' edges when compressing them to less than ~300k file size) for image tutorials/guides.
For me, on dialup, it takes a 1min. for a single 300k image to load on any given thread, if there are 30 images on a page, it takes 1/2hr
. The few images as *thumbnail* attachments in this thread took several minutes to finish displaying. If those were all 1.7MB images posted from a gallery, on one page, it would take hours to for them all to finish loading, assuming they did not fail to load (often happens, I can't even use Photobucket anymore 
, their servers don't have enough bandwidth to even display 300k images...they just stall/timeout on a slow connection).Just about any image editor allows for compressing the file. With Photoshop Elements or the full PS like I have, use the 'save for web' for the greatest ability to reduce file size.
I tweaked the macro shot with PS, darkened it some, took out a little excessive green, small amount of yellow, and then used a light amount of unsharp mask to make it look a little sharper. Nothing can be done though, to fix the majority of the image which is mostly out of focus. There is a *very* narrow 'vertical' plane of sharp focus in that image, and unfortunately the autofocus wasn't able to lock on the pistils...they are not as sharp as they could be.
Suggestions, if U have a tripod, use it, always. On the Macro, best to learn how to go to manual focus mode, but barring that, learn to use *aperture* priority mode. In that mode, the camera will try to adjust shutter speed for the given 'aperture' that you manually select. U should try selecting an aperture value of F8 to start, this is where the lens is likely it's sharpest...I'd have to go check the review/tests of that particular lens to be sure. At F8 you should get greater DOF (depth of field>focus) which is to say the entire bud might have been in sharp focus, even with the AF missing the pistils as a desired focus point. Of course the farther away from the subject, the greater the apparent DOF, you just end up having to crop your image to take that part that you want to post.
Assuming Deej's simple PnS digicam has no macro setting, or one that won't allow her to get as closeup a shot as she'd like, she can watch the LED focus indicator turn green at near the limit of it's ability to focus closely, and just capture the image, then with an image editor, crop the image down to size that includes only the bud or part that she wants to display.
Macro lenses end up with a very narrow DOF, so you either have to know how to manually focus, like Subcool does, or set aperture to F8 or higher. LOL, I haven't checked, but as of 2007 Subby was still not aware (he's taken a basic photog class and admits to still learning) that he could have an entire length wise bud in full focus if he's just move the camera/lens farther away, and then crop off excess in the image, to include only the bud. I've seen a 6in log bud shot, done @F8 where the ends of the bud were still not as sharp as the central part.
Pistils banned me over on BB, cause I dared to state I could help the canna photog god Subby improve his knowledge, for 'looking down' on everyone <his interpretation, and all the lemmings there. No one there could hear of being taught anything by an 'outsider'; much as most MJ mod teams, can't bear to be told they don't know it all as far as how to run a website 
Massive egos being threatened I mean, where are all of my books with budshots :D, the usual retort. Fuck, *any* knowledgeable hack, intermediate level photog on any of the photog forums could take better bud shots than all but a few on MJ forums, most could do better than Subcool; you don't need to be a pro.
With a 'crop factor' sensor (opposed to a full-frame sensor like $$$$ Canon 5DmkII) using a higher aperture greater than F8 or so, will start to lose some absolute sharpness from an optical limiting phenomena called diffraction, in other words, you can set to a higher aperture number like F11, or F16, but the image will lose a slight amount of sharpness, while at the same time, the DOF is increased bringing a greater amount of the image into sharper focus
. Taking a wild guess I'd say the Macro shot was at F5.6 or lower, maybe the lens was wild open @ F2.8?
If U like I can post up a few links that explain some of these concepts better than I can...there are many sites that have these concepts explained.
The tweaked image, you macro shot, compressed @50 quality setting in 'save for web' on PS, got that 1.7MB file, down in size to only 300k, and that's be retaining the full 2kx 1.6k pixel size. If I had reduced the actual image pixel size/dimensions (as opposed to file size), I could have then gotten an even smaller file size after compression. @ 30 level u start to lose some detail to compression artifacts, but most wouldn't even notice there. I've seen some very noticeable compression artifacts, like some of the images arb has posted b4
