Yard work
- Thread starter Tyson Rayles
- Start date
That kind of yardwork's gonna be tough to do today anyways, since there's about two feet of snow on the ground here. Although, I could shovel some additional snow onto my putting green for when it starts to melt.
Well there is no snow here but it's at least 30 -45 days from mowing or weeding, which suits me just fine.
I was watching my neighbor's dog (part Chihuahua) walking across my yard yesterday, and through part of it only her head was showing above the grass. It's getting to be about that time...
-Rory
-Rory
Originally posted by roryglasgow
I was watching my neighbor's dog (part Chihuahua) walking across my yard yesterday, and through part of it only her head was showing above the grass. It's getting to be about that time...
-Rory
The dog's head or your neighbors? Both are problems, but one is an indication that you don't need to fertilize the lawn this year.
No, it was the dog! The area she was walking through is near a sprinkler (that's part of the septic system). The grass is always a little greener there...
-Rory
The area she was walking through is near a sprinkler (that's part of the septic system). The grass is always a little greener there...-Rory
So your sprinkler is hooked up to the septic system, eh? I guess that would explain the green grass!
Just remind me not to come visiting in summertime, or at least bring a gas mask if I do! Durn'd good pic Tyson! That's one of the most difficult shots to take to get decent depth of field.
I like the atmosphere of the whole thing, really does look like start-of-day. Well done.
Errol
I like the atmosphere of the whole thing, really does look like start-of-day. Well done.
Errol
I was wondering if anybody even noticed the picture Depth of field is really hard in N-Scale with a regular camera, don't know how it is with a digital.
Depth of field is really hard in N-Scale with a regular camera, don't know how it is with a digital.
Errol,
I've done two of those kits, one as D&RGW #375, and one as a
2-4-4-2 for the Sag Harbor Shipbuilding and Drydock co. . I know what it takes to build, and I am impressed! Excellent craftsmanship, and a beautiful paint job!!
Pete
I've done two of those kits, one as D&RGW #375, and one as a
2-4-4-2 for the Sag Harbor Shipbuilding and Drydock co. . I know what it takes to build, and I am impressed! Excellent craftsmanship, and a beautiful paint job!!
Pete
Thanks Tyson but I didn't post the pic to be admired it was to show depth of field typical of digital cameras .
Pete, thanks for the comments but the paint job is by brush using Polly-S paint. Fitting the counterbalance weights on the end of each driver shaft tried me to my limits. Then I had to use a microscopic spot of epoxy resin glue to fit the securing caps to hold the main rod in place without glueing the whole mechanism solid. Very trying but such a lovely loco and a smooth runner too. The number 22 is for the benefit of my web-pen-pal in North Carolina.
Errol
(The Lone Ranger won't catch any SP Daylights with this little chuffer)
.Pete, thanks for the comments but the paint job is by brush using Polly-S paint. Fitting the counterbalance weights on the end of each driver shaft tried me to my limits. Then I had to use a microscopic spot of epoxy resin glue to fit the securing caps to hold the main rod in place without glueing the whole mechanism solid. Very trying but such a lovely loco and a smooth runner too. The number 22 is for the benefit of my web-pen-pal in North Carolina.
Errol
(The Lone Ranger won't catch any SP Daylights with this little chuffer)
Well I'll try not to admire it, but it's hard! Back to the depth of field, in the pic I posted the tank car is 2 inches from the lens and the tunnel portal is 3 feet from the lens, how is digital on something like that?
Back to the depth of field, in the pic I posted the tank car is 2 inches from the lens and the tunnel portal is 3 feet from the lens, how is digital on something like that?Tyson,
I may be able to do better later on when I get used to this camera, then again maybe not. I used the same kit Errol used.
The pilot is eight inches from the lens, and the chain link fencs,(behind the tender) was about 18".
I certainly didn't get the same depth of field you did.
Pete
I may be able to do better later on when I get used to this camera, then again maybe not. I used the same kit Errol used.
The pilot is eight inches from the lens, and the chain link fencs,(behind the tender) was about 18".
I certainly didn't get the same depth of field you did.
Pete
Attachments
Pete, you made a splendid job on that DRGW 2-8-0. I see you've done some superdetailing on it too .... 1st rate!
Tyson, I'm worried now! ... I set up three 1 yd N gauge tracks in like formation to your photo. No way was I able to get a depth of field on my digi camera as deep as your got. I'm beginning to think the focus mechanism on my camera is defective! I have a 25mm wide angle lens for my slr and will get around to trying a few experiments. When I really think about it I'm convinced real film cameras still have the edge over digital cameras. $130 spent on a decent 35mm camera makes a lot more sense than $1,240 on its performance equivelant digital.
Of course each has it's merits.
Errol .... (If that SP train appears, I may yet be able to afford the $1,240)
Tyson, I'm worried now! ... I set up three 1 yd N gauge tracks in like formation to your photo. No way was I able to get a depth of field on my digi camera as deep as your got. I'm beginning to think the focus mechanism on my camera is defective! I have a 25mm wide angle lens for my slr and will get around to trying a few experiments. When I really think about it I'm convinced real film cameras still have the edge over digital cameras. $130 spent on a decent 35mm camera makes a lot more sense than $1,240 on its performance equivelant digital.
Of course each has it's merits.
Errol .... (If that SP train appears, I may yet be able to afford the $1,240)
Errol,
Thanks. The research on that engine was complicated by the fact that it was the only one of its kind, and few photos were readily available.
Tyson,
I guess, all things considered, the pinhole aperture is still the best for good depth of field. It is, however not the quickest way of getting pictures. Digital may be the quickest, but, as we've seen, has its shortcomings.
Pete
Thanks. The research on that engine was complicated by the fact that it was the only one of its kind, and few photos were readily available.
Tyson,
I guess, all things considered, the pinhole aperture is still the best for good depth of field. It is, however not the quickest way of getting pictures. Digital may be the quickest, but, as we've seen, has its shortcomings.
Pete
Thanks for the imput, looks like you need a reg. camera when you need alot of depth (more often then you would think in N-scale) and a digital when you don't so you can save the cost of film and processing, plus enjoying the speed factor.