Re: 10 new photographs in PF members' exhibit space on 11 JAN 2014

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



So how did you get f36?

On Jan 12, 2014 2:37 PM, "Trevor Cunningham" <trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It's an f22 lens. However, it adjusts to up to f45 at 1:1. Hmm. I'll need to back my strobe up. If memory serves, I'm already at 1/16th power on a 400. I just like the shadows I get in the tent with the strobe as close as it is. The D300s won't synch above 1/320th, so I have to stop it way down because the ISO doesn't really go below 200. The wife would leave me if I upgraded to anything full frame.

On 1/12/14, 8:21 PM, Randy Little wrote:
f36 on a digital camera is WAY WAY WAY to high. airy disk diffusion can cause the lack of sharpness unless you have a large sensor with large pixels.     I would think some light from another angle somewhere to help shape the fruit might help as well.   Its a start though.




Randy S. Little
http://www.rslittle.com/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/




On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Trevor Cunningham <trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:trevor@chalkjockeys.com>> wrote:

    And the aperture is f36! I've thought about stacking, and probably
    should given the overwhelming majority of my subject matter
    doesn't move. This might be a good approach with composites using
    fewer pictures. Not sure sure what it is, maybe someone could
    explain the physics to me. But these macro composites hate
    tripods...the images won't align...probably why focus consistency
    is an issue here. I understand that more successful panoramic
    images have a very particular point of rotation that is likely to
    be ahead of the tripod mount. But if I'm shooting macro, I need
    vertical pivot as well...maybe I'm wrong? Perhaps, at this scale
    (1:2 - 1:3 as an estimate), I'm able to get away with slightly
    raising the camera vertically and pivoting less. Could this reduce
    distortion that prevents image alignment?

    HERE
    <https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-FlsH3yu7gWk/Uq70-3jaH2I/AAAAAAAADYo/GNSPckkjCDA/w1280-h793-no/Lizard.jpg>
    is a perfect example of one composed using a tripod. None of these
    pictures aligned, so I did it manually. Bracketing the focus would
    have been a tremendous plus here as I could have gotten the feet,
    tail, and head a lot sharper. I thought it came out well, but now
    I'm getting some better perspective.



    On 1/12/14, 6:07 PM, Randy Little wrote:


        Trevor why are you limited by dof? Changing the plan of focus
        would solve that problem.   You can also do focus brackets I'd
        the previous isn't an option

        On Jan 12, 2014 9:45 AM, "Trevor Cunningham"
        <trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:trevor@chalkjockeys.com>
        <mailto:trevor@chalkjockeys.com
        <mailto:trevor@chalkjockeys.com>>> wrote:

            No need to qualify at all! My approach to these images is
        that,
            maybe someday, I'll print them full size. having patches
        of poor
            exposure is not an option. I am limited with DoF given
        they are
            all macro images. It's a testament to the challenge with the
            pictures. Thanks for the feedback, I'll look into it!

            On 1/12/14, 12:59 PM, Gregory wrote:

                Hylocereus Study:

                Fascinating subject composition. But again, and I am
        tired of
                this, the subject is not in focus!!!! This subject
        suggests
                that many topics were used to create the final addition.
                Multiple frames layered one onto the other which can
        create
                some amazing images, but especially in sharpening. In
                Astronomy, it is the technique commonly used to gain more
                sharpness of a planet or moon. Thousands of images are
        stacked
                to create one very sharp image.

                I do like the image.

                To qualify, I am using a 45in HD monitor. If all of these
                subjects are indeed sharp to everyone else, then I
        apologize.
                But my monitor does render a lot of these images as
        too soft
                for qualification.

                But not all of them.






[Index of Archives] [Share Photos] [Epson Inkjet] [Scanner List] [Gimp Users] [Gimp for Windows]

  Powered by Linux