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.
