That airy disk interactive and article was very informative. Thank you.
I've had a LensBaby for several years now. Just received the macro
adapter kit for Xmas! They're fun, but the optics really only suit the
effect of exaggerating the focal plane. I'm on the hunt for an actual
macro bellows that might give me some play likewise.
On 1/13/14, 5:53 PM, Randy Little wrote:
oh so it does sound like a mechanical design thing. I don' t know if
its just a way they do it to keep cost down or if all macro lenses do
this. But I would read that link on Airy disk defraction and see if
that helps at all. IF you do a lot of this type of shooting you
might want to look into a *_lens baby_* to help with DOF constraints
in this type of photography. The lens baby will allow you do alter
your plain of focus and give you DOF more in the direction you need it
to be. if you really want to be fancy you can looking to something
like the cambo X2 system for small format camera bodies but thats
expensivish.
Randy S. Little
http://www.rslittle.com/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Trevor Cunningham
<trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
It's a tamron 90mm f/2.8 di macro. When I stop down to f22, once I
focus into macro range it recalculates. Not sure of the mechanics
on it, but aperture controls in camera will open it up again.
On 1/12/14, 11:55 PM, Randy Little wrote:
So how did you get f36?
On Jan 12, 2014 2:37 PM, "Trevor Cunningham"
<trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
<mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
<mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>>
<mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
<mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>>>> 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.
