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]

 



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.












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

  Powered by Linux