I've seen some work with the dye and water, not sure if it was his,
though. The serpentine set blew my mind, and really speaks to the
relationships one would have to develop with museum curators to manage
the logistics of such an endeavor. I've recently started looking into
ideas revolving around surface tension and chemical reactions. Getting
tired of leaves and produce.
On 1/13/14, 7:18 PM, Randy Little wrote:
Trevor I don't know if this is similar to what you are trying to
achieve but Mark Laita's work might interest you as an area of
research into similar work into shooting singular subjects with color
and texture.
http://www.marklaita.net/projects/nature.html All his book projects
might interest you it a mamoth site with way to much to sort through
haha.
Randy S. Little
http://www.rslittle.com/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Trevor Cunningham
<trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
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>
<mailto: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>>
<mailto: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>>>
<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:
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>>>>
<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
<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.
