DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Macro VII
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 83, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/27/2010 06:31:40 PM · #26
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Hah... I have my LED ring-light, and getting my extension tubes this week :P
I should be doing ok with this one :-|


So, if you are doing so good with this, does that mean you win the hat?? What happens if you do win??


I don't wear hats... so I donate it to someone else in other challenge :P

However, roz or IreneM will get the blue and it will be either a bug or a drop anyways... no one winning macro here but one of those two!!


Jeez FocusPoint, why so negative dude?


Umm... DrAchoo may have something to say about that :)
 09/27/2010 06:32:28 PM · #27
Speaking of Macro, do many of you who do much of this style of photography use a ring flash? Or do you use flash at all?
 09/27/2010 06:33:54 PM · #28
Originally posted by jminso:
Speaking of Macro, do many of you who do much of this style of photography use a ring flash? Or do you use flash at all?


I use no flash at all...only natural light...I have a wonderful porch that has beautiful light...I don't own any flashes, except what comes on the camera...I'm sure I'm missing out of something here...but oh well
 09/27/2010 09:29:00 PM · #29


It is a closeup photo of a flower, and digitally crystallized :)

Original,



Message edited by author 2010-09-27 21:36:15.
 09/27/2010 11:50:39 PM · #30
I think this is the earliest I ever submitted in a challenge but I had a short burst of "inspiration" tonight. =)
 09/27/2010 11:53:06 PM · #31


This is a quarter dollar, States series. Hawaii 1959
 09/27/2010 11:54:24 PM · #32

*Repeat Post*

A regular #2 pencil, not sharpened
 09/30/2010 08:45:54 PM · #33
Yeah.. I got my extension tube today. This is Canon 50mm at F1.8 and a tube attached to it.

10/01/2010 07:09:57 AM · #34
My 50mm reversed (hand held)
10/01/2010 09:33:57 AM · #35
Originally posted by Silent-Shooter:
My 50mm reversed (hand held)


I have not tried reversing...how do you do that???
 10/01/2010 09:38:13 AM · #36
Originally posted by Ja-9:
Originally posted by Silent-Shooter:
My 50mm reversed (hand held)


I have not tried reversing...how do you do that???


You can buy a reversing ring to do it or you can just free hold the lens up to your camera, reversed of course. You loose aperture settings and focus so you just have to move the camera to focus and it is an insanely shallow focus plane.
 10/01/2010 09:57:32 AM · #37
Cool. So, what size filters are we talking about? ; )
 10/01/2010 09:58:49 AM · #38
Originally posted by Silent-Shooter:
My 50mm reversed (hand held)


Is that hair on the pen? You shouldn't have wrote on your cat "Will Poop in cat litter" 50 times...
 10/01/2010 10:01:55 AM · #39
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Is that hair on the pen? You shouldn't have wrote on your cat "Will Poop in cat litter" 50 times...


I'm glad this is advanced editing. I had to clone out a bunch of dust specks. Next time I do something like this, I hit it with some compressed air periodically.

Message edited by author 2010-10-01 10:02:36.
 10/01/2010 10:09:37 AM · #40
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Is that hair on the pen? You shouldn't have wrote on your cat "Will Poop in cat litter" 50 times...


I'm glad this is advanced editing. I had to clone out a bunch of dust specks. Next time I do something like this, I hit it with some compressed air periodically.

You may remove sensor dust or hot pixels in Basic Editing. You may be think of Minimal editing, where you may not spot-edit your entry for any purpose. (The Macro VII challenge is advanced editiing.) Just to clarify.
 10/01/2010 10:12:35 AM · #41
Originally posted by hahn23:
You may be think of Minimal editing, where you may not spot-edit your entry for any purpose. (The Macro VII challenge is advanced editiing.) Just to clarify.

But you cannot clone out dust on the subject in basic or minimal. You can in advanced. For instance, the hair on Stephen's pen tip above could not be cloned out under basic rules.

Message edited by author 2010-10-01 10:14:02.
 10/01/2010 08:50:58 PM · #42
just got this article from Outdoor Photographer...thought it might be interesting to some of you

Link

10/02/2010 03:33:44 AM · #43
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by hahn23:
You may be think of Minimal editing, where you may not spot-edit your entry for any purpose. (The Macro VII challenge is advanced editiing.) Just to clarify.

But you cannot clone out dust on the subject in basic or minimal. You can in advanced. For instance, the hair on Stephen's pen tip above could not be cloned out under basic rules.

I agree it would be illegal under Basic rules to clone out that hair/thread from the pen tip. But, that's NOT sensor dust or a hot pixel. It's something photographed in the scene.... not sensor related. As far as I know, you could "repair", "clone out" or "heal" sensor dust or a hot pixel on the subject or background in Basic editing. But, I could certainly be wrong.
 10/02/2010 06:46:06 AM · #44
Originally posted by Ja-9:
just got this article from Outdoor Photographer...thought it might be interesting to some of you

Link


Ooooh thanks :D
 10/02/2010 10:39:50 AM · #45
Originally posted by jminso:
Originally posted by Ja-9:
Originally posted by Silent-Shooter:
My 50mm reversed (hand held)


I have not tried reversing...how do you do that???


You can buy a reversing ring to do it or you can just free hold the lens up to your camera, reversed of course. You loose aperture settings and focus so you just have to move the camera to focus and it is an insanely shallow focus plane.

Yes the DOF is quite shallow but not too bad with the 50mm reversed... what is bad is:
--> a 55-250 mounted normally and set to 250mm,
--> a 18-55 taped to the front of the 250 in reverse and set at 18mm.
This resulted in a fly's compound eye being just bigger than than the screen and the DOF was only as deep as about 1 (yes one!) of the compound eyes.
Very fun to play with though...
10/02/2010 01:43:40 PM · #46
Hey, I have a technical question.
I have an 18-55mm kit lens and a EF-S 55-250 IS.
To shoot macro I just do the reversed lens technique, hand-holding a lens the wrong way against the body. Its really frustrating how shallow the depth of field. I don't usually get enough in focus in a picture to make it look any where near attractive.
Now here is the question, is there a chance that 55mm on one lens would have a greater or smaller depth of field than the 55mm of the other lens? Because the two lenses have different apertures when turned the right way around?

Just curious :-)
 10/02/2010 04:19:40 PM · #47
I definitely have more of an appreciation for those who specialize in macros and such.

I spent three days taking photos, have over 500 photos, a sore back one day, the back legs sunburned the next day, and I think the neighbors now officially certify me as nuts for laying on my stomach for an hour and a half outside waiting for *YOU DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING* to co-operate.

I *think* I might finally have something - going to look at the card now.
 10/02/2010 04:55:58 PM · #48
Originally posted by Fiora:
Now here is the question, is there a chance that 55mm on one lens would have a greater or smaller depth of field than the 55mm of the other lens? Because the two lenses have different apertures when turned the right way around?

Just curious :-)

AFAIK DOF is related to the ratio of aperture and focal length, to there should be a difference in theory -- whether that has any practical effect can only be determined by experimentation.

Another way to shoot "macro" or extreme close-up shots is to back off and shoot at maximum zoom, moving in to fill the frame as much as possible -- may of the flower shots in my plants gallery -- -- are made this way. Also, DPC entries are small compared to your capture size -- you can crop way in to achieve a macro effect without losing resolution.
 10/02/2010 05:26:00 PM · #49
ok, I have a question, hadn't tried this until today...I stacked all my extension tubes one on top of the other 12mm, 26mm and 36mm (I think...without getting up) and used it with my 70-300mm lens...and boy could I get much, much closer for one thing but is that considered a macro if I'm using a 70-300 lens...

one other thing...I really wish we had someplace on the entry page to mark if we used an extension tube and what length it was...otherwise I have to remember (which I haven't yet) to make note of it in my notes...sure would be nice...hint...hint...
 10/02/2010 05:33:32 PM · #50
Originally posted by Ja-9:
ok, I have a question, hadn't tried this until today...I stacked all my extension tubes one on top of the other 12mm, 26mm and 36mm (I think...without getting up) and used it with my 70-300mm lens...and boy could I get much, much closer for one thing but is that considered a macro if I'm using a 70-300 lens...

one other thing...I really wish we had someplace on the entry page to mark if we used an extension tube and what length it was...otherwise I have to remember (which I haven't yet) to make note of it in my notes...sure would be nice...hint...hint...


The concept "macro" is not dependent on the focal length of the lens, but on the reproduction ratio as measured at the sensor. Technically, you need a 1:1 or better ratio to qualify as "macro". This means that IF the sensor were a piece of film, and IF you could develop that film and lay it on top of the object, the image *on the film* would be the same size as the object or larger. Stack all those extension tubes on the 70-300 and I assume you have gotten to the reproduction ratio or better. But then, you can always crop of course for even more virtual magnification; so if you're getting into "Wow! That's CLOSE!" territory, you're shooting macro.

As far as a place to mark down what extension tubes were used, if you can remember to change that in a field why can't you remember to enter it into notes? The data fields would get awfully complex real fast if we had all variables included; we'd want a field for the actual focal length used on zooms, for filters used on the lens, for extension tubes used, for telextenders used, the list goes on-and-on. And we'd never know for sure if the checked-off data were accurate or default... So from my persoective, seeing it written down is better...

R.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/11/2025 01:42:47 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/11/2025 01:42:47 PM EDT.