December 22, 2014, 04:25:35 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - RAKAMRAK

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 21
76
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: aperture!
« on: September 20, 2013, 09:07:31 AM »
The OP mentioned HFD and in my replies I kept on keeping it in the discussion (although I myself never use it as I cannot remember what the HFD for any of my lenses at any aperture size). So I stop down to f/7.1 or f/8 and focus on the subject that I want to be sharpest. Then whatever sharpness I get is acceptable to me. I thought if I could use HFD all the time then I would get even more sharpness, but that does not appear to be the case.

I found this nice article on NorthLight..... it might be interesting to many of us here.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/hyperfocal_distance.html

77
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: aperture!
« on: September 19, 2013, 09:35:47 PM »
as far I understand lens sweet spot is between f/5.6 to f/8 (may be f/9) while DLA (defraction limited aperture) is dependent on the camera body (the sensor) that you are using. So if your aim is the sharpest landscape possible, then first choose aperture (subject to lens sweet spot and sensor of your camera) - let's say you choose f/8. Then calculate the hyperfocal distance for the focal length you are using (28mm you mentioned) and f/8 (hyperfocal distance is dependent on focal length AND aperture) and focus at that hyperfocal distance (keeping the camera on tripod or some fixed base).

78
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: aperture!
« on: September 19, 2013, 07:06:40 PM »
However, once the hyperfocal distance is correctly used (as the OP says he/she does) DoF is effectively infinite behind the focal point....... so DLA becomes the only constraining factor.

79
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: aperture!
« on: September 19, 2013, 04:57:13 PM »
hi , can someone explain the theory behind choosing the aperture when shooting big landscapes.

i can understand it when shooting portraits or street stuff, for example, focal depth, to get a faster shutter etc


thanks

Well, exactly for the same reason - depth of (focal) field. In portrait you choose wider aperture to minimize depth of field, in landscape you choose narrowest aperture (without going into the defraction limit territory) to maximize the depth of field. Choosing the correct hyperfocal distance to focus just adds to that. Also remember that with changing aperture, the hyperfocal distance changes for each focal length. What aperture to choose for landscape? If you want the maximus possible sharpness in your composition use the list in the following page so that you do not suffer from the negatives of the defraction limited aperture (last column)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Field-of-View-Crop-Factor.aspx


80
Black & White / Re: A Light Read (EDIT)
« on: September 19, 2013, 05:53:07 AM »
I seem to be the only one, but I disagree that centered = balanced.  I love the lighting and B&W choice and I think the white space adds positively to the minimalism.  Personally, I might even add more white space (black) to the right until the guy's head is at the 1/3 length, before I'd choose to crop it in.  For me, more white space adds to the dark, immersed feel and would make the photo feel less staged IMO

I agree with the knee brightness seeming a little high, that was the first thing that caught my eye.

Since I was one of the early commentators to this post who opined negatively about the black empty space to the right of the subject (the current version of the photo no longer has that) so I thought a clarification would be in order. I do not think that "centered = balanced". But I definitely think in the current composition with just the subject in the far left of the frame without anything other than dark emptiness to the right  made it look unbalanced to me. There are numerous occasions when such a composition (subject on one side of the frame and emptiness on the other) may create a strong story but this situation did not look like that to me. Rule of the third is also a nice thumb rule to go to but there also we need something on the opposite vertex to balance it.

81
Software & Accessories / Re: Opteka MCH-25 Multi Carrier
« on: September 17, 2013, 08:44:26 AM »
It looks like a cotton carrier clone. Have not used it, so do not know how it will be. But for the use that you have mentioned have you thought about "capture clip"? It is definitely substantially more costly than the Opteka system, But the positive side you do not need to carry any extra harness for the capture clip system, your trekking/trailing backpack strap can second for that. I have used the capture clip system and I like it.

82
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 6D + 24-105 L combo not that great?
« on: September 16, 2013, 09:51:41 PM »
Yes, to my eyes also it lacks sharpness. Though I do not know where exactly the focus point was or whether you focused or recomposed but still there is no place in the photo where once I go for 100% crop that looks tack sharp. There was some problem with lens IMO (back focus, or front focus or something of that sort).

83
Street & City / Re: Dubai
« on: September 16, 2013, 02:05:15 PM »
I like the shortened perspective of "burg.jpg"........

84
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 6D + 24-105 L combo not that great?
« on: September 16, 2013, 01:55:40 PM »
Not sure where you got the idea that people say 24-105 is bad, but hopefully you were not expecting 24-70 MKII quality from it, right?

But f/8 ... my copy of the 24-105 is extremely sharp at f/8 and narrower ... but then when you compare to the 24-70 II, sharpness isn't everything.

Exactly right @J.R., that is why I said "quality"..... some would say there is the "look" of the image, some would say "feel" of the image .... but anyway I think we can club them all together into "quality".

And to add one more think for OP, with f/8-f/11 aperture the shutter speed becomes even more critical (than wider apertures).

85
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 6D + 24-105 L combo not that great?
« on: September 16, 2013, 12:32:22 PM »
What is good shutter speed? You say you used center focus point, but it was a "race" type thing, so did you use AI Servo or One Shot AF? And without looking at some of the photos that you think were not good enough it is difficult to give any opinion in the air. I have never used 6D, but I have rented 24-105 from my local renting place, and it has not disappointed me. Not sure where you got the idea that people say 24-105 is bad, but hopefully you were not expecting 24-70 MKII quality from it, right?

86
Software & Accessories / Re: Macro Photography
« on: September 16, 2013, 02:45:36 AM »
Mr. Surapon, thank you so much for taking the time and effort to share your set up. Happy photographing.

87
Software & Accessories / Re: Macro Photography
« on: September 15, 2013, 12:05:37 PM »
Mr. Surapon, nice photos. Since you have already offered, so could I please take you up on your offer of sharing your DIY Macro set up? Thank you. (To start I am happy to show off my own DIY macro set up, please see it in my Flickr page)

88
Black & White / Re: A Light Read
« on: September 15, 2013, 12:00:08 PM »
After knowing that it is not a staged photo, not a studio photo I like it even more. Rather now I admire the light and shade of the photo (the unnecessary right side notwithstanding).

89
Software & Accessories / Re: Macro Photography
« on: September 15, 2013, 08:41:59 AM »
Depending on your patience you can start with something simple and cheap. Get some extension tubes (metal preferably) which costs around $10 (in USA). Plus get some old manual lenses from any manufacturer (canon, nikon, pentax etc) which has a aperture ring to control the aperture plus an adapter (without corrective optics) to put that lens on the extension tube (will be "manufacturer of the lens/mount of the lens" to EF adapter). The lens focal length should be around 50 or less. This lens should cost around $100 and the adapter another $10. This way you keep your initial cost under control. Then with your tripod and focusing rail try out your new macro set up. Remember couple of things

1. You will need plenty of lights (flash required most of the times).
2. You will always need to stop down that is why the need of the aperture ring.
3. The macro lens that you "building" this way (lens + adapter + tubes) will not be "flat-field".
4. The subject to lens front distance will be around 6 inches (so bug eye macro will be out of question).

Feel free to check my flickr account there are couple of macro photos that I took this way before I understood I really like macro.

But this way at a lower cost you can test the waters and see if you really like macro or not. If you find you really like macro then you can go ahead and buy true "flat-field" macro lenses where your choices are plentiful depending on your budget - 50mm(Canon), 60mm(Canon and Tamron), 70mm (Sigma), 90mm (Tamron), 100mm (Canon), 105mm (Sigma), 150mm (Sigma), 180mm (Sigma, Canon, Tamron). But remember one thing the longer the focal length of the macro lens the more distance you will have between front of lens and your subject. So for bugs and stuff the longer (and hence costlier) macro lenses are more suitable - 150 mm or 180mm. All macro lenses are great and sharp and all of them can be used as non-macro telephoto primes as well.

90
Landscape / Re: Milky Way near the moon?
« on: September 15, 2013, 07:26:06 AM »
with moon in the sky that also close to the milky way I highly doubt you (or your camera) can even see the milky way. Check milky way photos (or star trail) on the net, hardly any of them has the moon in them.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 21