October 21, 2014, 11:55:16 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 - jrista

Pages: 1 ... 69 70 [71] 72 73 ... 298
1051
Lenses / Re: New Canon Tilt-Shift Lenses at Photokina [CR1]
« on: May 11, 2014, 10:02:01 AM »
The fly actually was a rather large one. I took those shots late last year, weather was cold, and it was just before sunset, so the inset was very sluggish. I coaxed it into a stick, and it just hung there. I clamped it into a gorilla holder, stuck it on a tripod, and then started shooting.

Like I mentioned before, if your dedicated, you find a way of getting things to work the way you want them to. Some macro photographers regularly resort to bait, which often gets insects to stop and sit still for a minute. Others resort to setups, where they generally know where the insect will be in a few minutes span of time, so chasing it down isn't nearly as tough a job. The other way is to find insect subjects in the mornings (usually) when it's cold, and they are lethargic. They they can be quite cooperative subjects.

The image is cropped about 50%, so the fly isn't 35mm in size. I'd also say magnification was probably closer to 1:1.1 or so than 1:1...it was shot hand held, after all, which makes it extremely difficult to nail focus right exactly at 1:1. The largest subject size in a 1.6x crop at 0.9x mag is ~17mm, so the size of the fly's head is less than that. If I run the numbers through Cambridge in Color's calc, I get a DoF around 0.5mm. Now, CiC assumes a CoC of 0.032mm. Given my crop and the fact that the image I shared here is pretty much exactly a 3x downsample, I've calculated my CoC at 0.02mm, and when I run the math on that, I get a DoF of 1.03mm.

If I run the numbers through DofMaster, I get a DoF of 3.3mm. I figure subject distance was probably about 33cm, 330mm, or around 13 inches.

A DOF of around 1-2mm sounds about right, given what I know about the actual subject size and imaging distance.




Regarding the effectiveness of tilt in macro. I honestly can't say what it would be like with a design like Canon's old TS-E lenses. They are much more complex designs. The Novoflex Bellows T/S design, however, for all intents and purposes, uses a "simple" lens design attached only to the front of the bellows. Focus is achieved by moving the lens on the bellows or the whole bellows assembly forward/backward...there are no additional optical elements behind the Schneider APO Digitar lens. In which case the math works much more like it does on the Wikipedia page for Schiempflug, in which case my original diagram of a 20mm ball would apply much more readily. If I could gain almost 6mm of additional DOF with tilt on a 20mm ball, I figure another half a millimeter shouldn't be out of the question with the Novoflex and a 3-4mm fly head. If I assume an effective aperture of f/21 (i.e. if I had stopped down to f/11 instead of f/5.6), and a CoC of 0.02mm, then the DoF is 2mm (according to 2Nc((m + 1)/m^2))...if tilt gets me even a mere half millimeter of increased focus along the back of the fly's head, then I think I'd have achieved my goal. And at a significantly less diffraction limited aperture than a real f/22.

1052
Lenses / Re: New Canon Tilt-Shift Lenses at Photokina [CR1]
« on: May 11, 2014, 01:40:19 AM »
I do not disagree, there is indeed value in both experience and theory. I'm not trying to dismiss experience, honestly. However I do believe that if tilt is of no value at macro scale, it should be easy to prove, especially for someone who has ready access to a wide variety of tilt/shift lenses with a range of capabilities and designs. I'm also not above admitting I could be 100% wrong here, but I honestly do not believe I am.

PrivateByDesign and I have a long history. He has his way, and he thinks it is 100% purely objective, and in many cases he very much is, however there have been cases where I believe he is blind to his bias, and his bias is very persistent. Hence my reason to doubt him until I get some kind of concrete proof. You came on pretty strong, immediately claiming a superior position then also immediately and subsequently trouncing any possibility that you would provide any evidence to back up your position. I'm happy that your happy and confident in your position...but that doesn't change anything. :P

You have still made claims I have no reason to believe just on your word alone, or even the combined word of you and private, and given that there is apparently quite a number of T/S bellows systems explicitly designed for macro photography, some with magnifications up to 2:1 and tilts from 10° to 25°, that only gives me further cause to doubt your strong assertions, based on your own personal experience, that tilt is of no practical value for macro photography. Experience is well and good, but how different, really, is photographing a carpet of moss with a tiny mushroom in the middle different from photographing a ring on a slate in a whitebox? I don't see any fundamental difference in the subject distances, angles, or viability of T/S between these two things. In the case of the fly, it's head as a whole is indeed a largely round object like a ball...but from the standpoint of what's visible within the field of view and what really needs to be in focus, the top of the eye and front part of the fly's head that is within view ALSO make for a relatively flat subject at a slight incline, which is again not all that different from a carpet of moss with a mushroom in the middle or a ring on a slate in a product photography box.

If T/S can be useful for product photography at macro distances, it can be useful for nature photography at the same distances. Insects, being ever-mobile subjects, are certainly rather arbitrary subjects...your not always going to have them cooperating and giving you the opportunity to get a good composition with a good angle on the interesting parts to fully maximize the potential of a flexible T/S macro system. But the same core argument could be made about insect macro in general...that you can't really get the most out of macro photography with insects, for the very same reasons. And yet...thousands of photographers have found a way, not only to make their subjects cooperate, but even photograph them, sometimes hand-held, at magnifications up to 5:1, even in natural lighting.

So, epistêmê or technê, theory and/or experience... I'm not speaking from a purely theoretical standpoint myself. While I have not actually used a macro t/s bellows before (hopefully something that I'll rectify before too long, I actually really want to get some actual evidence that demonstrates what, if any, and how much of a difference tilt could actually affect focus at macro scale now...I'm about ready to DIY myself a little bellows system and use my 50mm and 100mm lenses to test the theory out in the short term), I am not without experience with macro or T/S photography. The assertion that I am simply an ignorant, hopeful idiot doomed to be disappointed, well, it's certainly your right to have an opinion, but it also certainly doesn't give me any reason to trust what you say at face value any more than I had reason to before. :P

Well, good night.

1053
Landscape / Re: jrista et al, Why Astrophotography?
« on: May 11, 2014, 01:12:56 AM »
Here is an example of how sharp you can get the moon with BYEOS:





This is effectively perfect focus. The fine-grained controls in BYEOS allowed me to find the exact focal plane where the moon sharpened up to maximum. One tiny step forward or back, and things got visibly less sharp and atmospheric turbulence was visibly worse. IMO, even if all you do is shoot the moon, BYEOS is totally worth the money. :P

It also has a planetary imaging mode that will take video clips, automatically string them together, and offers a few other features (such as 10x zoom video, which when the planet only fills a tiny area of the sensor, can be quite useful).

1054
Lenses / Re: New Canon Tilt-Shift Lenses at Photokina [CR1]
« on: May 11, 2014, 01:07:27 AM »
Here is a full-blown T/S bellows kit with focusing rail and lens, designed specifically for macro, that allows up to 1.2x magnification on FF sensors and up to 1.8x on APS-C sensors. Allows up to 25° of tilt freedom. Adaptable to a very wide range of camera types and mounts.


The fact that this exists does not proove it will work for your purposes around 1:1. It might not even live up to the purposes by which the device is marketed. Just be aware of that possibility. This set-up is certainly useful for product-photography but also more clumsy than many others on the market with regards to plain tilt-movements.

Perhaps, however I haven't seen any other system that allows 25° of tilt freedom either. I've seen some that go up to 15°, but they also had a similar focusing/tilt rail setup.

Also, I think this system would still be considerably easier to use than my 100mm macro lens on a ball head. Trying to focus and compose that way is a major PITA, especially if your subject tends to be on the move. A bellows on a shiftable focus rail is a lot easier to work with for composition and focusing. For macro photography of other natural, but otherwise immobile subjects (like flora), a setup like this would be ideal, allowing not only for improvements in the utilization of the focal plane, but also creative focus uses that have nothing to do with maximizing focus or dof.

1055
Lenses / Re: New Canon Tilt-Shift Lenses at Photokina [CR1]
« on: May 11, 2014, 12:06:01 AM »
Here is a full-blown T/S bellows kit with focusing rail and lens, designed specifically for macro, that allows up to 1.2x magnification on FF sensors and up to 1.8x on APS-C sensors. Allows up to 25° of tilt freedom. Adaptable to a very wide range of camera types and mounts.

http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/macro-accessories/bellows-systems/bellows-attachment-castbal-ts/

This is even better than the LensBaby gizmos if you really want a highly flexible macro system. For anyone who is actually interested in a flexible macro setup, you can buy all the parts on B&H:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=novoflex+castbal&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

Pricey at $1904 for the bellows/focuser, lens, and adapter, but probably still less costly than any potential new Canon TS Macro lens that might be announced this year.

1056
Landscape / Re: jrista et al, Why Astrophotography?
« on: May 10, 2014, 11:31:26 PM »
How are you focusing? Live view 10x? You should be able to get pretty accurate in-camera, especially with the short focal length of 105mm. Trying to focus through the viewfinder is pretty much impossible. I can't even do that with my 600mm lens. I either use live view at 10x zoom, or I use BackyardEOS in it's focusing mode while tethered to the camera.

I used 10x live fiew and manual focusing, turning the ring as slowly as possible.

Well, that's the right technique. Are you having trouble because the camera is shaking? Sometimes it actually helps to pretty much grab the whole rig, and balance it against yourself with as much surface area as possible. When the camera just kind of hangs free, it is sometimes actually more susceptible to wild shake than if it is being actively balanced by you. You'll still have some shake, but it should be slower and less problematic for your focusing.

BackyardEOS is a program that runs on a laptop or Windows 8 tablet that has a focusing mode that can control the lens' focus group directly. It has fast, medium, and slow controls, and it's actually the best way to focus DSLRs. The program costs about $50, but I've found it to be completely invaluable, especially for focusing my DSLR for astrophotography. If you can't get your focusing figured out using live view and 10x zoom, and are serious enough to spend the fifty bucks, BYEOS will definitely do the trick.

Shake wasn't an issue, as I said before, the Sigma's focusing ring is just not good enough for slow/steady turning. I have already looked at Backyard EOS before and it is a very nice program. The 2 shots I have were just quick/rushed ones I did a few hours ago, just step up the tripod, kept it stable, point at object, focus and take the images.

If it really is the manual focus ring, then BYEOS might just do the trick. It focuses electronically, so the build quality of the manual focus ring really doesn't matter. If the lens focuses well when using AF, then you would have very fine grained control with BYEOS. You should be able to get things tack sharp.

1057
Landscape / Re: jrista et al, Why Astrophotography?
« on: May 10, 2014, 11:26:25 PM »
How are you focusing? Live view 10x? You should be able to get pretty accurate in-camera, especially with the short focal length of 105mm. Trying to focus through the viewfinder is pretty much impossible. I can't even do that with my 600mm lens. I either use live view at 10x zoom, or I use BackyardEOS in it's focusing mode while tethered to the camera.

I used 10x live fiew and manual focusing, turning the ring as slowly as possible.

Well, that's the right technique. Are you having trouble because the camera is shaking? Sometimes it actually helps to pretty much grab the whole rig, and balance it against yourself with as much surface area as possible. When the camera just kind of hangs free, it is sometimes actually more susceptible to wild shake than if it is being actively balanced by you. You'll still have some shake, but it should be slower and less problematic for your focusing.

BackyardEOS is a program that runs on a laptop or Windows 8 tablet that has a focusing mode that can control the lens' focus group directly. It has fast, medium, and slow controls, and it's actually the best way to focus DSLRs. The program costs about $50, but I've found it to be completely invaluable, especially for focusing my DSLR for astrophotography. If you can't get your focusing figured out using live view and 10x zoom, and are serious enough to spend the fifty bucks, BYEOS will definitely do the trick.

1058
Landscape / Re: jrista et al, Why Astrophotography?
« on: May 10, 2014, 11:02:44 PM »
You know, there is 1 main advantage I noticed with inexpensive telescopes/mounts, they're usually a lot lighter and smaller.

Very true. I guess that's one of the biggest pros of going inexpensive. If you need portability, then high end stuff just isn't viable. That's one of the reasons I got the Orion Atlas...I do take it out to dark sites about 40 miles away or so. The 10Micron GM2000HPS has an ultra portable version, where the head disassembles into two lighter weight parts, plus the control box. But it's still heavier than the Atlas...

I do love using my 600mm lens as a telescope. It's relatively short, so good for wider field work. Optically, it's as good as the $12,000 Officina Stellare HiPer API 152, and faster. Once I get a mono CCD camera, it will make for a superb wide field setup. I also like using my 100mm and 50mm lenses with my DSLR mounted to a Vixen dovetail for really wide field stuff. I haven't had many opportunities to do that...but the first clear night in almost four weeks is supposed to happen on the 13th...I plan to take the Atlas, my DSLR and those two lenses out to a dark site and see if I can get some wide field shots of the milky way core, scorpius, and a few of the Ha nebulas near the galactic core. :) I've been waiting for the 13th for so long, I'm kind of chomping at the bit. :P

Luckily, it won't be Friday on the 13th but anyway, I tried using my Sigma 105mm on the 7D, and I found near impossible to get near accurate focusing, especially on the moon. I also have an image of Jupiter and it's moons.
(deep sky stacker was used)

How are you focusing? Live view 10x? You should be able to get pretty accurate in-camera, especially with the short focal length of 105mm. Trying to focus through the viewfinder is pretty much impossible. I can't even do that with my 600mm lens. I either use live view at 10x zoom, or I use BackyardEOS in it's focusing mode while tethered to the camera.

1059
Lenses / Re: New Canon Tilt-Shift Lenses at Photokina [CR1]
« on: May 10, 2014, 10:44:56 PM »
Here is an actual example of tilt at macro distances and scales:



Your getting a whole lot more personal and insulting here.

Perhaps. Ignorance paired with loudness makes me aggressive at times.

Further, I am decidedly not an anonymous computer and prefer not to be treated as such. I took you by your words and they demanded retribution with regards to contents AND demeanor.

I agree we disagree. But only I am in the comfortable position to know what I know in the aristotelian manner of the craftsman (techne). You instead can only hope you might be right but wish to proof that in a lenghty scientific manner.

I never said you were an anonymous computer. You are, however, an anonymous person. I have no reason to believe you are as intelligent as your incredible arrogance might otherwise make you seem, therefor I have no reason to take you at your word that your supposed experience give you some insight that cannot be demonstrated in a "lengthy scientific manner."

Angry, arrogant, and insulting words have no meaning in the original context of this thread. Which means we have another derailed thread. Guess that isn't surprising, seems to be the M.O. around CR these days...

1060
Lenses / Re: Waiting for 35 1.4L II
« on: May 10, 2014, 10:04:00 PM »
If you need it this summer, consider the Sigma 35 f/1.4 ART

I second this option. Sigma Art lenses are pretty nice these days. Definitely viable options to Canon branded lenses, especially of the Mark II version you really want hasn't been created yet. :P

1061
Landscape / Re: jrista et al, Why Astrophotography?
« on: May 10, 2014, 10:02:06 PM »
You know, there is 1 main advantage I noticed with inexpensive telescopes/mounts, they're usually a lot lighter and smaller.

Very true. I guess that's one of the biggest pros of going inexpensive. If you need portability, then high end stuff just isn't viable. That's one of the reasons I got the Orion Atlas...I do take it out to dark sites about 40 miles away or so. The 10Micron GM2000HPS has an ultra portable version, where the head disassembles into two lighter weight parts, plus the control box. But it's still heavier than the Atlas...

I do love using my 600mm lens as a telescope. It's relatively short, so good for wider field work. Optically, it's as good as the $12,000 Officina Stellare HiPer API 152, and faster. Once I get a mono CCD camera, it will make for a superb wide field setup. I also like using my 100mm and 50mm lenses with my DSLR mounted to a Vixen dovetail for really wide field stuff. I haven't had many opportunities to do that...but the first clear night in almost four weeks is supposed to happen on the 13th...I plan to take the Atlas, my DSLR and those two lenses out to a dark site and see if I can get some wide field shots of the milky way core, scorpius, and a few of the Ha nebulas near the galactic core. :) I've been waiting for the 13th for so long, I'm kind of chomping at the bit. :P

1062
Landscape / Re: jrista et al, Why Astrophotography?
« on: May 10, 2014, 09:10:28 PM »
To he honest, post processing is my least favourite part, until I finished the image ,

I hear that! :) I haven't had many of those moments lately...I tried to do galaxy imaging with my wide field 600mm lens...wasn't nearly as successful as I originally thought it would be. It's pretty hard to do galaxy imaging in a wide field under polluted skies.

and good luck to getting that mount! c:

I'm actually really hoping the price on the absolute encoders these mounts use drops in the next couple of years, so that by the time I'm finally ready to invest in one, they'll be cheaper. Astro-Physics just started adding encoders to their mounts (they don't seem to be doing it as well as 10Micron). Their lower-end mounts (which are still all ultra high end in general) cost around $8000 or so without the encoders. Just adding the encoders pushes the price up to $15,000 or more. That's almost double the cost. If the cost of these high resolution, absolute encoders comes down in the future, these nice high end mounts should come down in cost as well, and I intend to be all ready to pounce the moment they do. :P

1063
I use my Microsoft Surface Pro out in the field. It's a full blown computer, weighs about a pound, and runs Lightroom 5 and Photoshop CS6/CC quite nicely. The battery life is the biggest problem, but that's largely been solved with the Surface Pro 2.

The screen is pretty good, I think my photos look quite nice on it, although just ever so slightly less saturated than on my desktop screen. I haven't tried to calibrate the Surface Pro yet...but I bet some calibration would probably fix the saturation problem.

You can even shoot tethered with the Surface Pro and Lightroom. You can plug in either a high capacity memory card or a USB drive, and write images to that. I've also set it up using an "offline files" folder that automatically syncs up to my NAS at home when the tablet connects back up to my home WiFi, but there is limited space on the SSD drive.

Anyway, if you want a nice way of showing your work to racers at the track, I really don't think you could go wrong with a Surface Pro 2 tablet. You could shoot tethered, immediately apply some basic processing in Lightroom, and it's a touch-based device, so sliding through a gallery of your shots for a race car driver would be not only easy, but full screen and beautiful. ;)

1064
Landscape / Re: jrista et al, Why Astrophotography?
« on: May 10, 2014, 08:43:13 PM »
While I do agree with everything you say, it's just that not everyone can spend 40,000$ to get optimum results. :(  Also, if you own a 13,000$ telescope (your 600mm lens) Why didn't you get a high precision EQ Mount? ???

Oh yeah, I'm not saying everyone can or even should spend that kind of money. Just saying that if you want to get great quality, it tends to cost a whole lot more to get it with astrophotography than it does with normal photography. With normal photography, if you have the skill, you can get very good results with fairly minimal gear. The gear matters, but not as much. With astrophotography, the quality of the gear has rather exceptional importance, which makes it a very (saddeningly, even) expensive hobby.

I do plan to get a 10Micron GM2000HPS UP mount. It's a $20,000 mount, one of the best (personally, I think it is the best...at the moment, 10Micron is the only manufacturer that has moved all the sky modeling right into the mount. The other high end manufacturers like Astro-Physics or Software Bisque still have all the modeling in software, that has to run on a computer plugged into the mount.) I haven't gotten it yet because, the obvious reason, it's ridiculously expensive. :P I just bought my 600mm lens less than a year ago (summer last year), and I still haven't really recovered from that expense.

The other reason is as much as I'd like to have it now, I can still learn with the ~$2500 worth of mount gear and my 600mm lens. Before I invest in a 10Micron mount and even an Astro-Tech AT16RC Truss (which would be $27,000), I want to have more skill. Acquiring images is only a small part of the process of producing great astrophotography images. Since you do astrophotography yourself, you surely know this: Processing is at least half, it not more like 2/3rds, of the art. I might spend six to eight hours acquiring images, which really involves about 2-3 hours of actual personal time invested (the rest is just the mount and imager and guider doing their things on their own.) I can easily spend a few hours sifting through my subs, picking the good ones and culling the bad ones and finally stacking, then another 10 hours at least of processing and tweaking and fine tuning my images in PixInsight and Photoshop. I've revisited some of my works two or three times, trying to get better results each time. In my Rosette image, I've probably got 20 hours of processing time in. I just started revisiting my Monkey Head image, which has at least 15 hours already, and I think I'll be spending at least another 5-10 hours on it to get noise levels down to an acceptable level and lift up some of the dimmer nebulosity.

Given that so much of the artform of astrophotography involves everything that comes AFTER image acquisition, I decided I should get good at that first, and make sure I am even capable of achieving the skill level I believe is necessary to produce Robert Gendler or Russel Croman level images...before I dropped $30k or more into more equipment.

1065
Lenses / Re: New Canon Tilt-Shift Lenses at Photokina [CR1]
« on: May 10, 2014, 08:33:43 PM »
I don't need to make the DOF deeper. I just need to change the relationship of DOF to my subject.

Initially you stated you were sure that you could get the whole head into focus by tilting. I felt free to assure you that was a wrong assumption, based on my experience. What was wrong with that?

Now you are practically stating DOF is not relevant for the purpose of getting the whole head into focus. But how can it not be with a threedimensional subject? So you were talking about a piece of confetti all along? Well, granted, TS-Macro helps with confetti.

I still do not think that a forum like this is about prooving each other right or wrong by going to the book-shelf. It can also be about listening to what other people have to say. Not everybody is raising their words only to be in the center of attention. Some want to keep others from going wrong when they see it coming.

You are only discouraging people with aquired knowledge to participate here. But your muzzles are inflated and full of air.

I will never understand why anyone has to get directly personal over these topics. I have not insulted you in any way, nor am I simply interested in "being right".

You demanded I simply trust your words at face value, and preemptively flat-out stated that you were not going to back up any of your claims (which for me, personally, comes off as one of two ways...either extremely arrogant and haughty, or as an indication that the other party doesn't necessarily trust their own position), claims which were supposedly steeped in a vastly superior base of experience (how you could know that, given that you don't know anything about me, given this is the first time we've ever encountered each other, is curious.) I explained, perhaps directly but otherwise without insult, why I could not simply take you at your word like that. Simply an honest but plain and direct explanation of my stance. Your getting a whole lot more personal and insulting here, and THAT is the only thing on these forums that TRULY does no one any good. We've had far too many threads destroyed by people like you getting personal like this. I don't really care what you think of me, but there are other people on these forums who don't like threads going way off the tracks by people flinging insults back and forth.

I'm not going to exchange insults with you.

Here is another image. Maybe this will replace a thousand words and all my "hot air":



Crappy, crude, but hopefully effective example of focal plane, DOF, and a "fly head". Maybe DOF increases, slightly, as there would be a very slight wedge. But that isn't really what I'm after. I lose DOF along the bottom of the fly eye and head, but I gain a small amount at the top of the head. It doesn't have to be a lot. It can be just a couple millimeters...that's all I'd need to push the focus falloff far enough to the back of the fly's head to matter. Add in some rotation (or swing), and I could reorient the focal plane and wedge to bring more of the fly eye in focus. Since the fly's head is round, I can afford to lose some DOF at the back right area where the head turns into the mandible (it's just empty air there).

How much actual lens tilt would be necessary to get this much focal plane tilt for a subject less than a foot from my sensor? I dunno. I haven't actually engineered such a lens myself. I've found a number of T/S Macro Bellows now that claim to have 15° of tilt. Some of these products are fairly pricey, $200-300 (just for a bellows, we aren't talking about any amount of optics here), so I am at least willing to suspect that 15° of tilt is enough to be useful for subjects very close to the lens, given these things are marketed explicitly as "macro tilt and shift bellows."

Anyway, I have no interest in proving right or wrong with you. Just being clear about what I'm trying to say. I haven't felt anyone has even understood what I'm trying to say, all I've gotten is direct counterarguments based on mistaken assumptions based on what you guys think I'm saying.

I disagree with you. You clearly disagree with me. We can exist happily in a state of disagreement without insulting each other, or demanding that either of us trust each other just on our word alone. For anonymous people on the internet, someone's word is worthless. However, at least I've tried to back up my claims with some evidence. At least I've tried to make my original point, what my ultimate goals would be if I had a specially designed TS Macro lens from Canon, clear. I believe T/S movements are beneficial for non-flat, non-product macro photography, such as insects. I don't expect to see some ridiculous improvement that would allow me to shoot at f/2.8, but maybe I can drop down to f/11 or f/16 from f/32 or f/45, and use tilt and maybe some shift to make better use of my focal plane, and envelop more of the interesting part of my subject within the DoF. I mean, that's what T/S is all about...changing your focal plane, which in turn changes what part of your subject falls within the depth of field, without moving the sensor.

I know that on my 7D, I can get pretty sharp results up to f/20 despite the fact that is a diffraction-limited aperture. Beyond f/20, the effects of diffraction (even in macro situations), really start to kick in and hurt my detail. By f/32, things are usually unacceptably soft. And, just to finish off the point. So what if I still have to shoot at f/22, even with tilt and shift? I've shot other macro subjects as narrow as f/22 before, and there is still usually a considerable amount of focus falloff. Even a small amount of tilt would be enough to MAXIMIZE the amount of my subject that is near the focal plane and within the DoF. Maximize doesn't necessarily mean entirely eliminating all focus falloff everywhere....it just means moving those points of falloff around such that more of your subject is sharp for the SAME or SIMILAR DOF. DOF doesn't have to get huge, or even larger...changing the angle of the focal plane is really all that I'd really need.

Pages: 1 ... 69 70 [71] 72 73 ... 298