January 29, 2015, 11:42:41 AM

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 - danski0224

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 42
166
Photography Technique / Re: How do I get the whole picture sharp?
« on: April 30, 2014, 06:57:29 AM »
This morning I took this photo with the 100mm L.
Iso 160 - f/13 - 0,5 sec.
Distance about 30 centimetres.
I used a tripod and cable release.
I didn't crop the photo and shot it in raw. Yes, the colour is about that green, that's why I like it.
How is it possible to get everything sharp with this lens even in the corners?


What did you focus on: the beads of water or the leaf?

I'd guess that your leaf is not perfectly flat.

The picture, as a picture, looks fine as it is. 

167
Photography Technique / Re: Another try getting everything in focus.
« on: April 30, 2014, 06:53:09 AM »
This morning I've tried this one. I focussed on the drop, but the top of the flower isn't sharp at all. What's wrong now.
Iso 500 - f/6.3 - 1/30


Still not enough depth of field.

If you are using a macro lens, depth of field is measured in millimeters and smaller. In order to work within the space allowed, you would need to keep the camera sensor plane parallel to the flower bud in your picture.

The distance from the base of the bud to the sensor would have to be the same as the distance from the tip of the bud to the sensor. Focus maybe halfway into the water drop, and you will see more "in focus" or "sharp". But, the sides of the bud that curve away would become "unsharp".

The only other alternatives are focus stacking or a tilt-shift lens.

If you focus stack, you will need a tripod and rail setup with a micometer style adjustment to move the camera and lens in and out so you do not touch the focusing adjustment on the lens (AF off). Changing the focusing with the lens would alter your field of view.

There are people here that could offer a much more in depth :) answer to your question, but that's how I understand it.

168
Photography Technique / Re: Levelling.
« on: April 26, 2014, 07:24:03 AM »
It's good as-is.

Find a level bench on level ground if that is what you are seeking.

:)

169
Figures. I just ordered one.

170
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 17, 2014, 06:27:46 AM »
Okay, I know one is discontinued and the other is non-existent, but this is mostly for fun and a bit of learning.

Do the experts here think that the overall image quality of the 7DII will match or at least come close to the APS-H 1D IV? Why or why not?

Apparently, you have not used the 1DV.

171
Macro / Re: The same flower.
« on: April 15, 2014, 07:03:50 AM »
I really like to know what your favourite of the two is.
Thank you for your comments.

I am not drawn to either of them.

The yellow background doesn't work for me in the first image.

The partially closed flower shot from that perspective doesn't create any interest for me. I'd probably like or be interested in something other than straight on.

If the first image had the background of the second image, I would prefer that. That shade of yellow is too much, it looks fake to me.

$.02  :)

172
Lenses / Re: Bokeh onion rings
« on: April 14, 2014, 08:14:39 PM »
It´s time for you to come and enlighten us!!!

I see what you did there...

:)

Do you have any DC powered LED lights you could photograph? Most of what I have for DC LED sources (flashlight, bike light, head lamp and undercabinet lighting) has some sort of frequency to it- video taken with my phone has a flickering effect. 

173
Lenses / Re: Bokeh onion rings
« on: April 14, 2014, 07:03:00 AM »
It must have something to do with the varying intensity of the AC light source.

Do you have any LED light sources? Those, in my experience, also have a frequency to them and may show the onion ring bokeh.

Incandescent AC bulbs on a dimmer may show a different pattern, same for dimmable LED bulbs.

Have you tried a CFL light source?

It is interesting, maybe the lens designers never thought to take out of focus pictures of certain types of light sources.

174
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: April 13, 2014, 07:31:56 PM »
My wife has now ruled me out as a complete nut case, running around shooting out of focus images and posting them on the internet ...  ::)

Now I have changed lens. These two are of the same light sources, shot with the Sigma 35 f1.4 Art. As you can see, exactly the same happens. At one stage I thought it had to do with AC and net frequency, alternatively some switch mode power supply noise, but I have used all kinds of shutter speeds and it does not affect the result.

Someone should know/understand how this happens.

Have you tried photographing incandescent DC powered light sources?

175
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: April 13, 2014, 08:17:26 AM »
Price is price and I agree that you should really want it to buy it. I also agree on the bokeh issue. But there is something I don´t really understand about boked. Because it varies, depending on light source.

I have attached two examples. The first is of five candle lights and the second is a chandelier with electric light. The bokeh from the electric light has a clear onion bokeh, whereas the candle lights are clean. If someone could explain why this happens, it would be most appreciated.

Shooting conditions were same same, f-stop, shutter speed and ISO.
+

The only thing I can thing is that there is motion blur with the candle shot.

Motion blur would also be my guess.

Not just the camera, but the candle flames are moving. In comparison, the electric light source is steady.

176
Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro
« on: April 08, 2014, 12:36:08 PM »
I like mine.  :)

177
I'm happy to inform you all that the "soap" ended very well.
The photographer told me that I did the right thing calling him to talk about the bride approached me asking for my images and he's still calling me for other jobs.
Lesson learnt, I feel happy and relieved.

Thanks for the update. Good to hear that the situation was handled well.

178
Gentlemen who do you think you are to say something like that? God?
Seriously you should know someone before you throw out you sentences.

No God here, not even close.

Just someone that has experienced other businesses that have nice Christian symbols and slogans in their advertising and somehow fail to live up to the promise, if you will. Also worked for someone that did the whole missionary thing around the globe yet had no problems with a double standard for some employees.

I'm not in the running for sainthood myself, but I try to keep a reasonably straight path. And yes, when faced with an ethical dilemma such as what is being discussed here, I do take the high ground, even at my expense. Better than some that I would have once called close friends.

I'm certainly not passing judgement on you and I already put up my opinion based on the information available in the OP. I'm not editing it or adding to it.

Good luck, whatever the outcome is.

179
I find it very amusing that somebody who obviously knows the right thing to do, but isn't inclined to do it because he also wants some money, has His Holiness the Dalai Lama as his avatar.

It's no different from any other business using Christian symbols or references to give the impression that they do good, honest work when many do not.

180
My wedding photographer is 8 hours, 800 edited pictures that I have full rights to have printed as I choose, 2 shooters and a printed book (about 50 photos) for $2000. He has done two different weddings I/my fiancé have been in and he does excellent work. One of them was even cheaper because he was a preferred vendor for the location.

I'm in New England so not exactly a cheap area of the US.

Honestly, that hardly even seems worth it.

That's $2.50 per picture.

Is the "8 hours" total time (event + editing) or just event? 

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 42