Forum menu
but true macro lenses focus down to a couple of cm
Sadly they are way out of my price range for my camera 🙂
Although I would probably be getting less light if I were up close to something
only if you're casting a shadow on it...
I dunno.. you can be obscuring a lot of ambient reflective light.. if you stick your phiz right up to whatever it is 🙂
you can be obscuring a lot of ambient reflective light.. if you stick your phiz right up to whatever it is
AKA "casting a shadow"...
FYI I think the luminosity of an object is invariant with distance, as both its apparent area and the intensity of reflected light obey the same inverse square law 🙂
Barnes ffs.. shadows are only for direct illumination, you can still reduce the amount of light without casting an actual shadow. As evidenced on my other camera - stand too close even outside in completely overcast conditions, light meter readings change.
Don't bother replying since that's all I'm gonna say on the subject - no arguments.
actually I'm trying to dismantle dogma...
No you're not. You're attempting to reject established and soundly thought out principles and practises purely because your ego means you think that you must know better and you believe your superior mind can understand these things with a clarity that those trapped in dogma cannot possibly fathom.
Classic delusional psychosis I'm afraid 😀
you can still reduce the amount of light without casting an actual shadow
OK, a diffuse shadow - but to reduce the light by one stop you'd have to block half of the illuminating field - that's very close!
Sadly they are way out of my price range for my camera
Take a look at close up filters, reversing rings or extension tubes. All offer the same macro capability for your existing lenses with varying price and quality.
purely because your ego means you think that you must know better
I never said I knew any better. I'm interested in the questioning. Did you not watch that Horizon on sensory illusions the other night ? What your brain perceives is only loosely related to what your senses report.
Classic delusional psychosis I'm afraid
yeah, I'll stick that in with the sociopathy and the autism 🙂
The Raynox DCR 250 is an excellent cheap macro solution.
And Barnes, FFS not again - you aren't a lone crusader tirelessly fighting dogma, you are just talking bollox. Again.
you are just talking bollox. Again.
what makes you an authority ? My guesses are just as valid as anyone else's.
I wonder if you're confusing creativity with gimmickism ? Yes you can play about with DOF if you wish (yawn), add streaks or jimmy the exposure, but I prefer to be as true as I can to the original scene/subject(s), not try to add spurious "value"...
It really depends on how important "spurious value" is to you. I believe you take pictures that that either record a place or event in time, or go beyond that and try and be more creative.
The only way to understand how it all works is to go and play with the settings and see what happens. You can make a pigs ear of it and ruin a fantastic shot because you cocked up, but at least you can't blame the camera!
Other peoples guesses are less self-contradictory tho 😉
The only way to understand how it all works is to go and play with the settings and see what happens.
that's not creativity, that's happenstance. Creativity involves forming an idea and finding out how to implement it.
that's not creativity, that's happenstance. Creativity involves forming an idea and finding out how to implement it.
But don't you need to know what's possible so you can develop and form you're ideas? It shouldn't be your only source of inspiration, but to dismiss it...
But don't you need to know what's possible so you can develop and form you're ideas? It shouldn't be your only source of inspiration, but to dismiss it...
I didn't dismiss it, but experimentation isn't creativity, it's part of the development of skill. Once you have the skill, then you can apply it creatively, or for that matter, you can be creative without skill, though the results may then not be very good.
When I was accused of being dogmatic above, I think that was missing the point - I'm not saying abandon conventional wisdom and accept mine instead, I'm saying abandon it and find out for yourself. It goes without saying that following convention is the opposite of creativity. If you stick with the old stuff you'll just be regurgitating, though possibly well executedly.
If you stick with the old stuff you'll just be regurgitating
How do endless similar close-ups of women's bottoms fit into your ceaseless and noble quest for creativity?
Surely it is far better to take the established wisdom and try to build on it, rather than throw it away and then attempt to "find out for yourself" by repeating all the mistakes that have already been made?
How do endless similar close-ups of women's bottoms fit into your ceaseless and noble quest for creativity?
I don't have a single creative spark in me photographically, and never claimed otherwise. I just enjoy taking photos and trying to capture what I see.
Surely it is far better to take the established wisdom and try to build on it, rather than throw it away and then attempt to "find out for yourself"
when half of it is rubbish ?
How do endless similar close-ups of women's bottoms fit into your ceaseless and noble quest for creativity?
😀 by his previous arguments Simon appears to believe that the best way to be creative is to avoid fiddling with any camera controls, leave it all on Auto, hammer away at high-speed burst mode and try to take pictures that exactly match what you see. 🙄
Simon appears to believe that the best way to be creative is to avoid fiddling with any camera controls
ha ha, recording what you see can hardly be described as creative - but when the world and the things in it are so dramatic, fascinating and beautiful creativity isn't necessary 🙂
however I don't pretend that fiddling with the camera is creative.
I don't have a single creative spark in me photographically, and never claimed otherwise.
I am likewise cursed. My engineer's mind understands the technology, the controls and how certain pictures are taken - but I have little artistic vision and my pictures lack creativity.
But I realise that I certainly won't develop any creative spark by sticking the camera on auto and repeatedly taking exactly the same shots.
But I realise that I certainly won't develop any creative spark by sticking the camera on auto and repeatedly taking exactly the same shots.
now you're just being distracted by details. Creativity doesn't depend on implementation. It's about how you look, arrange, interpret, inspire.
when the world and the things in it are so dramatic, fascinating and beautiful creativity isn't necessary
Of course it is. Photos lose a huge dimensions of information: depth, tone, colour, movement, sound, smell, feel... so figuring out how to capture and convey some of that drama, fascination and beauty with the hugely restricted medium you are left with takes great creativity.
however I don't pretend that fiddling with the camera is creative.
And how can you ever hope to be creative if you don't take any control of the process and leave it up to a machine that uses averages of other people's photographs?
y with the hugely restricted medium you are left with takes great creativity.
I disagree, I call the details of how you achieve that craft
And how can you ever hope to be creative if you don't take any control of the process
I don't, but if you replace "you" with "one", I'd say that the details of camera handling are as important to the finished work as say, the brushwork in a painting, necessary but not fundamental or embodying the creative urge of the artist.
Poddy loves it, but tbh I wasn't personally that thrilled about it. You might see it tomorrow and think it's shit.
He's right. I do love it lots. I don't care what anyone else thinks, personally I think it's by far the best cycling pic I've ever seen from ANYONE on STW. It plays with mt brain. I keep wondering why the bike isn't moving, when it looks as though it's not even stopped.
[url= http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1193/5104426390_5ca53f664e_o.pn g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_atkin/5104426390/ ]Screen shot 2010-02-18 at 11[1].17.42[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/peter_atkin/ ]PeterPoddy[/url], on Flickr
And he asked me to put this one up as well, which isn't shoddy either -
[url= http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1057/5104427402_5f52360413_o.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_atkin/5104427402/ ]bike[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/peter_atkin/ ]PeterPoddy[/url], on Flickr
[i]"Shot on fillum, manual focus + exposure, fixed focal length (24mm) lens. No motordrive."[/i]
but true macro lenses focus down to a couple of cmSadly they are way out of my price range for my camera
Molgrips, I like a bit of macro too. My Sigma 17-70 f2.8 will focus right down to having the subject inside the lens hood (It does do macro) I've actually used it to take pictures of bearings so I could enlarge the code numbers on them!
I don't think I've got a macro pic as such online though. I'll have a look....
The Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 is not a true 1-1 macro lens although it will focus fairly close in
For true macro you need something like the Canon Macro 100m f/2.8 USM, had one myself, but didn't use it that often.
Most of the lenses that declare themselves "macro" are not and at best give a 2-1 image
The Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 is not a true 1-1 macro lens although it will focus fairly close in
Oh, I realise that, but it does a pretty darn good job! 🙂
From memory I think grips is using a four/thirds system, not Nikon/Canon.
True, I am, and this is the problem - not a huge choice of cheaper stuff... Although what there is is good.
Why are these things not 'proper' macro? What does that mean, and why's it a problem?
I found this guide quite illuminating: http://bythom.com/qadmacro.htm
(it's a little Nikoncentric but it explains the basics well)
Where is Barnes? I wanted to use them two pics what I done as the basis for a discussion on cam settings/technique....
Where is the bastard? 🙄
I wanted to use them two pics what I done as the basis for a discussion on cam settings/technique....
at least the 2nd one was sharp and in focus, if lacking in colour 🙁
Having said that about lens choice, there are shed loads of old Olympus OM lenses I can use with an adapter but I don't get AF. It might not matter for Macro work tho, but I am worried about being able to MF without a split circle.
Most macro shooters tend to use manual focus anyway, moving the lens backwards and forwards, rathe than adjusting the focus ring.
EDIT; just read your post again - ignore!
Some "macro" shots:
This one is from a compact on "macro" focus setting
[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3216/2522773750_cca0479e60.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/2522773750/ ]Common Dog Violet[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr
Whereas this is from an SLR with a Sigma EX DG f2.8 lens at [i]almost[/i] 1:1. You'll notice 31mm takes up the whole 25mm of the Sony APS-C sensor - view it full size to see just how much magnification you get! The lens will get down to true 1:1 but you need to be careful with lighting so that shadows from the lens body don't impinge. Jesus - I'm such a geek.
[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4062/4379218853_4c80211425.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/4379218853/ ]53/365[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr
Oh - manual focus, small-ish aperture for sufficient DoF and a tripod.
Grips: depends on how good the viewfinder is really. If I take my time I can focus with reasonable accuracy on my D80, despite the 0.94x viewfinder (and poor technique). As I understand it, AF is no use for true macro anyway and the DOF is generally so shallow that pressing the shutter too hard or just breathing will throw off your focus.
but you need to be careful with lighting so that shadows from the lens body don't impinge.
moley doesn't like them being called "shadows" so substitute "proximity vignetting"
at least the 2nd one was sharp and in focus, if lacking in colour
See? What a bastard. You have no soul, Barnes.
The point is, that you don't need fancy auto settings that you seem to rely on, to create decent pics. In the first, I deliberately set a low shutter speed (1/4 sec or so, can't remember) to blur the fast motion, and create a sort of abstract effect. Well, at least Poddy likes it.
In the second, I pre-focussed on a particular point, set me shutter speed fairly high to freeze the action, and pressed the shutter release just a fraction before the rider reached that point. I didn't rely on the motor-drive approach just to get one good pic.
I'm happy with them, anyway. And I think they prove that good technique can negate the need for fancy schmancy kit; many auto settings on cams are to take away the need to actually have half a clue about technique. These still don't compensate for having the ability to take decent pics though. The cam don't take the pics; you do.
That second one was taken using some pretty minimal kit. Nikon FM2, 24mm lens. Spose the light-meter was the only concession to some form of electronic aid.
I find your arguments on threads like this quite amusing. Usually because you're wrong. 😉
Elfred: I'm not sure about the first one to be honest. Not because of the blur itself, that's all good, but because to my perception it looks like the blur is in the wrong direction (a bit in front of the rider and a bit vertical too).
Still way better than my stuff tho 😳
🙁and create a sort of [s]abstract[/s] [b]rubbish [/b]effect
so much effort to so little benefit ...
These still don't compensate for having the ability to take decent pics though
which that isn't!
Usually because you're wrong
If adjusting your camera controls is creative then so is adjusting the contrast on your TV. There's a gulf between skill or craft on one side and creativity on the other. The first time someone thought to pan a camera or use depth of field to draw attention to the subject, that was creative - now it's just established technique.
PS in case anyone had any doubt about the matter Elfin and I are in fact the same person.
Sorry Simon but it is way more interesting than most of the photos I see on your bogtrotters collections, because it actually tries to convey something rather than just being a facsimile of the image.