Digital SLR question

not what I could see if I swivelled my eyes around like a loon.

you don’t have that choice, your eyes swivel anyway. Try stopping them. I can get to about 10 seconds before my nerve breaks.

Yes but everything is NOT in focus. Only the thing I am focussing on (in this case a screen).

Even if I do conciously look at various other things in the room then I, in common with I believe most humans except apparently your goodself, only focus on one thing at a time and the rest is blurred.

Graham,

there’s no point trying to discuss anything with SFB. His usual tactic is to resort to sophistry when challenged over his tiresome, dogmatic opinions.

Unfortunately, he is drawn to photography threads like a moth to a flame. Shame really, because otherwise interesting, informative threads degenerate into this same fatuous drivel time after time.

I just get bored and go elsewhere.

in common with I believe most humans except apparently your goodself

try holding your hands over your eyes and going “la la I can’t read you” 🙂

Yeah can we stop arguing with him and get back to talking about how we use our cameras? That was interesting there.

If you wanted to take close-ups of flowers and crap, would you rather have a 18-180mm lens (36-360) that focused up to 45cm or a fixed 35mm (70mm) that could focus from 14.5cm and could do f3.5?

You’d be better off with a macro lens if you want real close up – otherwise refer to the formula in your other thread 🙂

His usual tactic is to resort to sophistry when challenged over his tiresome, dogmatic opinions.

actually I’m trying to dismantle dogma…
admittedly, the way our eyes work isn’t strongly related to photography, which is a very crude approximation

I do object to the “sophistry” as I always tell the truth 🙁

But that zoom would surely produce a bigger image if I stood at 45cm and zoomed in..?

Although I would probably be getting less light if I were up close to something.. hmm.. so the larger aperture would be good.

Fixed 35mm would probably be better if you want the whole flower/crap in the frame, but true macro lenses focus down to a couple of cm and can reproduce an image at 1:1, so something 25mm across would fill a 25mm sensor which when viewed full size = enormous magnification.

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]
Screen shot 2010-02-18 at 11[1].17.42[/url] by PeterPoddy[/url], on Flickr

And he asked me to put this one up as well, which isn’t shoddy either –

[/url]
bike[/url] by PeterPoddy[/url], on Flickr

“Shot on fillum, manual focus + exposure, fixed focal length (24mm) lens. No motordrive.”

but true macro lenses focus down to a couple of cm

Sadly 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.