Photography - Technique and Equipment considerations

[CJ]

Also, is anyone a fan of iPhone photos? People do some amazing shit with them.

I am now!

[Vikki]

Aww, thanks, CJ! I've had the iPhone for 6 or so weeks, so don't have many more. I'll find them later and show you if you want. Aww, you made me feel good about myself! I love CJ.

You hit the nail on the head re: art/details. It doesn't surprise me though, that so many people here are interested in the macro... something to do with the scientific, no? Beauty in the details. Me, I like the details! But I also like it when things are fuzzy around the edges. Sometimes details can be ugly. Out of focus, even the ugly can look beautiful.

Although I suppose I am contradicting myself, because I have been obsessed today with the work of Juliana Beasley, who makes the ugly fucking well gorge.












http://www.julianabeasley.com/

(Rockaways series)

I loooove dirty realism. She almost reminds me of Nan Goldin.

[CJ]

Are these your photo's Vikki?

[Vikki]

No those were Juliana Beasley's. Sif I could do anything that awesome.

I'll PM you some of mine.

[CJ]

No those were Juliana Beasley's. Sif I could do anything that awesome.

I'll PM you some of mine.

Post your photos in the Gallery, they need to be there.

[Vikki]

No those were Juliana Beasley's. Sif I could do anything that awesome.

I'll PM you some of mine.

Post your photos in the Gallery, they need to be there.

Hah, I had to use the search function to find it, but I got there!

[Beelzebub2]

When invariably using CANON IXUS 950 IS or CANON IXUS 850(depending on availability) how to avoid blurred pics when using zoom feature?

Apparently I overdid it, and consequently pics were as if they where painted:

[CJ]

Most odd. Both the cameras should be fine and I don't understand why your pictures should look like that. Are you using just the optical zoom or is there a facility to carry out digital zoom as well?

[CJ]

Ah!

Optical 4x Digital approx 4x (with Digital Tele-Converter approx 1.6x or 2.0x and Safety Zoom (1))(2). Combined approx 16x

That'll be it, don't use digital zoom, it's effectively a reduction in resolution.

http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product ... sp?specs=1

[Beelzebub2]

Cool, thanks!

[CJ]

The photographs in this post were all taken with this combination.



The ring flash is the white bit at the front of the lens, it's control unit fits into the 'hot shoe' on the top of the camera body. The purpose of a ring flash is to produce an even lighting on a close object, eliminate camera shake and increase depth of field in the image. The first purpose is achieved by putting a relatively low powered flash tube in a translucent cover. The second is achieved by virtue of the fact that the flash tube's flash duration is between 1/1,000 to 1/10,000 of a second which allows no opportunity for camera shake to effect the final image. The third purpose is satisfied by the close proximity of the subject to the flash tube. Although the flash tube is relatively low power it can produce an overwhelming amount of light close to a subject, this allows the use of apertures as tiny as f16 to f32. As was shown in the Bluebell picture sequence the smaller the aperture the greater the depth of field, and when working with small objects there is never enough depth of field.

When using a ring flash the camera body takes virtually no part in the process, it is relegated to the sensor holder. It is set to manual and the shutter set to 1/125sec. The aperture is the gross means to control the exposure. The lens in this set up is the 100mm f2.8 Minolta. The ring flash cost £70 which is pretty good value for money. There are more expensive versions which link into the cameras electronics which are more sophisticated but 3 times the price.

I found a dead Bumble Bee.





1:1 on the lens reduction on the picture.


1:1 on the lens and on the screen this is as good as it gets with this set up.






One side effect of using a ring flash is the dark backgrounds in pictures taken in broad daylight. As the aperture is so small not enough ambient light can get into the camera to make an image. As the flash tube is low powered it can't light up things more that about a metre away, if it did the subject would be grossly overexposed (too much light). As a result the subject is illuminated adequately and the background goes dark, sometimes completely black as in this example.

[CJ]

FBM and I have been discussing macro lenses here is one PM which may be of interest.

What do you think about this lens:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/show ... roduct=249

and/or Tamron lenses in general?

Would this: http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources ... 180-2.html make a truly significant difference?

Both lenses will serve you very well and will produce top quality pictures. As your camera body or either lens does not have anti-shake fitted IF you can afford it I would say the best choice would be http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022 ... svr105.asp this will work with your camera (but do check specifically). You will never regret buying the Nikon except for the initial hit. Frankly I have tried doing Macro 'on the cheap' and it never really worked, also the absolute killer for macro work is camera shake as its effects are greatly magnified.

If you can't stretch to the Nikon then the choice between the two Tamrons comes down to portability and utility. The 90mm is very light the 180mm is heavy and will need to be used with a monopod to get the best out of it. However the 180mm is a useful general telephoto which when used on your camera body will have an effective focal length of 270mm quite good for wildlife. So if portability, bugs and flowers are your thing go for the 90mm. If you don't mind lugging around a heavy chunk of glass on a monopod (looks very professional and cool ) then the 180mm is the better option. I have a 100mm and a 180mm and if I had to choose just one I'd probably keep the 180mm for that extra 'reach'. The Monopod you need is a Manfrotto 679 in plain aluminium of black, don't bother with a quick release head if you buy the 180mm lens as the pod attaches to a quick release ring around the lens, if you get the 90mm then a quick release head is a good idea.

But as I have said IF you can afford it go for the Nikon because it will give you absolutly the best possible bug and flower shots, if that's the sort of photos you want to take and if you're a perfectionist you'll just end up buying it anyway.

Final word. Any of those lenses will take your photography to a new level of capability and given the bugs, flowers and wildlife around you I am looking forward to your output.

Regards
Chris

EDIT: Do you mind if I add this to the photography thread as I'm sure the same question will crop up again.

[FBM]

Whew. Tough weekend. I've finally found a few minutes to plant myself at a keyboard. Here's what I'm thinking:

I would love to snatch up the Nikon, and I'm poised to do so depending on your advice. It's clearly the superior macro. BUT, as much as I love and admire bug-and-flower shots, that's not really the kind of subjects I want to specialize in. Bugs and flowers don't scream out: 'This is the real Korea!' I really want to capture the spirit/mood or whatever of the country, its people, customs and traditions, particulary in the countryside where not so many photogs with a Western eye venture. That means people, old houses, pastoral scenes, farms, villages, temples, and such. Often I need to reach across a rice paddy to catch a farmer bending over and hacking weeds with a sickle, or a heron or egret poised to snatch a bug. Or down the street a ways to catch an elderly couple holding hands at a bus stop.

I think the 90mm is safely ruled out. You say the 180mm, which I wouldn't mind lugging around with the monopod, will give me the reach I think I'll need. How much reach will I have/sacrifice with the Nikon 105mm? If you say it'll give me the ability to reach across a rice paddy, say 40-60 meters and end up with a reasonably crisp and close image, I'll go for it. I definitely need something with anti-shake help, too, and I like that feature of the Nikon perhaps most of all.

[CJ]

Whew. Tough weekend. I've finally found a few minutes to plant myself at a keyboard. Here's what I'm thinking:

I would love to snatch up the Nikon, and I'm poised to do so depending on your advice. It's clearly the superior macro. BUT, as much as I love and admire bug-and-flower shots, that's not really the kind of subjects I want to specialize in. Bugs and flowers don't scream out: 'This is the real Korea!' I really want to capture the spirit/mood or whatever of the country, its people, customs and traditions, particulary in the countryside where not so many photogs with a Western eye venture. That means people, old houses, pastoral scenes, farms, villages, temples, and such. Often I need to reach across a rice paddy to catch a farmer bending over and hacking weeds with a sickle, or a heron or egret poised to snatch a bug. Or down the street a ways to catch an elderly couple holding hands at a bus stop.

I think the 90mm is safely ruled out. You say the 180mm, which I wouldn't mind lugging around with the monopod, will give me the reach I think I'll need. How much reach will I have/sacrifice with the Nikon 105mm? If you say it'll give me the ability to reach across a rice paddy, say 40-60 meters and end up with a reasonably crisp and close image, I'll go for it. I definitely need something with anti-shake help, too, and I like that feature of the Nikon perhaps most of all.

You don't need anti-shake as much if you're prepared to lug the monopod around. For the subject mater you have described then I'd go for a good quality zoom.

The lens you need for the subject matter you have just described is this one http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/ ... -200mm.htm or this one http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/ ... -400mm.htm or something similar, such as http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imagi ... /index.htm nothing obvious in the Tamron range.

All these lenses will give you high quality results, the Nikon will be the most versatile as it has a wider zoom range.

[FBM]

You don't need anti-shake as much if you're prepared to lug the monopod around. For the subject mater you have described then I'd go for a good quality zoom.

The lens you need for the subject matter you have just described is this one http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/ ... -200mm.htm or this one http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/ ... -400mm.htm or something similar, such as http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imagi ... /index.htm nothing obvious in the Tamron range.

All these lenses will give you high quality results, the Nikon will be the most versatile as it has a wider zoom range.

Cool. Give me some time to research them. As always, an enthusiastic