Prev: Convert TIFF-YC to TIFF-RGB
Next: It's All Pink On The Inside With The 24/1.4G!!
From: SneakyP on 26 Jun 2010 20:02
John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in news:i062kk$heb$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> The focus is just fine for the subject, and Larry's metaphors are
> waaaaay better than your slurs.
> I always like straight horizons, though.
>

This reminds me of the DOF question. What lens does one get to increase
the DOF? I have thought of getting the right lens to have that for these
subject matters.


{Oh, and if anyone is interested: to view picture up-close (firefox
browser)- hit "CTRL+" until it's close enough}

From: Jeff Jones on 26 Jun 2010 21:35
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 19:02:53 -0500, SneakyP <noneyabidnezz(a)invalid.org>
wrote:

>John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in news:i062kk$heb$1
>@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> The focus is just fine for the subject, and Larry's metaphors are
>> waaaaay better than your slurs.
>> I always like straight horizons, though.
>>
>
>This reminds me of the DOF question. What lens does one get to increase
>the DOF? I have thought of getting the right lens to have that for these
>subject matters.
>

It's not the lens that's the problem. It's the larger sensor that's the
problem. With the apertures and shutter speeds required for typical
daylight macrophotography or **gross-photography shots (without ruining
them with artificial flash lighting, as the alternative option) all DSLR
lenses produce too little DOF for macro/gross subject sizes. If trying to
use a small enough aperture then you are plagued with diffraction artifacts
and using high ISO's where the noise levels make the image useless. You
need a smaller sensor to be able to get the proper DOF for subjects like
this. Most any decent P&S camera will do.

** "Gross" is a subject size definition. Larger than macro, smaller than
standard. A photo of a frog or smaller bird would be considered
gross-photography, as opposed to macro-photography.

Film-frame image size to subject size.

> 10:1 = Photomicrography (or commonly today, Microphotography)
10:1 to 1:1 = Macrophotography
1:1 to 1:10 = Gross-photography
1:10 to 1:100 = Standard photography
1:100 to 1:1000 = Telephotography
< 1:1000 = Astrophotography

With small and large sensors performing identically with the amount of
information recorded (i.e. 10mpx full-frame or 10mpx 1/2.5" sensor, both
record 10 megapixels of discreet image data), the film-frame image size
constraint no longer holds true for these definitions. You would have to
consider a 35mm film-frame as a reference point for these subject-size
definitions with its 2�m film-grain resolution. A large sensor does not
have a 2�m resolution, its resolution is limited to its larger photosites
of typically 8�m or more.

From: Bruce on 27 Jun 2010 07:39
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 20:35:12 -0500, Jeff Jones
<jj197109671(a)mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>It's not the lens that's the problem. It's the larger sensor that's the
>problem. With the apertures and shutter speeds required for typical
>daylight macrophotography or **gross-photography shots (without ruining
>them with artificial flash lighting, as the alternative option) all DSLR
>lenses produce too little DOF for macro/gross subject sizes. If trying to
>use a small enough aperture then you are plagued with diffraction artifacts
>and using high ISO's where the noise levels make the image useless. You
>need a smaller sensor to be able to get the proper DOF for subjects like
>this. Most any decent P&S camera will do.


With full frame DSLRs, and using lenses of a typical focal length for
shooting macro, diffraction effects don't usually appear at f/8 or
f/11 and are still almost imperceptible at f/16. They are not a
significant problem at f/22, but smaller apertures than that will
cause problems.

In order to shoot hand held at f/16 or f/22, a fast shutter speed is
needed. So the best DSLRs for macro are those that offer good low
noise performance at high ISOs. The Nikon D3, D3s and D700 are ideal
because they offer very low noise at up to ISO 12,800.

In fact Nikon's full frame 12 MP sensor produces even less noise at
ISO 12,800 than almost all small-sensor P&S cameras at ISO 100.

However, for those DSLR users who chose something rather less capable
than these three Nikon bodies, their sensors begin to get noisy at
around ISO 400 and are unusable at anything much over ISO 800. In
this case, a small-sensor P&S camera may present a better choice for
macro work.

From: Draco on 27 Jun 2010 11:26
On Jun 26, 3:59 pm, "Larry Thong" <larry_th...(a)shitstring.com> wrote:
> It simply couldn't take the heat!  I know it was hotter than Bin Laden at a
> Bah Mitzvah out there today and I was sweating like a illegal alien picking
> produce.  At least the damn thing croaked before I did!
>
> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/croaked.jpg>

I have no complaint over the image. It is well exposed and composed. I
would have cropped the lower part a bit to move the subject a bit
lower in the frame.
Being so hot in the mid-atlantic over the past few days, shallow ponds
have been having kill offs of frogs, fish and other aquatic wildlife.
The dang water gets so hot, it cooks the critters.

Draco
From: Tim Conway on 27 Jun 2010 20:04

"Larry Thong" <larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> wrote in message
news:Q4OdnfYwlLwYwbvRnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d(a)supernews.com...
> It simply couldn't take the heat! I know it was hotter than Bin Laden at
> a Bah Mitzvah out there today and I was sweating like a illegal alien
> picking produce. At least the damn thing croaked before I did!
>
> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/croaked.jpg>

handsome little prince, isn't he?

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Convert TIFF-YC to TIFF-RGB
Next: It's All Pink On The Inside With The 24/1.4G!!