Nightski's Mycenas: I believe this is the same time of mushroom that lighthouse shot. I think it will be helpful to some to see how tiny these are and how differently the outcome is...

Nightski

I believe this is the same time of mushroom that lighthouse shot. I think it will be helpful to some to see how tiny these are and how differently the outcome is with an inexperienced photographer. I did gather up some nice light on them though .. LOL
Canon 6D
Canon 100mm F2.8L Macro IS

ISO 100
30 second exposure
F/32

Does anyone notice diffraction caused by the F/32 setting?

lighthouses mycena mushrooms ... same mushroom shot a different way?
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-260236-1.html

I think these are Mycenas ..

(Download)

globetrekker Loc: Bend, OR

I like the color and the light.

Why such a long exposure? I don't see what that does for you in shots like this, and it gives you an overly narrow DOF.

Says one inexperienced photographer to another. :oops:

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Nightski wrote:

I believe this is the same time of mushroom that lighthouse shot. I think it will be helpful to some to see how tiny these are and how differently the outcome is with an inexperienced photographer. I did gather up some nice light on them though .. LOL
Canon 6D
Canon 100mm F2.8L IS

ISO 100
30 second exposure
F/32

Does anyone notice diffraction caused by the F/32 setting?

xxxxx
You did catch nice light.
Had you not mentioned F/32 I'd not have noticed that ugly, disgusting diffusion softness....no...wait...I still don't see that ....neither at NVD nor as close as the end of my nose! Good detail rendition within the DOF which fades off just before the ridge of the moss-covered log beyond which there is good separation of middleground from BG. Even the fine cortical shreads on the surface of the translucent stalks are well-defined.

I like the sense of a community of fungi with the caps of several standing above the midground/background horizon.

Might consider a crop from the bottom and left side .

I think you underestimate this image's merit.

Dave

Nightski

globetrekker wrote:

I like the color and the light.

Why such a long exposure? I don't see what that does for you in shots like this, and it gives you an overly narrow DOF.

Says one inexperienced photographer to another. :oops:

Okay ... I might learn something today. Why does F/32 give you a narrow DOF? Is that different from a shallow DOF? Or are you saying that a long exposure gives you a narrow/shallow DOF?

Nightski

Uuglypher wrote:

xxxxx
You did catch nice light.
Had you not mentioned F/32 I'd not have noticed that ugly, disgusting diffusion softness....no...wait...I still don't see that ....neither at NVD nor as close as the end of my nose! Good detail rendition within the DOF which fades off just before the ridge of the moss-covered log beyond which there is good separation of middleground from BG. Even the fine cortical shreads on the surface of the translucent stalks are well-defined.

Wow ... that's a testament to this Canon "L" lens isn't it? Makes me feel pretty good about that purchase. :-)

Maybe I will pp...

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

Nightski wrote:

Okay ... I might learn something today. Why does F/32 give you a narrow DOF? Is that different from a shallow DOF? Or are you saying that a long exposure gives you a narrow/shallow DOF?

I'd like to learn if this affects DOF as well. I thought that aperture was the main determining factor and the fact that you are zoomed in compresses the area that is in focus.

Nightski

Mr PC wrote:

I'd like to learn if this affects DOF as well. I thought that aperture was the main determining factor and the fact that you are zoomed in compresses the area that is in focus.

Longer focal length does compress ... this is a 100mm prime lens.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Well, you see, you've gone and spoiled us by showing us the level of sharpness that your lens is capable of. I would say that the effects of diffraction are there, but compared to the type of softness that OOF gives you, I'd say this type of softness is really not that bad. If you're going to do any PP on it, it would be interesting to see if it responds to sharpening. The diffraction affects all edges in the shot equally, and at the same time it's helped to soften any noise.

I think that LH's shot is interesting because of a) interesting lighting, and b) an interestingly dark background. I don't think the two shots are comparable because you wouldn't be comparing like with like. Yours has an interesting "Mushroom City" look to it, with its hi-rise mushrooms in the background breaking the near horizon, and the closer cluster providing a more random grouping.

You don't seem to be that close to the point of focus - was f/32 really that necessary, given that the near horizon is, well - near?

Nightski

Sorry ... DOF revelations again ... geez .. I don't know why I get so confused about this. Let me see if I have this right.

F/32 lends a greater DOF than F/16
100mm compresses an image as opposed to the 16-35mm which seems to elongate images.

So .. if I'm shooting little tiny mushrooms up close, F/32 might be a really good choice so that I can get the whole little mushroom in focus without having to do stacking or any such thing.

But after F/16 diffraction (softness due to light being squished through a tiny opening) can be much more apparent in an image and possibly make it unacceptably soft?

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Nightski wrote:

Okay ... I might learn something today. Why does F/32 give you a narrow DOF? Is that different from a shallow DOF? Or are you saying that a long exposure gives you a narrow/shallow DOF?

Woah! Where does this idea that a small aperture results in a "narrow" or "shallow" depth of field come from. Sounds like the start of some weird " folk wisdom" to me.

Dave

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Uuglypher wrote:

Woah! Where does this idea that a small aperture results in a "narrow" or "shallow" depth of field come from. Sounds like the start of some weird " folk wisdom" to me.

Dave

Some "Botton lines"re: DOF (Depth of Field/called by some "Depth of Focus" )

DOF (Depth of Field) increases as aperture size decreases.

DOF (Depth of Field) decreases ( becomes more "narrow" or more "shallow" or more "thin" ) as aperture size increases.

DOF (Depth of Field) for any given aperture increases ( becomes "deeper" ) as distance from the lens increases.

Dave in SD

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Nightski wrote:

Why does F/32 give you a narrow DOF? Is that different from a shallow DOF? Or are you saying that a long exposure gives you a narrow/shallow DOF?

Aperture f/32 will provide deeper DoF than f/22, or any other normal aperture. With your lens, the narrowest DoF is f/2.8. Exposure time does not directly effect DoF.

Working Distance affects DoF. The close a lens is to subject, the more narrow the DoF. At Minimum Working Distance, a true macro lens will capture 1:1 magnification, with the narrowest DoF of any Working Distance.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

I like your capture, but believe that you have unnecessary left-side real estate, and too much foreground. Will you allow me to post a cropped version of your image?

Nightski

Nikonian72 wrote:

I like your capture, but believe that you have unnecessary left-side real estate, and too much foreground. Will you allow me to post a cropped version of your image?

If you start a new thread ... Photo Critique Section rules and all.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Nightski wrote:

If you start a new thread ... Photo Critique Section rules and all.

Done. http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-260830-1.html#4387932