Question for anyone:
Murphie is starting with a large full frame sensor and lots of pixels:
If he wasn't blowing this up to the sky (larger than 8 x 10") couldn't he get just as good a print using a short focal length lens, even 28mm, and cropping it to the same image both improving his noise and depth of field problem?
Just asking what the problem might be?
rleonetti wrote:
Question for anyone:
Murphie is starting with a large full frame sensor and lots of pixels:
If he wasn't blowing this up to the sky (larger than 8 x 10") couldn't he get just as good a print using a short focal length lens, even 28mm, and cropping it to the same image both improving his noise and depth of field problem?
Just asking what the problem might be?
Depends what focal length the original photo was shot at on his zoom. He said it was taken at 92mm. If you take the shot at 28mm you would have a different "look" because his perspective, especially that close up, would be very different. See the following page:
https://photography.tutsplus.com/tutorials/exploring-how-focal-length-affects-images--photo-6508Note the size and focus of the subject in relation to the bridge in the background, even though she is (approx) the same size in the shots. Also notice how the BG (background) behind the girl (and bulb in the op's photo) is pleasantly out of focus, but with a 28mm lens it would be much more in focus and would take away from the main subject.
Even at his sensor size, if he shoots from far enough back to get the same perspective, he will again be introducing noise and possibly less clarity since the subject will be so much smaller in the frame before he crops. Not to mention that issue of of a very in-focus BG. would be exacerbated. Part of the beauty of the shot is that OOF lighting coming from behind.
Hal81
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
I think it's a good shot. I have a few poster boards of black, white and a couple of colors like light blue and green. I haven't used them since last summer. But you can hang these behind your subject for different backgrounds. I have an old light stand that I hang mine on. Just an idea you might try.
If you plan to photograph insects, I really recommend one of the longer focal lengths, 150mm, 180mm or so. The longer focal lengths allow you to be farther away from the insect so you don't scare it off just as you are ready to trip the shutter. The sigma 150 is very highly recommended. I have it and the 180 canon, and I think the 150 is a little better for high megapixel sensors.
This is an awesome shot. Well done.
Thanks for the recommendation!
djb663 wrote:
Please tell us about the bubble... How was it made, etc?
Ok, so thanks to everyone for taking time to look at my pic and lend some great advice! Exactly what I was hoping for. I did join up with the macro forum m, so thanks for that link and suggestion. So much information given by so many. Thank you all!
As far as making the bubbles, here is a link to several different bubble mixes:
http://www.coolest-kid-birthday-parties.com/bubble-recipes.htmlMine is probably a combination of a couple of them. I got frustrated with my mix on Saturday, dumped half of it and started over. That mix gave me this bubble.... so it's a mish mash of bubble recipes, lol. The temperature needs to be below 20, the colder them the better, I've done them at -2, but many do them colder.
No wind! Absolutely no wind or your bubble goes bye bye. The greatest tip I had was to shoot them in the morning hours at sunrise or at sunset and to shoot into the light because it will accentuate the crystallization patterns. Fortunate for me, I have a wonderful little pine tree to place my bubbles on.
Oh, and use a straw to blow the bubble into your surface....
That should just about do it.... getting close to getting my macro lens... I like the 105 of the Nikon and the Sigma, but I like the weather seal of the Tamron, which is a 90. My quandary....
Just glad my husband is supportive of this ridiculously expensive habit!
Bob Boner wrote:
If you plan to photograph insects, I really recommend one of the longer focal lengths, 150mm, 180mm or so.
Most field macro-photographer, self included, learned proper field macro techniques with macro lenses in the 'normal' range of 90-mm to 105mm. I have used 150-mm and 200-mm macro lenses in the field, at MWD, and it was similar to following a bee while looking through a straw. I appreciate the patience and skill of long macro lens users, but I am quite content with my Nikkor 105G.
Can't help with setup. But very cool shot. How did you make the bubble? Thanx
Mark Bski
Loc: A sleepy little island not far from Seattle
If you can, stay away from tubes. My set is a very tight fit, it was a struggle to put them on and take them off. Finally, it damaged a lens, the spring behind one of the balls broke and there is now a shoddy connection, with the loss of auto-focus.
Nikonian72 wrote:
Most field macro-photographer, self included, learned proper field macro techniques with macro lenses in the 'normal' range of 90-mm to 105mm. I have used 150-mm and 200-mm macro lenses in the field, at MWD, and it was similar to following a bee while looking through a straw. I appreciate the patience and skill of long macro lens users, but I am quite content with my Nikkor 105G.
That's very helpful as this can become very confusing indeed!
Pkfish wrote:
Can't help with setup. But very cool shot. How did you make the bubble? Thanx
Thanks! See the post several spots up from this one. Explains the bubblage.
Mark Bski wrote:
If you can, stay away from tubes. My set is a very tight fit, it was a struggle to put them on and take them off. Finally, it damaged a lens, the spring behind one of the balls broke and there is now a shoddy connection, with the loss of auto-focus.
That is scary. Can you tell me what brand yours are? Is that allowed on the forum?
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.