Why is focus important?
Nov 8, 2023 06:00:24 #
Here's another example of missed focus. I don't have a second 'better' frame, so this film frame is just a waste, except for a short discussion of why the frame is a failure. These were shot on film, using Kodak Ektar 100 and an EF 180mm macro lens. Shot at 1/250 sec, that was probably fast enough to 'freeze' the flower. But, on film, I didn't have an option to speed the shutter via a higher ISO.
I might have spent more time on cleaning up the background, but that edit effort isn't needed since the subject is not in focus. I wish it was in focus, the interesting details -- where in focus -- show why I tried this capture of this flower on film with this lens. I do have some other frames from flowers in this same area of the landscaping in Lincoln Park. Those are shared in the film section.
I might have spent more time on cleaning up the background, but that edit effort isn't needed since the subject is not in focus. I wish it was in focus, the interesting details -- where in focus -- show why I tried this capture of this flower on film with this lens. I do have some other frames from flowers in this same area of the landscaping in Lincoln Park. Those are shared in the film section.
Nov 8, 2023 07:18:45 #
Nov 8, 2023 07:26:57 #
An impossible shot for 100 ASA film, 180mm lens at f/5.6 and 1/250. DOF is only .1"
Nov 8, 2023 07:32:38 #
Nov 8, 2023 08:20:33 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Here's another example of missed focus. I don't ha... (show quote)
Interesting comparison
Nov 8, 2023 10:33:07 #
SonyA580 wrote:
An impossible shot for 100 ASA film, 180mm lens at f/5.6 and 1/250. DOF is only .1"
Exactly. With such a small sliver of DOF, the focus must be in focus and it needs to fall where the viewer's eyes will naturally look. Otherwise, the frame is a waste / failure.
Nov 8, 2023 10:35:04 #
Thanks 13, SonyA580, Irvingite, junglejim1949! I think there's still another 'failure' to analyze from this roll. A lot more failures than usual, even with the awesome 180L macro and my favorite EKTAR-100 film.
Nov 8, 2023 12:41:24 #
A great illustration of the limitations of film. I sometimes wonder why wildlife photographers back in the Kodachrome days hung on. Fred Truslow once told me his ratio of exception from NatGeo was 1:100.
Nov 8, 2023 14:27:25 #
Paul is absolutely correct here.
In my film days, I shot with Canon's 200 macro. One of their finest lenses.
I shoot regularly with a 5D2 & the EF180. Another great lens.
There is only one way get decent DOF with either of these lenses.
Stop down the lens & increase the shutter time.
These lenses will go down to f/32. Pull the ISO down as well.
This, of course, requires a good tripod and no wind, if outside.
If you experiment with this for a while you will get much better results.
In my film days, I shot with Canon's 200 macro. One of their finest lenses.
I shoot regularly with a 5D2 & the EF180. Another great lens.
There is only one way get decent DOF with either of these lenses.
Stop down the lens & increase the shutter time.
These lenses will go down to f/32. Pull the ISO down as well.
This, of course, requires a good tripod and no wind, if outside.
If you experiment with this for a while you will get much better results.
Nov 8, 2023 21:15:52 #
Why is focus important? Because if you can't focus on your goals, you will never achieve anything! Oh, that's something else!
Nov 9, 2023 07:48:46 #
You dont mention the F stop used , depth of field is critical on a macro lens .I have a 90mm macro lens , f16 is about right except on a flat subject , like a stamp or coin .So you need a lot of light , or too slow of a speed . Also just manual focus / depth of field previous, so you can see what the result will be .
Nov 9, 2023 10:07:30 #
I see now, Jack, bburns, CPO, agillot, my comments did fail to mention the f/5.6 aperture used in this image. (The attachment does have the EXIF.) If the image had worked, the goal would have been a thin 'slice' of the image in sharp focus, with a pleasing blur into the background. There's a few others from the same gardens that did work, both captured a f/8, linked into the film section at: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-790760-1.html
Nov 9, 2023 16:44:18 #
Tote1940
Loc: Dallas
Let’s face it, digitals with their amazingly sensitive sensors have one up over chemical photo.
We can get away shooting at ISO values impossible with film.
Digitized quite a few feet of Super 8 ASA 400 fastest available and grain very coarse.
Tried some monochrome 8 mm ASA 1000 but were not grains, more like boulders
My Z50 captures with tolerable noise over ISO 2000
We can get away shooting at ISO values impossible with film.
Digitized quite a few feet of Super 8 ASA 400 fastest available and grain very coarse.
Tried some monochrome 8 mm ASA 1000 but were not grains, more like boulders
My Z50 captures with tolerable noise over ISO 2000
Nov 10, 2023 10:13:30 #
Too bad other people in the Gallery (echo chamber) post things that they think are good and, well, not so good. It is not informative. This is a good instructive post on why something went awry, which happens to us all. Should someone spend time trying to resurrect this shot? Nope. Delete and move on.
Nov 10, 2023 11:53:50 #
Hip Coyote wrote:
Too bad other people in the Gallery (echo chamber) post things that they think are good and, well, not so good. It is not informative. This is a good instructive post on why something went awry, which happens to us all. Should someone spend time trying to resurrect this shot? Nope. Delete and move on.
If I ever get back to some close ups of birds from a few years ago, I can speak to 'where' to focus as well as 'is it in focus'? The images all seem unbelievable, but just a few millimeters between each frame really make a difference between the keeper and trash.
One must delete as many frames as needed to succeed.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.