I attended a Macro class with my local photography club. I have a large collection of seashells, so I used some of my shells for the class. This is one of the photo I took in the class.
Sher
Loc: Colorful Colorado
jdpenny wrote:
I attended a Macro class with my local photography club. I have a large collection of seashells, so I used some of my shells for the class. This is one of the photo I took in the class.
Looks like you learned well
How small are these shells?
The largest shell is maybe 2 inches.
Nice job! Like the background, and your choice of lighting on the sea shells.
very nice...now I will get out my macro lens and give it a whirl.
Did youo use a macro lens? Did you or were able to adjust lighting? It seems that some detail is lost because of the lighting situation that allowed shadows. I say this becaue it looks like you wanted clear DoF althrought the picture.
jdpenny wrote:
I attended a Macro class with my local photography club. I have a large collection of seashells, so I used some of my shells for the class. This is one of the photo I took in the class.
could and "should" be crisper - sharper - focus is critical with macro (esp) and these are not. One has to learn to see critical focus - how too see that takes time but hey ask the teacher.
could and "should" be crisper - sharper - focus is critical with macro (esp) and these are not. One has to learn to see critical focus - how too see that takes time but hey ask the teacher.[/quote]
I may have lost some due to cropping. This is a better copy. I used diopters with a kit lens. I don't have a dedicated macro lens as yet.
could and "should" be crisper - sharper - focus is critical with macro (esp) and these are not. One has to learn to see critical focus - how too see that takes time but hey ask the teacher.[/quote]
I may have lost some due to cropping. This is a better copy. I used diopters with a kit lens. I don't have a dedicated macro lens as yet.
jdpenny wrote:
could and "should" be crisper - sharper - focus is critical with macro (esp) and these are not. One has to learn to see critical focus - how too see that takes time but hey ask the teacher.
I may have lost some due to cropping. This is a better copy. I used diopters with a kit lens. I don't have a dedicated macro lens as yet.[/quote]
ahhh thank you jenny for that additional info regarding close up filters.
These are not easy at all to work with as one has to move the camera in order to find that sweet spot where focus is critical. One of the things I believe of value is to learn to be creative within the limitations of your equipment. Ok so you do not have the latest brand macro lens. Learn to work with what you have just like you did with this shot.
Improvise, imaginate, play and know what your equipment will and will not allow you to do.
will look for pic for lesson 2
jdpenny wrote:
The largest shell is maybe 2 inches.
I appreciate that you took a class about macro-photography, but your photo of a 2-inch shell is actually a close-up photo.
If this were a true 1:1 macro, then the shell would be only 1/2-tall. I have used my macro lenses to take people portrait photos, photos of hummingbirds at a feeder, and shells in ocean tidepools. None of which are macros.
I look forward to seeing your images shot at minimal Working Distance. Ugly HedgeHog has a forum just for macro:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html
Nikonian72 wrote:
jdpenny wrote:
The largest shell is maybe 2 inches.
I appreciate that you took a class about macro-photography, but your photo of a 2-inch shell is actually a close-up photo.
If this were a true 1:1 macro, then the shell would be only 1/2-tall. I have used my macro lenses to take people portrait photos, photos of hummingbirds at a feeder, and shells in ocean tidepools. None of which are macros.
I look forward to seeing your images shot at minimal Working Distance. Ugly HedgeHog has a forum just for macro:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html quote=jdpenny The largest shell is maybe 2 inches... (
show quote)
We all have to start somewhere, WAY TO GO dishing out discouragement.
jdpenny wrote:
Nikonian72 wrote:
jdpenny wrote:
The largest shell is maybe 2 inches.
I appreciate that you took a class about macro-photography, but your photo of a 2-inch shell is actually a close-up photo.
If this were a true 1:1 macro, then the shell would be only 1/2-tall. I have used my macro lenses to take people portrait photos, photos of hummingbirds at a feeder, and shells in ocean tidepools. None of which are macros.
I look forward to seeing your images shot at minimal Working Distance. Ugly HedgeHog has a forum just for macro:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html quote=jdpenny The largest shell is maybe 2 inches... (
show quote)
We all have to start somewhere, WAY TO GO dishing out discouragement.
quote=Nikonian72 quote=jdpenny The largest shell... (
show quote)
hey Nikonian is correct if somewhat unflexible about it. In my case, I have dedicated Macro lenses and rarely do I use them for "true macro."
Therefore were I to post an image taken with one of my macro lenses and proclaim it as such Nikonian could and probably would jump me for making that claim too......sides we're old...give us a break.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.