 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / June 2008Shooting Macro At 1,000mm With The D3!!
The close focus ability of the old 500 is simply amazing, even at 15'! Next time I'll be taking my Kenko tubes out to see how well they do. Damn! The old 500 is really a versatile lens. <http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com/blooming_macro.htm> Rita  SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com > The close focus ability of the old 500 is simply amazing, even at 15'! Next > time I'll be taking my Kenko tubes out to see how well they do. Damn! The [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com Very nicely done Rita. I would have added a polarizer to tone down the reflections for the sky in the water. But your saturation and sharpness is very nice. Placement of the flower to the green tuft of leaves at the top on a diaginol allows the eye to wander around and back to the flower. The open area to the right top balances the underwater branches to the bottom left and the branches to the top balances the open water to the bottom right. The spacing along the edges gives a more finished look to the entire piece. Again, well done. Keep at it. Draco > Very nicely done Rita. I would have added a polarizer to tone down the > reflections for the sky in the water. But your saturation and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > balances the open water to the bottom right. The spacing along the > edges gives a more finished look to the entire piece. Thanks. The only problem I have with using a polarizer on the 500 is it gets mounted on the back of the lens and is adjusted with a thumbwheel screw. This makes it near impossible to use when shooting handheld, which is mostly the way I shoot. Only way I can use a polarizer is to rest the lens on a tree. <http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com/one_slip.htm> Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com >(snip) > Thanks. The only problem I have with using a polarizer on the 500 is it > gets mounted on the back of the lens and is adjusted with a thumbwheel > screw. This makes it near impossible to use when shooting handheld, which > is mostly the way I shoot. Only way I can use a polarizer is to rest the > lens on a tree. >(Snip the rest) Still it would have made the image a bit stronger. What's wrong? Never heard of a Mono-pod? I used one when I was out in Texas and didn't feel like dragging the tripod out and back on the plane. I had added a medium ball head to it so I could tilt the camera without loosing the support of the mono-pod. Worked like a champ. Was able to put a 19mm lens on it, adjust the ball head for a down tilt and raised it above the crowds to get some over all crowd scenes. Using a cable release I was able to fire the camera without looking through the view finder. Also used that rig in shooting out over a ledge to get some shots of a working water mill. Draco >> (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Also used that rig in shooting out over a ledge to get some shots of a > working water mill. I'll work on it. I did order polarizer; the damn thing set me back $200. As for the monopod, it's more of a nuisance carrying it around and having to screw with it. Since I'm constantly moving when I'm hiking the routine I use for shooting is very easy and effortless. I got one so I guess I can blow the dust off of it and give it another try. Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com In rec.photo.digital Rita Berkowitz <ritaberk2008@aol.com> wrote: >>> (snip) >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> Also used that rig in shooting out over a ledge to get some shots of a >> working water mill. > I'll work on it. I did order polarizer; the damn thing set me back $200. > As for the monopod, it's more of a nuisance carrying it around and having to > screw with it. Since I'm constantly moving when I'm hiking the routine I > use for shooting is very easy and effortless. I got one so I guess I can > blow the dust off of it and give it another try. You can get trekking poles the top of whose handle unscrews to reveal a camera (or head) mounting bolt. Instant monopod for the hiker. SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] >You can get trekking poles the top of whose handle unscrews to reveal >a camera (or head) mounting bolt. Instant monopod for the hiker. I was looking for those, couldn't find them anywhere. Do you have a pointer to a manufacturer or dealer? jue >>You can get trekking poles the top of whose handle unscrews to reveal >>a camera (or head) mounting bolt. Instant monopod for the hiker. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >jue Take a look at either www.trackspoles.com or www.leki.com. I bought a LEKI Passport pole for my mother because she needed a good travel cane. I tried using it as a monopod and found that resting the camera on the crook of the grip worked better than attaching it to the threaded mount. TR >> I'll work on it. I did order polarizer; the damn thing set me back >> $200. As for the monopod, it's more of a nuisance carrying it around [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You can get trekking poles the top of whose handle unscrews to reveal > a camera (or head) mounting bolt. Instant monopod for the hiker. Thanks. I'll look into this. Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com >As for the monopod, it's more of a nuisance carrying it around and having to >screw with it. Goodnight, Gracie. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > The close focus ability of the old 500 is simply amazing, even at 15'! > Next [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > <http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com/blooming_macro.htm> Did you use any filters? Nice pic. John. >> <http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com/blooming_macro.htm> > > Did you use any filters? Nope. I wish Nikon and Canon would make a motorized polarizer. > Nice pic. Thanks. Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com/blooming_macro.htm oooooo... yes > The close focus ability of the old 500 is simply amazing, even at 15'! Next > time I'll be taking my Kenko tubes out to see how well they do. Damn! The > old 500 is really a versatile lens. > > <http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com/blooming_macro.htm> What the hell makes you believe that is a macro? > > <http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com/blooming_macro.htm> > > What the hell makes you believe that is a macro? Allow me to explain. Here are 4 definitions of "Macro" according to Webster: 1: being large, thick, or exceptionally prominent 2 a: of, involving, or intended for use with relatively large quantities or on a large scale b: of or relating to macroeconomics 3: gross 4: of or relating to a macro lens or to close-up photography Now in Rita's case, think either #1 or #3. >>> <http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com/blooming_macro.htm> >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Now in Rita's case, think either #1 or #3. Both. >> The close focus ability of the old 500 is simply amazing, even at >> 15'! Next time I'll be taking my Kenko tubes out to see how well [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What the hell makes you believe that is a macro? Shoot the same shot at 15' and come back and tell me it aint. Wait till I throw a stack of Kenko tubes in there. Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com >>> The close focus ability of the old 500 is simply amazing, even at >>> 15'! Next time I'll be taking my Kenko tubes out to see how well [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Shoot the same shot at 15' and come back and tell me it aint. It ain't. Shooting at the closest focus range of a lens does not make a macro. A macro is an image on film or sensor very close to the size of the subject. (On the order of 1:1 -- 1:2 or so). IOW, the flower would have occupied most of, or the entire frame if centered. Stop being a dumbass calling something a macro when it plainly is not. OTOH I guess it doesn't matter with credibility as low as yours. On 6/26/08 5:41 PM, in article 0001HW.C489936F00541F87B01AD9AF@news.giganews.com, "RPDBS" <Boss@RPDBS.ORG> wrote: >> The close focus ability of the old 500 is simply amazing, even at 15'! Next >> time I'll be taking my Kenko tubes out to see how well they do. Damn! The [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What the hell makes you believe that is a macro? FINALLY! It's been days since 'Rita' posted this and *NO* posts have questioned this bitch's claim of "macro" photography. Macro is life-sized, or close (1:2, 1:1) by any knowledgeable definition. > On 6/26/08 5:41 PM, in article > 0001HW.C489936F00541F87B01AD9AF@news.giganews.com, "RPDBS" [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > bitch's claim of "macro" photography. Macro is life-sized, or close (1:2, > 1:1) by any knowledgeable definition. I think the reason no one's questioned it is the same reason you didn't until just now. It's so obviously not a macro shot by any stretch of that term that no one felt the need to point it out. Sort of like calling a picture of a duck a "giraffe." The bigger question is, Why on earth use 1000mm for that shot in the first place? "Rita" said he "had to back up" to take it. It's evidently taken at a steep downward angle so couldn't have been very far away.It looks like something that could much more easily have been done with a 135mm or 200mm lens. Neil >The bigger question is, Why on earth use 1000mm for that shot in the first >place? "Rita" said he "had to back up" to take it. It's evidently taken at a >steep downward angle so couldn't have been very far away.It looks like >something that could much more easily have been done with a 135mm or 200mm >lens. If you have one lens on the body, how do you make the bug wait until you've changed lenses? There are some shots you take with the wrong combination only because if you change to the right combination what you want in the image isn't there anymore. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>The bigger question is, Why on earth use 1000mm for that shot in the first >>place? "Rita" said he "had to back up" to take it. It's evidently taken at [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > if you change to the right combination what you want in the image > isn't there anymore. That's straining really, really hard to find some justification for the shot. If the picture is about the bug, then it seems to me it fails totally. You can barely see the bug in the photo. Neil >>>The bigger question is, Why on earth use 1000mm for that shot in the first >>>place? "Rita" said he "had to back up" to take it. It's evidently taken at [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >shot. If the picture is about the bug, then it seems to me it fails totally. >You can barely see the bug in the photo. Whoa, there. I didn't say it was a good shot. Personally, if that was my shot I wouldn't link it to this group. It misses in too many ways. What I am saying is that, in general, we can't always have the right combination at the ready for that scene we see that has some component in it that may not still be there if we change combinations. We can either snap off the shot with the combination that we do have at the ready, or miss the shot entirely. If we do see the scene that Rita photographed, and do want a good shot, we have to set up correctly and sit and wait for another bug to alight. This may or may not happen. The photograph that Rita posted is one that I call my "Why not try?"s. It's digital, no film is burned and no processing charges will result. If it works, great. If it doesn't, delete it. I do a lot of those. Rita posts hers. I delete mine. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>The bigger question is, Why on earth use 1000mm for that shot in the >>>>first [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > either snap off the shot with the combination that we do have at the > ready, or miss the shot entirely. I agree with you there, of course. > If we do see the scene that Rita photographed, and do want a good > shot, we have to set up correctly and sit and wait for another bug to > alight. This may or may not happen. In that particular shot I think the bug was entirely incidental, had nothing to do with the photo at all. It just happened to be on the flower in the pond that Rita was photographing. He says "Even the little water bug on the edge is visible," but you can just barely make out it's a bug and it doesn't do anything for the photo at all. If it hopped off somewhere else while the photographer was setting up the shot, so much the better. > The photograph that Rita posted is one that I call my "Why not try?"s. > It's digital, no film is burned and no processing charges will result. > If it works, great. If it doesn't, delete it. > > I do a lot of those. Rita posts hers. I delete mine. OK. I do the same. We have no disagreement there. Neil > The photograph that Rita posted is one that I call my "Why not try?"s. > It's digital, no film is burned and no processing charges will result. > If it works, great. If it doesn't, delete it. > > I do a lot of those. Rita posts hers. I delete mine. But the real question, Tony, is how many do you really save? We haven't seen many from you. The other issue is targeted audience. If the artist listened to the critics we wouldn't have art. The pics far exceed the requirements for their targeted audience. That said, no shame. You should start posting some pics Tony. We don't care if you think they aren't worthy enough for us to see.. Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com >> The photograph that Rita posted is one that I call my "Why not try?"s. >> It's digital, no film is burned and no processing charges will result. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >But the real question, Tony, is how many do you really save? We haven't >seen many from you. No, I don't post images here unless I have a question about how to improve the image. Most of my images have someone in the family in them. The rest are table-tops of various antiques and gold coins. Not things I think would be of interest to this group. I'm really not into taking pictures of squirrels and birds and dogs. If it pleases you, have at it. When I aim the camera, it's usually at a rug rat. >You should >start posting some pics Tony. We don't care if you think they aren't worthy >enough for us to see.. OK, just for you I've added a self-portrait at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tony213/2620449044/ SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> But the real question, Tony, is how many do you really save? We >> haven't seen many from you. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > them. The rest are table-tops of various antiques and gold coins. > Not things I think would be of interest to this group. That's no excuse, you should post more. I think you will find more people interested in your table-tops than you want to believe. > I'm really not into taking pictures of squirrels and birds and dogs. > If it pleases you, have at it. When I aim the camera, it's usually at > a rug rat. Nothing wrong with that, but I can see your apprehension of posting the little ones on the net. That said, you can still open up new horizons by getting out there and getting a few bird shots, or whatever. You might even discover how much fun it really is. Take a daily hike and you'll find something new every day. >> You should >> start posting some pics Tony. We don't care if you think they >> aren't worthy enough for us to see.. > > OK, just for you I've added a self-portrait at: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tony213/2620449044/ See! Now that's a really nice shot. Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com > > What the hell makes you believe that is a macro? > > > FINALLY! > > It's been days since 'Rita' posted this and *NO* posts have questioned this > bitch's claim of "macro" photography. Simple reason, the rest of us have her kill-filed. And we're past caring about Rita's stupid claims in any case. MrT. >> The close focus ability of the old 500 is simply amazing, even at >> 15'! Next time I'll be taking my Kenko tubes out to see how well [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What the hell makes you believe that is a macro? " ... apeshit stridency is self-limiting in its effect." - Mike L. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.