Photography - More Pics - A few Close-Ups

steve@thaib · #1 08-04-2006, 03:37

Well, these were taken in my back garden and I hope they say a little bit more about my camera than my gardening, most of the flowers look a bit beat up when you look this closely.

I'm becoming a little happier with the results, sometimes even getting what I expected, but am still of the opinion that I am getting stuff wrong.

steve@thaib · #2 08-04-2006, 03:38

I think the second and third pictures really got what I was after, but I do have a feeling that they could have been sharper.

steve@thaib · #3 08-04-2006, 03:43

Here are a couple more night time shots. I'm starting to think about composition before I take a picture so I tried hard with the boat picture. All thoughts on composition appreciated.

The street pic I just grabbed on my way home because it looked all Jack The Ripper, I like it.

steve@thaib · #4 08-04-2006, 03:47

And here are a couple which made me smile on my drive home on Monday. It's an RAF base in North Yorkshire and there used to be a Greenham Common style lesbians summer camp there but it's gone now, they just left this caravan and a heap of trash behind for posterity.

stevem · #5 08-04-2006, 13:08

Next time your over in LOS, get yourself down to Singapore for a day or 2 and go to the Orchid Gardens if you want some nice flower photography. I'm not one for flowers, but there really where some amazing sights there.

steve@thaib · #6 08-04-2006, 14:28

I talk the talk every trip mate; Cambodia, Vietnam, Singapore and just end up going on the piss

steve@thaib · #7 08-04-2006, 17:50

A couple more from this morning, which I like a lot. I think they would look better if the background was slightly out of focus though.

jimholio · #8 10-04-2006, 14:43

I like the "Jack the ripper" picture. I was looking for something like that a while back when i was gonna make a website for a hardrock band.

stevem · #9 10-04-2006, 20:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimholio

I like the "Jack the ripper" picture.

Which one is that???

LivinLOS · #10 10-04-2006, 21:39

The street pic with the pools of light..

Similar themed or stylized pic used in the exorcist promo artwork IIRC..

steve@thaib · #11 10-04-2006, 23:35

I just grabbed that one on the way home, it came out well I think.

barfly · #12 16-04-2006, 15:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve@thaib

A couple more from this morning, which I like a lot. I think they would look better if the background was slightly out of focus though.

Hard to do when the foreground and background are so close to each other. Even a telephoto lens from further away would struggle, even wide open.
Can you get mirror lenses still these days?

steve@thaib · #13 16-04-2006, 16:29

Gee, what's a mirror lens? Good point though, when they are so close together it's not going to happen.

I've tried again since these and the best ones seem to be a single flower where you can manipulate the background (change it) and have your background far enough away to be out of focus. I think this is 'depth of field' stuff.

erik1 · #14 16-04-2006, 16:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve@thaib

Gee, what's a mirror lens? Good point though, when they are so close together it's not going to happen.

I've tried again since these and the best ones seem to be a single flower where you can manipulate the background (change it) and have your background far enough away to be out of focus. I think this is 'depth of field' stuff.

Indeed what you look for is the so called depth of field. You are using a digital camera so your depth of field is never as short as with 35mm (smaller sensor, unless you have a full frame sensor) and even that is nothing compared to middle format or even large format camera's.

make sure iso is high distance is short, use macro lens, have your aperture setting on 2.8 if your lens offersthat (if you have the standard lens it will not offer lower then 3.5 i believe). The longer the focal length of the lens the better the effect. Eg. with a 400 mm lens 2.8 you can have a depth of field of about 2,5 cm/ 1 inch when you take a close up. but believe me it is hard to shoot that out of the hand and make sure your occulair is set correct or you will be just slightly off.

indeed from the flower range the number 2 and 3 are what you look for in macro photography

barfly · #15 16-04-2006, 18:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve@thaib

Gee, what's a mirror lens? Good point though, when they are so close together it's not going to happen.

I've tried again since these and the best ones seem to be a single flower where you can manipulate the background (change it) and have your background far enough away to be out of focus. I think this is 'depth of field' stuff.

A mirror lens is a very long telephoto but instead of just using lens elements it uses mirrors to "fold up" the light path so the physical size is quite short. Heavy and expensive but great for blurring backgrounds. Not sure if you can get one for a didgital camera except maybe high end Nikons etc.

steve@thaib · #16 16-04-2006, 20:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by erik1

indeed from the flower range the number 2 and 3 are what you look for in macro photography

Thanks Erik, those were the ones which I thought I had right. I was pleased with them.

I kinda like taking pictures of flowers because you get a long time to set up the shot and think about how you want them to come out. The 'depth of field' is something that I'm trying hard to understand.

erik1 · #17 16-04-2006, 21:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve@thaib

Thanks Erik, those were the ones which I thought I had right. I was pleased with them.

I kinda like taking pictures of flowers because you get a long time to set up the shot and think about how you want them to come out. The 'depth of field' is something that I'm trying hard to understand.

The following attributes to a short depth of field

higher focal length
lower apperture setting
shorter distance to the object

The more light or the higher the iso settings the lower you can get your apperture settings with reasonable shutterspeeds

syeatman · #18 16-04-2006, 21:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve@thaib

The 'depth of field' is something that I'm trying hard to understand.

I struggled a lot to start with, as I was trying to learn the real technical side of things, but after a while I realised I actaully knew enough already to be able to creative select how my shot would come out. Obviously I'm no expert, but I feel that you soon become very familiar with the variables and become more creative with a realtively small amount of knowledge

The biggest hindrance to my photography is composition, actually being able to "see" how a shot will come out while looking through the viewfinder, oh and being too lazy to carry my tripod everywhere is another one.

As was said earlier in this thread, go to Singapore when you come over next, the orchid gardens and the butterfly garden are awesome for photography, and the place was swarming with photographers when I went last year. Would post some shots but they are all back in UK.

steve@thaib · #19 16-04-2006, 21:35

I'm getting there I think, and really enjoying being out taking pictures. I will try some early morning stuff soon, we get really nice light at that time of day.

I'm starting to think about composure now, getting things in the right place in the frame to minimise cropping etc. Depth of field seems to be a massive part of the composition process, and understanding the concept will help me get the pictures I want.

To be honest, the digital format is a massive help. We had a fantastic night last week and a full moon. I took the pictures I wanted, put them on the pc and realised I had cocked them up (and why, more importantly) and was able to correct my mistake and go back outside to get some decent shots. Will see if I can post one here.

steve@thaib · #20 16-04-2006, 21:41

These two pleased me for no other reason than what came out is what I expected, so I must be learning!

barfly · #21 16-04-2006, 22:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by syeatman

The biggest hindrance to my photography is composition, actually being able to "see" how a shot will come out while looking through the viewfinder, oh and being too lazy to carry my tripod everywhere is another one.

You can get some very small tripods which fit in a pocket/bum bag/camera bag, maybe only 4 or 5 inches long(who says 6" isn't long enough!!). Some have bendable legs for standing on uneven ground. The advantage they have is that you do actually carry them and use them with no effort. The only problem is their stability in the wind.

For depth of field, try putting "hyperfocal distance(H)" into google and see if anything comes up-it's a bit long to explain here( and I'm no expert!!) but basically it varies as the square of the focal length divided by the aperture(and another constant). For different focal lengths if you work H out(or even for the lens you use if stuck with one ) it gives you a series of H, H/2, H/3 H/4, H/5 etc so that whichever distance you focus on the depth of field will be from the one before to the one after. So if a lens of a certain focal length and aperture has a H (hyperfocal distance) of 90feet then the series is 90,45,30,22.5,18,15.... so that if you focus on,say, 30ft, then the depth of field will extend from 22.5ft to 45ft. It's known as the rule of consecutive depths, something else that google might explain better than me!

syeatman · #22 16-04-2006, 23:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by barfly

You can get some very small tripods which fit in a pocket/bum bag/camera bag, maybe only 4 or 5 inches long(who says 6" isn't long enough!!). Some have bendable legs for standing on uneven ground. The advantage they have is that you do actually carry them and use them with no effort. The only problem is their stability in the wind.

Those tripods are next to useless unless you are using a small digicam. Try putting an SLR with a 300mm lens on it, doubt it would even stand up. I spent a small fortune on a Gitzo carbon fibre tripod with a serious ballhead on it, so I do try and take it out when I am after some serious shots, other than that it's just throw my cam in my rucksack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by barfly

For depth of field, try putting "hyperfocal distance(H)" into google and see if anything comes up-it's a bit long to explain here( and I'm no expert!!) but basically it varies as the square of the focal length divided by the aperture(and another constant). For different focal lengths if you work H out(or even for the lens you use if stuck with one ) it gives you a series of H, H/2, H/3 H/4, H/5 etc so that whichever distance you focus on the depth of field will be from the one before to the one after. So if a lens of a certain focal length and aperture has a H (hyperfocal distance) of 90feet then the series is 90,45,30,22.5,18,15.... so that if you focus on,say, 30ft, then the depth of field will extend from 22.5ft to 45ft. It's known as the rule of consecutive depths, something else that google might explain better than me!

The hyperfocal distance is what you want when you want the maximum depth of field possible with your lens at a given aperture/focal length, ie when you are taking a landscape shot with foreground detail that you want razor sharp as well as the background. I won't even attempt to improve on your description apart from saying that when you are focused on the HD everything from half that distance to infinity will be in focus. Importantly this is different from just focusing on infinity.

Also, these days the lens mfr's are neglecting to put the HD markings on their lenses which makes it a pain in the **** to work it out yourself, unless you have a sheet with the calcs already on it or a calculator.