Any photographers in here?

[NVP5White]

Thanks for the comments, guys. I have a Nikon D50 body. These shots used my 60mm Micro-nikkor lens. The lens opens to f2.8, but like rjmhotrod mentioned, the DoF is very small at macro distances.

For reference, the DoF wide open at the closest focus setting is probably just 1mm. The last image was shot at f22 or f25, IIRC.

Most pictures were taken with a scrim I made a few weeks ago. The shots with water droplets, including the last one, look better without the scrim, IMO.

Also, these pics are lit with my flash still mounted to the camera. I have ordered a remote trigger which should allow MUCH greater fexability in light placement...stay tuned.

 

[NVP5White]

You're on the right track, just keep at it. Oh yeah, and have fun...

Good advice.

 

['87 Turbo II]

Thanks for the comments, guys. I have a Nikon D50 body. These shots used my 60mm Micro-nikkor lens. The lens opens to f2.8, but like rjmhotrod mentioned, the DoF is very small at macro distances.

I guess my best bet to match this would be Canon's 50 MM macro 2.8

 

[NVP5White]

[QUOTE='87 Turbo II]I guess my best bet to match this would be Canon's 50 MM macro 2.8[/QUOTE]

Yes, but 50mm if pretty short, even if you mount it to an APS-C sized sensor like the Digital Rebel. With the 1.5x crop factor my 60mm lens is equal to a 90mm lens. If I could afford to get the 105mm macro, I would. When focusing close in the front of the ens if very close to the subject.

 

[altspace]

Again...killer work NVP5White. I need to take more time to be camera creative.

 

['87 Turbo II]

Maybe I should look for around a mid 80 to 110mm and account my 1.6 croping factor.

 

[rjmhotrod]

[QUOTE='87 Turbo II]Maybe I should look for around a mid 80 to 110mm and account my 1.6 croping factor.[/QUOTE]

Sorry if you mentioned this elsewhere but which camera body do you have?

 

[NVP5White]

Again...killer work NVP5White. I need to take more time to be camera creative.

Alt, you get a free pass because you are creative in your everyday work. For me, I have to administrer and negotiate contracts with the federal government all day...this is my only creative outlet.

 

[NVP5White]

[QUOTE='87 Turbo II]Maybe I should look for around a mid 80 to 110mm and account my 1.6 croping factor.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but I would strongly suggest that you only buy Canon lenses for use with a Canon body. that leaves you just 1 lens in that range. The 100mm f2.8 with USM focusing motor. Good lens, I'm sure, but I have no direct experienc. My guess is that the last generation will be optically equal to this new lens. You will get a more traditional focusing motor, but most macro work is done with manual focus anyway.

 

[NVP5White]

Slow night...I guess I'll post a few more tulip shots from a few hours ago. Both images were shot looking into the horizontal open end of the bud. The flash is on camera and bounced off a shiney gold-metalic peice of poster board.

First image has a larger DoF and was focused to get the detail in the pedals.

Second image has very shallow DoF; focus point was the center part (stamen?). Accidentaly off center and a bit overexposed. I went with it in post and did not crop the image. I left the highlighs as is but changed the white balance as the original image was too yellow/goldish.

And I cant believe I forgot about this picture. This is the image I was going to submit for the photo contest until I saw everyone posting pictures of alcoholic beverages. I liked this picture because of the timing, but since cran-raspberry juice can't get you inebriated, I figured I'd have to go another direction...I ended-up posting a macro shot of beer being poured into a glass.

Let me know what you think about this:

 

[rjmhotrod]

Slow night...I guess I'll post a few more tulip shots from a few hours ago. Both images were shot looking into the horizontal open end of the bud. The flash is on camera and bounced off a shiney gold-metalic peice of poster board.

First image has a larger DoF and was focused to get the detail in the pedals.

Second image has very shallow DoF; focus point was the center part (stamen?). Accidentaly off center and a bit overexposed. I went with it in post and did not crop the image. I left the highlighs as is but changed the white balance as the original image was too yellow/goldish.

And I cant believe I forgot about this picture. This is the image I was going to submit for the photo contest until I saw everyone posting pictures of alcoholic beverages. I liked this picture because of the timing, but since cran-raspberry juice can't get you inebriated, I figured I'd have to go another direction...I ended-up posting a macro shot of beer being poured into a glass.

Let me know what you think about this:

I think I like this beverage shot better than your beer shot. Did you use the timer on your camera and start pouring at just the right time or did you do some kind of one-handed magic? Not really digging the second shot so much. I think it's because the focus is on the stamen (?), but there's no real detail in it. As the focus of the image, it's just not so interesting - IMHO. First shot is very nice. Your photos are very inspiring.

 

[NVP5White]

I think I like this beverage shot better than your beer shot. Did you use the timer on your camera and start pouring at just the right time or did you do some kind of one-handed magic?

One handed magic, FTW! I did a couple of things to make sure I got what I was looking for. First, I set the f-stop open enough so that I could fire the flash three times on a single full charge. Next I practiced the timing and tried to get the feel for how long it took from the start of the pour (when I first moved my hand) to the time the juice hit the top of the glass. This is actually the second shot of the three shot burst. The first one shows the juice just passing the rim of the glass. The third is too splashy and uncomposed.

Not really digging the second shot so much. I think it's because the focus is on the stamen (?), but there's no real detail in it. As the focus of the image, it's just not so interesting - IMHO. First shot is very nice. Your photos are very inspiring.

Yeah, I never quite know which pictures have "it" and which don't. I think it has to do with being too close to the pictures. I mean, I know what I like, but I don't know which pictures are really good. While I kind of dig the organic nature of the composition and lighting, I think maybe this one falls into the "not so much" category.

 

[winty87]

I need a macro lens badly. I like shooting abstract shots and with a macro that will greatly improve my abstracting abilities, I just cant pull anything that close with my zoom lens on 28. Maybe when I get my tax money back I'll bite the bullet and buy a lens instead of something for my car. Question is: Should I get a Macro for my Canon EOS Rebel (Film) or hunt one down for my 10 year old Nikon (film) that my Grandpa gave me.

 

[rjmhotrod]

One handed magic, FTW!

You're my hero!

Yeah, I never quite know which pictures have "it" and which don't. I think it has to do with being too close to the pictures. I mean, I know what I like, but I don't know which pictures are really good. While I kind of dig the organic nature of the composition and lighting, I think maybe this one falls into the "not so much" category.

Well just so you don't feel bad I'll post a couple that I took tonight after seeing your photos. Lighting for the rose consisted of a floor lamp with very tungsten bulbs (they could've at least been Reveal bulbs). I bounced the light off the wall. I'd have to go back to review the exif, but me thinks it was f/22, ISO 400, 20" or so shutter speed. I adjusted this pic in Photoshop to try to correct for the lighting. BTW - this in NOT a red rose.

Here is a candle holder that I bought in Uzbekistan several years back. I really need to pick up some supplies - the table needed to be covered with some black fabric. That's my black shirt behind it laying on the recliner! Not much, but it's my contribution to this thread...

 

['87 Turbo II]

Yes, but I would strongly suggest that you only buy Canon lenses for use with a Canon body. that leaves you just 1 lens in that range. The 100mm f2.8 with USM focusing motor. Good lens, I'm sure, but I have no direct experienc. My guess is that the last generation will be optically equal to this new lens. You will get a more traditional focusing motor, but most macro work is done with manual focus anyway.

Thank you for the help.

Also the body is a Digital Rebel XT.

 

[altspace]

 

[rjmhotrod]

Show-off!!

Nice as always Josh. What's your lighting set up anyway?

 

[altspace]

Am not...hehe. Lighting depends on the object. For those pics above I used a black velvet backdrop and fluorescent lighting. For the green ball I added a blacklight to create the glow.

 

[rjmhotrod]

Am not...hehe. Lighting depends on the object. For those pics above I used a black velvet backdrop and fluorescent lighting. For the green ball I added a blacklight to create the glow.

Which lights do you have?

I need to get my lights back. I have 2 KinoFlo Diva lights that are flourescent, but have both daylight and tungsten tubes that can be easily switched out depending on the look you want. Also the ballasts have a dimmer built in. In fact, they also have dimmer packs that came with them that can be hardwired to the device with long cables so that the dimmer controls can be with the camera. I've never used them with photography - always in videography (as backlights, usually).

 

[NVP5White]

Lighting for the rose consisted of a floor lamp with very tungsten bulbs (they could've at least been Reveal bulbs). I adjusted this pic in Photoshop to try to correct for the lighting. BTW - this in NOT a red rose.]

WB is soething tha consistantly confounds me, especially in PS. The beauty of digital is that you can set a customer WB right in the camera. Is that function at the beginning of your shoot when you have the lighting and subject as you will photograph them. Please a white card so it is getting directly lit by the source and run the custom WB.

I really need to pick up some supplies - the table needed to be covered with some black fabric.

I paid less then $10 for my "studio" set-up. Two kinds of poster board (matte gold/matte silver + shiney gold), foam core board (white), small square of thick black felt, and 4 mini clamps from Target. I combine that with objects in my house to support the various light modifers.

I also constructed a scrim using a scrap of fabric (white rayon) and a single 8' length of 1/2" square oak trim. Made a frame with angle brackets and stapled the fabric over the frame.

I considered getting genuine photo equipment for this, but I just couldn't justify the price.

Also, florescent lights are okay so long as the shutter speed is 1/20 or LONGER. You want to get multiple light "peaks" in each exposure to ensure even and consistant lighting. Your video lights may have a high frequency balast which may negate the need for such a constraint. Also, use the customer WB procedure described above.