Questions and answers

No, the other way. Lower number = larger aperture opening = blurrier out-of-focus things.

And for the crop, I like the 1st one better. In the 2nd pic, the pier at the bottom looks random, because it has no connection in the picture. In the 1st version, there's enough soil to know why it is there. There is some room for cropping, but not as much as in the 2nd version. Either get rid of things like the pier when cropping, or make sure they make sense in the picture.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LP
Lurker, the first one is better. The second looks like a random piece of junk is at the bottom. The foreground in the original has an emotion that the cropped version just doesn't portray.

I hope you don't mind, I made an edit:

https://pic.armedcats.net/e/ep/epp_b/2009/12/26/new-1.jpg

I cropped the bottom very conservatively, added some saturation, contrast and a subtle vignette.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LP
smaller f*, more blurred fence

and I like the original sunset more with the silhouettey trees and stuff, the crop gets rid of the foreground (which adds interest) and as such results in, IMO, boringness. A bit of cropping, sure, might be good, but not that much.


edit: *smaller as in smaller number, but more wider open
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LP
the Interceptor said:
No, the other way. Lower number = larger aperture opening = blurrier out-of-focus things.

And for the crop, I like the 1st one better. In the 2nd pic, the pier at the bottom looks random, because it has no connection in the picture. In the 1st version, there's enough soil to know why it is there. There is some room for cropping, but not as much as in the 2nd version. Either get rid of things like the pier when cropping, or make sure they make sense in the picture.
Click to expand...

Gotcha, and thanks! I was thinking the same thing when cropping the picture to the 2nd version, but it was hard to get the final image I wanted. I have tons of raw files from that sunset shoot so maybe I might just go back and see if there's one where the horizon is a bit higher but the pier still stays there (or doesn't).

epp_b said:
Lurker, the first one is better. The second looks like a random piece of junk is at the bottom. The foreground in the original has an emotion that the cropped version just doesn't portray.

I hope you don't mind, I made an edit:

https://pic.armedcats.net/e/ep/epp_b/2009/12/26/new-1.jpg

I cropped the bottom very conservatively, added some saturation, contrast and a subtle vignette.
Click to expand...

I don't mind at all! In fact that's awesome! I will try to do something similar and see if I get better results. As i mentioned in the response above, I'll look for more shots from that sunset shooting spree to see if i can grab the perfect one or just slightly crop this one. I'm thinking the little land bit to the far left can come out?

Ramseus said:
smaller f*, more blurred fence

and I like the original sunset more with the silhouettey trees and stuff, the crop gets rid of the foreground (which adds interest) and as such results in, IMO, boringness. A bit of cropping, sure, might be good, but not that much.


edit: *smaller as in smaller number, but more wider open
Click to expand...

Gotcha. I will try it again with a smaller f-number when I get a chance, or at least the next time I have to deal with a minor obstruction. Thanks!
 
Thomas93 said:
What are the best canon fit lenses for under ?100? (Can be second hand if easily avaliable or plentiful on ebay)

Cheers
Click to expand...

I would only think 50mm 1.8II prime in that price category.. it can be bought around 100? when new and used should be 10-20? cheaper.. great value for money, decent wide open performance, drop it to 2.5 and it is more sharp than enough. A bit flimsy but still great, great value for money..
 
Question: I am going to take some photos at my friend's birthday party in a bar, any suggestion on how to defuse a speedlite? The ceiling is quite high and it's brown, so I won't be able to bounce flash off it.
 
Off-camera with a portable softbox that attaches to the head. You'd be amazed at what you can all do with one flash just by getting it off the camera.
 
And you could also put a white napkin on the flash in bounce position, and keep it on camera. Even with a brown ceiling, that usually works well.
 
Yeah, so here's are hypothetical question. I think I know the answer already, but I want to be sure.

Let's imagine we have three macro lenses, a 60mm, a 105mm and a 150mm one. The maximum magnification for all of them is 1:1. Let's say I photograph the same static object with all three, and for every photograph, I move the camera to the minimum distance to the object where the lens will still focus. On the three photographs I end up with, does the object always have the same size?

Additionally, I'd like to know whether every macro lens will go up in minimum aperture when you go closer to an object.
 
Yes. Magnification is how large something appears on the sensor/film compared to how large it actually is (ie. take a picture of a penny at 1:1 on film, put a penny next to the negative and it will be the same size).

Usually, I think. Something to do with the magics. I think it's usually 1-2 stops of light lost. Magics.

Fun fact: when focussing at under half the hyperfocal distance, you get (very very close to) the same depth of field on any lens with the same aperture and magnification. So, no, unlike what some people erroneously believe, different focal length'd macro lenses do no have different amounts of DOF in the macro range.
 
Yeah, so I dug a little and found some answers:

Yes, 1:1 magnification ratio, like you said Ramseus, means that the object will show up on the sensor in real size, so all macros that offer 1:1 will produce an image of the same size, only the distance between the lens and the photographed object will have to be different.

As for the aperture opening, it seems the macros with internal focusing (no expanding barrel) will "tighten a bit" when getting close. My Sigma goes from f/2.8 to f/4.something at minimum focus distance. The lens correctly reports this to the camera, which does not happen with all lenses and all cameras it seems. Thus, at least as I understand the matter, if you set the camera to a certain aperture higher than f/2.8, you will not be able to get as close to the object as with a smaller f-stop, because the lens won't be able to focus on objects that close anymore.
 
Last edited:
Depends on the print resolution you consider to be a "good quality" print. 300 DPI is the standard in high quality. Just take your linear resolution and divide it by the 300 to get the maximum print size in that resolution. Divide the print size into the linear resolution to get the print resolution.

ie.:
3456 / 300 = 11.52 inches
2304 / 300 = 7.68 inches

So, about 12 x 9.

That said, I've printed 18x12 from a 6MP image (~150 DPI) and it looks really good.
 
Meh, the 430EX is such a decent, sure, tried and tested product that if you have the dough, go for that.
 
Meh, the biggest difference between camera maker brand and third party flashes is that the third party ones all recycle slowly. Like that Nissin has 4 second recycle times (NiMH, full power) versus the 430EX at 2 seconds (also with NiMH at full power).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top