Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

Just saw a new BBC documentary made by the photographer Rankin called Shooting the Hollywood Stars.
BBC Programs said:
Rankin, the UK's leading fashion photographer, reveals the rich history of Hollywood photography and how its most influential and enduring images were created. From Hollywood's golden age, epitomised by gorgeous images of screen goddesses Greta Garbo and Marlene Dietrich to brooding shots of Marlon Brando; from the unparalleled allure of pictures of Marilyn Monroe to iconic black and white stills of Charlie Chaplin, Rankin immerses himself in the art of the Hollywood portrait and explores the vital role it has played in both the movie business and our continuing love affair with movie stars.

To understand how the image makers of Hollywood created these iconic photographs, Rankin recruits a cast of leading Hollywood actors to help him recreate some of the most important - including Leslie Mann (Knocked Up, 40 Year Old Virgin); Selma Blair (Legally Blonde, Cruel Intentions), British actor Matthew Rhys (Brothers & Sisters, Dylan Thomas's biopic The Edge of Love); actor extraordinaire Michael Sheen (The Damned United, Frost/Nixon), and living Hollywood legend Jane Russell.
Click to expand...

I found the program very interesting and thought you guys may like a heads up to look out for it around the Interwebs.

:)
 
Hey thanks, photography related documents are always interesting :)
 
Guys, I'm eyeing that Nikkor 50mm 1.8D for the D300 for low light condition. I can't find anywhere EXACTLY what difference it makes though...I mean if my 18-70mm 3.5 will do a shutter speed of 1/20 in a certain light, what can I expect from the 50mm? Are we talking 1/30, 1/40, 1/50? I really have no idea. Just wondering whether it's worth it...
 
1.8 = 1.4 + 2/3 of a stop
3.5 = 2.8 + 2/3 of a stop

1.8 - 2.5 - 3.5

There's 2 stops difference between 1.8 and 3.5 so if you're shooting 1/20 at 3.5 you should be shooting at 1/80 at 1.8.

1/20 - 1/40 - 1/80

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number#Typical_one-third-stop_f-number_scale

If you're talking hypothetically it generally makes things easier to use whole stops, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8 or 1/15, 1/30, 1/60 etc.
 
Last edited:
After reading that wikipedia article it makes a lot more sense...now all I have to do is decide whether to get this lens or an SB400...
 
My brother-in-law has the Canon 50/1.8 and I'm extremely impressed with it. Nikon's gets hazy wider than f/2.8, but Canon's, which is half the price, is tack sharp wide open.
 
Is there a good cheap lens that would do excellent really macro work with an old Canon digital Rebel XT?
 
There's no such thing as "cheap, excellent macro work". You may start with screw-on macro filters and lens reversal kits, but, ultimately, you'll want a true macro lens if you want to get serious about close-ups.
 
Is there something that can focus on little tiny watch parts from a close distance without problem and also doesn't cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars then? That's what I want. Alternately, would some sort of extension tube setup work with the (EF-S 18-55mm) kit lens or either of the Sigma AF 28-80 or 75-300 lenses I also have, or would an extension tube yield some funky image? I would think there's a solution to this sort of thing that isn't buying a $100 point and shoot camera that can do better up close macro work than a DSLR, though at this point that option seems easiest.
 
Something like this?

From $85-160 used.

You're photographing watch parts, right? Here' a sample from a Flickr group dedicated to that lens.

watch photo

Or you could go for an extension tube on your 18-55, here's an example of the 18-55 + ef25 II extension tube.

78284369.hMwxXog2.jpg


Does that help?
 
Last edited:
Yep, your options with the existing lens are extension tubes/bellows (the longer - the closer you'll get to the subject) or close-up "filters" to screw on top. The latter usually come in a set of few lenses, which you can combine to get a higher magnification.
 
hansvonaxion said:
Something like this?

From $85-160 used.

You're photographing watch parts, right? Here' a sample from a Flickr group dedicated to that lens.

watch photo

Or you could go for an extension tube on your 18-55, here's an example of the 18-55 + ef25 II extension tube.

78284369.hMwxXog2.jpg


Does that help?
Click to expand...


To be honest neither of those photos seems quite zoomed enough if I'm making sense. The second one with the extension tube seems like it could work, but I can't tell from a photo of white paper and a clear ruler how the quality would be for small detail. A couple of the compact cameras I've looked at in stores and taken a photo of my watch with look pretty good and surprised me a bit when zoomed in to 100% on the camera screen.
 
How big are the parts and what resolution do you need? You might be able to crop and/or upres.

You can stack extension tubes but you lose light. I don't think it would be a problem for you because you're shooting inanimate objects on a desk, you'll just need strong lights and a tripod.

Have a look around for used extension tubes, you should be able to pick them up cheap because there's no glass, it's just a metal tube - the Kenko stuff is a lot cheaper than Canon but it makes no difference cos, like I said, it's just a tube.
 
hansvonaxion said:
How big are the parts and what resolution do you need? You might be able to crop and/or upres.
Click to expand...

Well, here's a screw from a picture from my phone through a 10x loupe lens. It's not very clear that it's a screw though. The diameter of the coin here is just under 18mm.



It's very common for me to be working with parts that are measured in fractions of millimeters.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Your options are basically:

- point and shoot: probably the least amount of magnification, you have to stick the lens right up to things which often blocks off light. pro: more depth of field

- slr with extension tubes or macro lens: decent magnification, tubes are really cheap, some old macro lenses are cheap, both will give about the same magification (magnification with extension tubes depends on the amount of extension compared to the focal length of the lens, and if you have too much extension the point of focus moves inside the lens). Compared to a point and shoot it also has better image quality so you could crop much more (big pro)

- some sort of microscope rig or a microscope lens on an slr: the most cumbersome, difficult, and expensive option. Surely not what you want on all counts but the only thing that will give you tons of magnification other than a Canon MP-e 65mm or slapping a couple teleconverters on a macro lens.

By the way, this is what you can do with ~60mm of extension and a 50mm lens. IIRC it was a 10p coin or something, so that's probably useless for you to judge size, about the size of a quarter I think.
https://pic.armedcats.net/r/ra/ramseus/2011/01/14/CRW_0496.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sweeeeet....:clarkson:


This is the studio you've always dreamed of working in, on a budget you can afford. You know it's your place before you even enter.
Click to expand...

My Photo Studio is an 8,000-square-foot room on the fourth floor of a 1920s mercantile store at 1209 S. Frankfort Ave.

The Studio's creators, Richard Meulenberg and Tim Bracken, have crafted a co-op for photographers and videographers to share the impressive studio space while they learn and create professional work. They officially opened My Photo Studio in November but are still installing fixtures, bringing items up to code and learning as they go.
Click to expand...

Photographers can purchase time by the hour or join for a membership fee that allows them privileges such as 24/7 studio access and the use of some pretty fancy equipment.
Click to expand...

Time to work on my portrait and studio skills!

shapeimage_1.png


shapeimage_2.png


Studio%20MWS.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top