Comments for GeoffLawrence.com Photoblog http://geofflawrence.com/blog Members' weblog Tue, 03 Aug 2010 12:23:04 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 Comment on Focus Stacking by Aristoc http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=3367&cpage=1#comment-1686 Aristoc Tue, 03 Aug 2010 12:23:04 +0000 http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=3367#comment-1686 Thanks you this is great Thanks you this is great

]]> Comment on Focus Stacking by honez http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=3367&cpage=1#comment-1683 honez Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:34:52 +0000 http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=3367#comment-1683 Really interesting article Kev. I might give this a whirl one of these days. And thanks for the heads-up on the focus rail too. Ah might jus' git me one o' those. Really interesting article Kev. I might give this a whirl one of these days.
And thanks for the heads-up on the focus rail too. Ah might jus’ git me one o’ those.

]]> Comment on When The Wind Blows by Kev http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2246&cpage=1#comment-1659 Kev Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:26:40 +0000 http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2246#comment-1659 Hi Geoff, Yes I completely agree with you regarding both sunrises or sunsets. In photographs they do tend to look rather 'old hat' or even boring...IF there is no interesting cloud pattern to give them a unique twist and/or colour enhancement. It's interesting to note tho, that this 2 dimentional image capture perception cannot be said when it comes to the 'real' 3D human experience of such an event. Every time I stand at the beach to watch a Pacific sunset it's nearlly always a spectactular sight, clouds present or not. It just goes to show that what we 'feel' when we are actually there (with all senses fired up)...is quite different to what we get out of a flat, 2D image after the fact. Hi Geoff, Yes I completely agree with you regarding both sunrises or sunsets. In photographs they do tend to look rather ‘old hat’ or even boring…IF there is no interesting cloud pattern to give them a unique twist and/or colour enhancement. It’s interesting to note tho, that this 2 dimentional image capture perception cannot be said when it comes to the ‘real’ 3D human experience of such an event. Every time I stand at the beach to watch a Pacific sunset it’s nearlly always a spectactular sight, clouds present or not. It just goes to show that what we ‘feel’ when we are actually there (with all senses fired up)…is quite different to what we get out of a flat, 2D image after the fact.

]]> Comment on When The Wind Blows by Geoff http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2246&cpage=1#comment-1658 Geoff Sat, 09 Jan 2010 10:31:08 +0000 http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2246#comment-1658 Good article, as usual, Kev. Full of useful stuff. Here in the Mediterranean winter is also the best time to shoot landscapes, the air is much clearer and the sunrises and sunsets are so much better. Actually I find most of the time sunrises are a little boring when there are no clouds in the sky. It is the cloud pattern that makes one sunrise different to another. Otherwise they are just orange rectangles with a horizon one third from the bottom. Good article, as usual, Kev. Full of useful stuff. Here in the Mediterranean winter is also the best time to shoot landscapes, the air is much clearer and the sunrises and sunsets are so much better. Actually I find most of the time sunrises are a little boring when there are no clouds in the sky. It is the cloud pattern that makes one sunrise different to another. Otherwise they are just orange rectangles with a horizon one third from the bottom.

]]> Comment on Macro 1:1 by Kev http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2267&cpage=1#comment-1628 Kev Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:15:10 +0000 http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2267#comment-1628 I've never used Canon gear, so I ddn't realize that the discrepensies are so big at the smaller aperture end. Yes f/40 would definitely be into the diffraction zone. How does the Canon EXIF file info display?...Does it show the effective or nominal aperture? Personally, I think the two companies should use a standardized method to keep things on a par for the photographer. However, what is the real likelihood of someone actually wanting to "exactly" duplicate someone elses macro shot? Probably not that common. The normal route would be simply to use ones own gear, do several test pics, evaluate and adjust accordingly from there. Even IF someone does want to replicate a particular photo...more than likely the shooting environment won't be "exactly" the same (especially for a macro perspective) anyways...so starting from stratch will pretty much be necessary. Just MY thoughts on that subject... I’ve never used Canon gear, so I ddn’t realize that the discrepensies are so big at the smaller aperture end. Yes f/40 would definitely be into the diffraction zone.

How does the Canon EXIF file info display?…Does it show the effective or nominal aperture? Personally, I think the two companies should use a standardized method to keep things on a par for the photographer. However, what is the real likelihood of someone actually wanting to “exactly” duplicate someone elses macro shot? Probably not that common. The normal route would be simply to use ones own gear, do several test pics, evaluate and adjust accordingly from there. Even IF someone does want to replicate a particular photo…more than likely the shooting environment won’t be “exactly” the same (especially for a macro perspective) anyways…so starting from stratch will pretty much be necessary.

Just MY thoughts on that subject…

]]> Comment on Macro 1:1 by Karl Günter Wünsch http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2267&cpage=1#comment-1627 Karl Günter Wünsch Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:31:13 +0000 http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2267#comment-1627 Kev, it is a problem as on the recent Canon DSLR you will notice diffraction above f/11-f/13 @ 1:1 which is in line with noticing diffraction above f/22 on a Nikon DSLR. The Canon set at f/22 will exhibit much more DOF and longer shutter speeds as well - as f/22 set on the camera will equate to an effective aperture of around f/40. Simply said the settings between Canon and Nikon don't translate without the knowledge about the differences in aperture control at or close to 1:1 magnification. The worst bit is that some lenses for Nikon mount exhibit these differences in behavior even within the same lens series. I once ran a tally on which lenses report effective or nominal aperture and the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 as well as the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro lens both come in two flavors, one that reports f/2.8 at 1:1 and one that reports f/5.6 (or a value close to that) at 1:1. Kev, it is a problem as on the recent Canon DSLR you will notice diffraction above f/11-f/13 @ 1:1 which is in line with noticing diffraction above f/22 on a Nikon DSLR. The Canon set at f/22 will exhibit much more DOF and longer shutter speeds as well – as f/22 set on the camera will equate to an effective aperture of around f/40.
Simply said the settings between Canon and Nikon don’t translate without the knowledge about the differences in aperture control at or close to 1:1 magnification. The worst bit is that some lenses for Nikon mount exhibit these differences in behavior even within the same lens series. I once ran a tally on which lenses report effective or nominal aperture and the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 as well as the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro lens both come in two flavors, one that reports f/2.8 at 1:1 and one that reports f/5.6 (or a value close to that) at 1:1.

]]> Comment on Macro 1:1 by Kev http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2267&cpage=1#comment-1626 Kev Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:21:34 +0000 http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2267#comment-1626 Hey Karl, I did think about that issue, and will probably add a mention of it (plus a couple of other things) into the blog shortly. Whilst it is a factor, with EXIF info on every file these days...it doesn't really create much of a problem...coz that simply records the "effective" aperture used. Yes, all Nikon macro's are "variable aperture" lenses and at macro 1:1 this lens shows f/4.8 as it's largest. Diffraction doesn't become noticeable until beyond f/22 on the 105VR, so at those apertures there isn't any differential between Nikon or Canon anyways. Hey Karl, I did think about that issue, and will probably add a mention of it (plus a couple of other things) into the blog shortly. Whilst it is a factor, with EXIF info on every file these days…it doesn’t really create much of a problem…coz that simply records the “effective” aperture used. Yes, all Nikon macro’s are “variable aperture” lenses and at macro 1:1 this lens shows f/4.8 as it’s largest. Diffraction doesn’t become noticeable until beyond f/22 on the 105VR, so at those apertures there isn’t any differential between Nikon or Canon anyways.

]]> Comment on Macro 1:1 by Karl Günter Wünsch http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2267&cpage=1#comment-1625 Karl Günter Wünsch Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:18:47 +0000 http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2267#comment-1625 I think you did a nice roundup of the subject. One thing that you might want to add though is the difference in the way aperture is reported on Nikon and Canon systems - as this is relevant for DOF and diffraction calculations. While on Canon all lenses report the nominal aperture (for example a f/2.8 lens will report f/2.8 even at 1:1) on Nikon most (not all, even some in series differences exist in the Sigma lineup) report the effective aperture (a f/2.8 will be an effective f/5.6 at 1:1 due to internal extension). This might lead to misunderstandings (and messed up pictures) if a Canon shooter tries to reproduce a shot from a Nikon shooter or a Nikon shooter tries to use the settings from a Canon shot... I think you did a nice roundup of the subject. One thing that you might want to add though is the difference in the way aperture is reported on Nikon and Canon systems – as this is relevant for DOF and diffraction calculations. While on Canon all lenses report the nominal aperture (for example a f/2.8 lens will report f/2.8 even at 1:1) on Nikon most (not all, even some in series differences exist in the Sigma lineup) report the effective aperture (a f/2.8 will be an effective f/5.6 at 1:1 due to internal extension). This might lead to misunderstandings (and messed up pictures) if a Canon shooter tries to reproduce a shot from a Nikon shooter or a Nikon shooter tries to use the settings from a Canon shot…

]]> Comment on Macro 1:1 by Geoff http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2267&cpage=1#comment-1621 Geoff Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:58:06 +0000 http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2267#comment-1621 Whew! Very thorough Kev. Great article. I'm going to put a link from my close-up tutorial so that those who want 'further reading' can come over here. Whew! Very thorough Kev. Great article. I’m going to put a link from my close-up tutorial so that those who want ‘further reading’ can come over here.

]]> Comment on Sharpness, the concept by Kev http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2268&cpage=1#comment-1609 Kev Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:15:45 +0000 http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2268#comment-1609 I pretty much have the same approach. It all depends upon the subject matter, and one generally knows (intuitively senses) when the right amount has been applied. When it's too much, it takes on a "fake" type of persona, and when it's too soft, it's equally annoying. This is obviously a very subjective thing and each individual will have their own taste. This is probably the reason why I see so many pictures on the web that I think are blurry and/or completely out of focus. I pretty much have the same approach. It all depends upon the subject matter, and one generally knows (intuitively senses) when the right amount has been applied. When it’s too much, it takes on a “fake” type of persona, and when it’s too soft, it’s equally annoying. This is obviously a very subjective thing and each individual will have their own taste. This is probably the reason why I see so many pictures on the web that I think are blurry and/or completely out of focus.

]]>