Comments for GeoffLawrence.com Photoblog http://geofflawrence.com/blog Members' weblog Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:15:10 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 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 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 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 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 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.

]]> Comment on Sharpness, the concept by Geoff http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2268&cpage=1#comment-1608 Geoff Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:05:47 +0000 http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2268#comment-1608 Interesting stuff Kev. I think one of us needs to do a bit on the 'circle of confusion' soon to go with this. I'd like to add a couple of thoughts which have struck me during my day to day photography. I find that more and more I use the sharpening filter in Photoshop, not as a way to save an out of focus picture, but as an 'effect'. The amount of sharpening I want to apply depends very much on the subject matter, I would be more inclined to sharpen a picture of a building than a baby portrait. As to the amount of sharpening to apply, I know when I have got it right when it ceases to annoy me that the picture is either too soft or too sharp. In other words, it is right when I cease to see it. The other thing I have noticed is that the 'apparent sharpness' of a picture can be greatly enhanced by including an out of focus area next to it. For instance, throwing the background out of focus makes the foreground look sharper by contrast. Interesting stuff Kev. I think one of us needs to do a bit on the ‘circle of confusion’ soon to go with this.

I’d like to add a couple of thoughts which have struck me during my day to day photography. I find that more and more I use the sharpening filter in Photoshop, not as a way to save an out of focus picture, but as an ‘effect’. The amount of sharpening I want to apply depends very much on the subject matter, I would be more inclined to sharpen a picture of a building than a baby portrait. As to the amount of sharpening to apply, I know when I have got it right when it ceases to annoy me that the picture is either too soft or too sharp. In other words, it is right when I cease to see it.

The other thing I have noticed is that the ‘apparent sharpness’ of a picture can be greatly enhanced by including an out of focus area next to it. For instance, throwing the background out of focus makes the foreground look sharper by contrast.

]]> Comment on Photographers Can’t Draw by Geoff http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2254&cpage=1#comment-1601 Geoff Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:50:23 +0000 http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2254#comment-1601 Yep, and best of all, a model release is no longer an issue provided that you don't make the face too recognisable. Yep, and best of all, a model release is no longer an issue provided that you don’t make the face too recognisable.

]]> Comment on Photographers Can’t Draw by Kev http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2254&cpage=1#comment-1600 Kev Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:13:47 +0000 http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2254#comment-1600 I guess also, another added bonus of this format is that image "noise" is never an issue - right? I would also think...that in some ways it's more marketable...as one can turn an ordinary type photo into something unique and catchy, etc. KEV I guess also, another added bonus of this format is that image “noise” is never an issue – right? I would also think…that in some ways it’s more marketable…as one can turn an ordinary type photo into something unique and catchy, etc.

KEV

]]> Comment on Photographers Can’t Draw by Geoff http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2254&cpage=1#comment-1599 Geoff Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:11:23 +0000 http://geofflawrence.com/blog/?p=2254#comment-1599 Funnily enough it is the only one of the 10 or so drawings that I submitted to Shutterstock that hasn't sold yet, go figure. Funnily enough it is the only one of the 10 or so drawings that I submitted to Shutterstock that hasn’t sold yet, go figure.

]]>