[monochrome]

Comments and suggestions are appreciated. Approx. 50% crop.

Light was just fading. I upped ISO to 800 (could have used EV+) - still trying to learn Depth of Field generally and particularly with the Vivitar S1 105 f2/5 Macro. Could have set Ap closer to f/10 (this shot was f/7+). Tripod should have helped sharpness, hexagon was lit but I think it could be a touch sharper. The diopter is tuned so the LED info is sharp for my left eye with glasses. I just ordered the Pentax Magnifying Diopter.

Also, I can't seem to export the EXIF information in any format from any converter at all. EXIF file attached, if you are interested.

[EDIT] I added the second image (not cropped) in which I used a flash and 1/180 @f/18. Clearly the flash allowed a much smaller Ap and better DoF. I'm beginning to understand!! Also adjusted curves in PPL to try to make the histogram more centered and smoother.

The right edge does not look natural. I messed with sliders trying to remove red and blue CA, but it didn't seem to affect the preview. Camera is set to +2 sharpness - should I remove that setting?

My jpeg converter still doesn't keep EXIF, even though the box is checked.








An earlier photo taken with the same lens. It was a tiff but photo.net converted it to a jpeg.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 02-03-2009 at 03:36 PM.

[rparmar]

This looks like a lot of shots I take because I do not use a tripod. Meaning, it could benefit from being sharper. Or was there strong wind blowing the flower? Not in the case of a rose I wager.

As far as DOF, this seems to have a lot. The EXIF reports f/7.1 which is a pretty odd number. I would get closer, reduce the DOF thereby, and focus on the most salient feature of the flower.

Or sometimes you just need to find a different plant... one with something interesting behind it for bokeh. Here's an example where the background colour was in place. I focused on the nearest rim of the flower which I think produced a nice effect. What effect are you after?

[monochrome]

rparmar: Thanks for the insight - I wouldn't say I'm after any effect just yet; I'm still learning how lenses and exposure work on the K10D. Peter Z. wants me to let go of technical stuff and just see the image I want - he's no doubt right.

Sharpness is a real issue so far. As I suggested, my vision isn't the best but I'll just have to learn coping mechanisms and learn what a (eventually) sharp image looks like in the viewfinder.

The flower was perfectly still. The focus point was on the center of the rose, maybe even in the dark cavity. I was intentionally about 12" away and cropped - earlier attempts at close focus / macro I was too close and DoF was 1/4" - tough lens to get right.

Background color was approximately planned (color of the rose leaves) but either the lens or the high ISO made it creamier (is that an example of bokeh?). If I was trying to do anything other than capture a sharp image, it was to show off the dusky colors of the rose against the light green leaves. I think the high ISO removed the grayish dusting on the petals.

I will say the colors and sharpness are much higher as a tiff in elements. I'm really losing it trying to PP images.

In your shot I see the sharp edges on the very front of the turned down petal, and the gradual reduction of sharpness as you move away. That gives this a 3D quality against the flat background - is there a comment on the passing of the tulip, just before the petals fall?

[rparmar]

You bring up a good point about post-processing, or (as I like to say) the digital darkroom. I think that with some creative curves, saturation boost and general level tweaking you could pull a lot more out of the image. But this takes a long long time to master. I think that after 15 years I am finally good in a bitmap editor. But still I don't know many things.

I will say that if you capture the original image with a good histogram there is lots of scope for creative work afterwards. You need to aim for a wide curve, tilted towards the high/light end of the scale, but not blown out.

A neutral density filter can be a life-saver if you live in sunny climes. Me, I'm in Ireland so I have not yet bought one.

[monochrome]

I think that after 15 years I am finally good in a bitmap editor. But still I don't know many things.

I have the time

a good histogram

There's the rub

Thanks for the comments. I'm not afraid to accept guidance and practice.

pc

DOF is always going to be pretty shallow with a macro lens, you can improve the DOF by using a zoom but of course the macro effect will be more limited, a tripod and hefty crop is then needed.
I don't know much but from what I have learned that seems to be how it goes.
Gary.

[rparmar]

Also people often use a flash, or a pair of flashes off camera, so they can stop down to f/22 and get enough DOF. That's too much kit to take out for me.

[monochrome]

Also people often use a flash, or a pair of flashes off camera, so they can stop down to f/22 and get enough DOF. That's too much kit to take out for me.

I added an image from the same session where I used a flash.

I added an image from the same session where I used a flash.

Makes a difference doesn't it?
Gary

[monochrome]

Makes a difference doesn't it?
Gary

Color difference is interesting, though. Wouldn't it be nice to have the creamy bokeh in #1 and the sharpness in #2.

Well, I have lots of time for practice and experimentation - hopefully 20 years or more.

Color difference is interesting, though. Wouldn't it be nice to have the creamy bokeh in #1 and the sharpness in #2.

Well, I have lots of time for practice and experimentation - hopefully 20 years or more.

Now you're probably talking about multiple pictures and merging them.

[heliphoto]

You may have done this, as it looks like you did try multiple shots experimenting...

I'd recomend you set this shot up with a tripod, and then shoot a big series. Start w/ the aperture wide open, and then shoot a photo with every full stop (intermediate stops are probably excessive) all the way to your smallest aperature. This will let you really get a feel for the various DOF / sharpness tradeoffs you can get from your lens.

Then, pick a few specific apertures you liked (say f/8 looked good, with good focus on the flower with good bokeh behind) and bracket your focus... Shoot with the focus just closer than the tips of the petals, then on the tips of the closest petal, then the center of the petals... you get the idea... progressively move the focus point away from you for a bit, tiny adjustments between shots.

Then when you get one you're really happy with, show it off, and don't admit to all those throw-aways, pretend you are a master! Just kidding (kinda) but experimenting like this is how I've learned what aperture I prefer for a given type of shot with a given lens, and bracketing your focus just a bit is a good idea with stationary subjects in poor light or other tough focusing conditions. Digital is great for learning by trial and error, you can get instant results, and your not paying for developing all those rolls.

You'll love your magnifying eyepeice, I just got one the other day, and it's nice for manually focusing.

[monochrome]

John: Thanks for the prompt - I should have thought of that.

My daughter has several series of B&W 5x7's from early in a landscape course. One was to show EV at different f/stops; another to show DoF on close-focus cacti (I guess it wasn't just a broad-vista landscape course), etc. Now that you remind me, I thought that was a pretty cool way to learn - and developing and printing them served the same purpose for the early darkroom portion of the course.

I've had this lens for several years and not used it much. Before I had the K10D I noticed how forgiving a normal lens is - this lens isn't so forgiving, but I believe if I can learn how to work with the lens it will give me what I see when I imagine the shot.

Ultimately (and this may take 20 years) printing what I "see" is what I want.