|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
06-09-2014, 07:14 PM
|
| |
Hi,
Today I tried a for the first time a Vivitar 100mm 3.5 macro with the "A" setting I bought some time ago. First off I disassembled it to get rid of the Ricoh pin; then I screwed it back together and noticed that the lever-like component (I don't know what it is called) that lies recessed in a groove in all of my other lenses is protrudes slightly on this lens. The part I am refering to can be seen in every lens I have and is shown at around 9 o'clock between the two bottom screws on the picture below (which is for illustration purposes only and not my actual lens -- I can of course post a photo of it if anyone would like to see it). It moves when you turn the aperture ring.
http://www.eklecticsystems.com/camera/Images/Sears%2050mm%20f2.0%204.jpg
This protruding part scraped a bit nastily on my K-30's mount (top part) when I mounted it. I took it off carefully and mounted it again on a cheap set of black extension tubes, and the black paint was totally scraped away by the said part. I have therefore three questions:
- Is this a known issue?
- What is the solution? Can I simply disassemble the lens and file off the protruding part of that "lever"? Did I reassemble the lens somewhat incorrectly? (I never mounted the lens with the Ricoh pin on, so I do not know whether the scraping was there before I disassembled it.)
- What does that part of the lens do in the first place and why is it there in the first place? (Please note I am *not* refering to the lever which opens the diaphragm, but rather to the short lever-like component which moves inside a slit in the backside of the lens, as illustrated above, and which can be seen to be firmly attached to the inside of the aperture ring when you take the lens apart).
I am curious to read your comments and thank you for your attention!
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
04-30-2014, 04:44 AM
|
| |
"The other thing I find problematic in the first image is the glasses. They take away from the eye contact, and in doing so, take away from the most initially engaging aspect of the photograph."
I would have to disagree that the glasses take away from eye contact in the first image. Actually, the glasses are probably the one ot the reason why I like the first image so much: they're scratched, dirty and bent -- and sure enough you get to see the man's eyes looking straight at you behind all that. I would think all this makes a lot of sense when we are talking about the photograph of a homeless person.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
04-29-2014, 04:19 AM
|
| |
The first image is fascinating. As someone else pointed out somewhere else, when you leaf through photography books you are confronted with dozens upon dozens of deep-DoF images and only a handful of shallow-DoF ones, so that even if f11 might sound like too much by today's standards, the look you obtained certainly conforms to a tradition. More importantly, I do not find the house in the background to be distracting at all -- actually, I think it very appropriately places the man in the setting where you two met. Very well done.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
04-28-2014, 06:56 PM
|
| |
This was one of my favorite pictures from today's trip to the park. Any comments welcome, particularly on the crop -- I know it's not very traditional, but for some reason I really liked it for this particular image.
Post-processing in SilkyPix, no Photoshop.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
04-27-2014, 06:33 PM
|
| |
Adam: Thanks a lot for taking the time to work on those. I particularly liked your approach to the low-key image -- it made it really stand out. As for the high-key picture, I had actually done something pretty similar to what you presented, but for some reason (probably the deeper shade) I thought that was too low-key for a high-key image. I see I was mistaken.
Imageman: I am not sure I have understood your comment. When you suggest that I "Expose as a normal image retaining detail in all areas", do you mean that I should expose it as a "normal high-key" image, tending heavily towards white while retaining detail in all areas, or are you suggesting I expose for a zero reading in my light meter and make it simply a correctly exposed image, leaving 100% of the high-key work to be done in PP? I would be very interested in knowing why you would suggest th latter approach for an intended high-key image, since everything I have been learning about photography points to a "get it as close as possible to what you want in-camera" approach. This is not to say I am disagreeing with your suggestion -- I am just a just novice who is genuinely interested in learning more about the whys and hows. :)
Best regards,
Guilherme.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
04-23-2014, 08:49 AM
|
| |
Adam: Thanks a lot for your input. Please feel free to upload your edits -- I would like to see how these could be improved! Please comment a little bit on what you did when you post these as well. :)
Maxfield: Your comment makes things a bit more clear, so thanks for that. I just don't understand why, as Adam pointed out above, sometimes the PP software will show a highlight/shadow warning when actually there is no loss of detail. I am using SilkyPix before I learn how to use RAW Therapee, and I see at least for highlights there seems to be a gradation -- first a yellow tone starts blinking, and then a red tone, which I believe means complete detail loss. For the shadows, however, there doesn't seem to be any gradation -- either you do or you don't get a warning. But they start before the histogram hits the left, which is baffling to me.
Best regards,
Guilherme.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
04-22-2014, 07:22 PM
|
| |
Hi,
Yesterday I tried my hand at two quite extreme high-key and low-key images: a marble sculpture shot against a white background and a black clay mask shot against a black background. This was my first attempt, so excuse my lack of expertise; I am posting the images to illustrate my question. I will formulate it as a high-key question, but I had the same problem with the low-key attempt (only backwards, of course).
The problem amounts to this: my white looks less white than I would like it to, and if I try to make it whiter, the histogram is clipped. Now, everything I read about high-key told me the steep spike to the right of the histogram would end quite abruptly, almost exactly in the lower right, as steeply as possible, as long as it was not clipped; however, if I post-produce the image to have a histogram that looks somewhat like this, I get highlight warnings, blown highlights and a clipped histogram. The only way I could get rid of all this was to use curves to bring all my whites to under 250 or thereabouts, but in this case my histogram will not fully reach to the right -- the spike will come down abruptly at the right, but there is still going to be a narrow, fully unused histogram space to the extreme right, since no pixel in the image goes above 250 (or thereabouts).
Same thing happened with low-key attempt: I had to bring all my blacks to above 5 (or thereabouts) so I wouldn't get shadow warnings, all-black shadows and a clipped histogram. To avoid this, my spike wouldn't start to the very left, but only after an empty unused space.
I have also seen video tutorials in which high-key portraits may be worked so as to have a fully blown-out, plain white background while retaining all details in the subject. This is not what happens in my high-key attempt: the first thing to blow out are the reflexes in the sculpture itself, and only then the background. All-black shadows in the low-key attempt also start in the chin of the mask and go up the middle line before any background shadows are clipped.
What am I doing wrong? Should I have illuminated the backgrounds differently? Maybe used a different post-production approach? Any help will be much appreciated.
Thanks and best regards,
Guilherme.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
04-22-2014, 04:41 PM
|
| |
Hi, Pesterle,
The basic lighting setup for all the pictures was a foamcore "shack" (for lack of a better word) set up on top of a table with a back to which I pinned the various colored papers with clothespins. The clothespins also held two "walls" in place, so that what I ended up with was a sort of cube with only one side open through which the lens could see: the sides and the top had either black or white foamcore (depending on the picture) and the back and the bottom were made up by the colored paper. The light in the first and in the third picture was coming only from a naked fluorescent bulb placed outside the back of the cube through a slit between the back and the left foamcore boards; for the second picture I also used a DIY softbox made with a shoebox with a white inside, a fluorescent bulb and tracing paper. This softbox was basically looking into the scene, but you can still see the light coming from the same spot as on the other two pictures reflected on the forehead of the figure. If this sounds too vague or confusing, I'd be glad to post a picture of the setup. It was extremely cheap to build and the only special material was the foamcore.
I have also used at least one tiny mirror in each of the pictures to reflect some light back onto the figures. This can best be seen in the first picture: the only source of light was coming from the back of the figure, and everything else was achieved with mirrors. I got these by recycling my girlfriend's discarded make-up cases. :)
I agree that the second picture is the least interesting of the three; the shallow DoF in this particular case was due to the fact I was using a strip of ripped craft paper as the "ground" on which the figure is standing, and I didn't want it to show. Anyway, thanks a lot for commenting and congratulations for your miniatures -- I did paint some dragons and skeletons back in the day as well, but could never achieve this level of detail! (The miniatures I photographed here were all bought already painted.)
Best regards,
Guilherme.
---------- Post added 04-22-14 at 08:46 PM ----------
Hey, Manntax,
Thanks for commenting as well -- do you think you could elaborate a bit on what you find monotonous in the third picture? This is genuine curiosity: I was very happy with this particular picture, as (in my opinion, of course) it is quite humorous in a menacing but hey-I-am-only-a-duck-in-armor fashion.
Best regards,
Guilherme.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
04-21-2014, 05:10 PM
|
| |
Hi,
These are some pictures I took today of another miniatures from the Donjon comic series -- this time, Roi Poussière, Fayez Ul-Rahman and Papsukal. The figures are all around 3 cm tall (slightly over one inch). I would be very interesting in reading any kind of feedback, be it about lighting, composition or anything else.
Best regards,
Guilherme.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
04-09-2014, 04:01 AM
|
 | Black & White Nest
Posted By
Guizo |
Replies: 4
Views: 700
|
|
If I had taken this picture I would be definitely looking for somewhere to hang it -- I think it looks great. If I had to change something, maybe I would try different croppings to try and move the nest a litte bit more off-center. Maybe I'd try cropping the upper and a little bit of the right edge. Anyway, it is already a great shot as it is.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
04-08-2014, 10:10 AM
|
| |
Pleasant picture to look at -- but I really think this one would benefit from a little more DoF. It would be nice if at least her smile, which is the special feature of the shot, were also in focus.
Best regards,
Guilherme.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
04-07-2014, 12:46 PM
|
| |
This was the particular YT video that inspired to go with the particular setup I used (as well as to claim the little mirrors from some of my girlfriend's make-up cases):
You Tube
|
src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RMqmOQK6odM?controls=1" allowfullscreen>
|
This guy has many useful videos with lots of tips for cheap but really good-looking tabletop shots. Tomorrow I am going to a paper store to buy miscellaneous items (holders, pegs, clips, mini-stands etc.) and hopefully black and white foam core, if they have it in stock. I knew foam core was used for tabletop and studio photography, but I had no idea it was used for basically every single shot taken under controlled lighting -- at least this is my impression after watching some dozens of photography videos on YT.
I also saw this product at Amazon:
Amazon.com: Cowboystudio Photography Studio Sweep Shooting Table-top Background Support Stand & Colored Paper Backgrounds for Studio Product Photography: Camera & Photo
It looks immensely useful and should be very easy to DIY. I am really excited about trying some different setups with other subjects.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
04-07-2014, 10:07 AM
|
| |
TER-OR, thanks for your input. I am definitely looking into LED panels -- after taking this picture yesterday I even placed a couple of models on my Amazon wish list (among which was the exact model you mentioned). How many do you think would be enough to cover most of the lighting situations you usually come across? Two? Three?
I had also thought about ring LED panels, but I still have to do some reading on those. I would like to find out whether they're usable as fill flashes for portraits as well, or whether the light they provide would become too harsh when far away from the subject due to its small size. Or even if they have enough power to be used for potraits.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
04-07-2014, 09:12 AM
|
| |
Hi all,
This is a small 4cm (1.5in) tall hand-painted figure of Marvin Rouge from the Donjon comic series. I shot it yesterday after watching a few tabletop photography videos on YT. It was placed on a blue paper sheet lit from the (viewer's) right hand side from behind the figure with a fluorescent light bulb, and I also placed a tiny mirror right in front of it to reflect some light onto Marvin's face. No Photoshop, but colors and contrast were adjusted in Silkypix and I have also cropped three of the four sides slightly so the figure would be in a better position in the frame, and also appear bigger.
I would very much like to read suggestions from anyone with more experience than me (which means basically anyone with any experience whatsoever, since I have none) on how to improve this shot, as I am thinking about photographing some other figures to make a little series as a practical exercise.
Best regards,
Guilherme.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-07-2014, 08:58 AM
|
| |
After a long absence, I can report back to say I had no success converting my Vivitar 100mm Macro from C/Y to PK. Unlike what happened to nparsons13, in my case an original PK mount did not fit the Vivitar perfectly -- it was a little bit too small. I spent an afternoon cutting hard plastic trying to make a flat O-ring which I could screw onto the Vivitar's back and then screw the PK mount on top of it, since the screws would not be in each other's way thanks to their being misaligned -- but that didn't work either. The good news is I could find a PK-mount Cosina 100m Macro with AF for under USD 50, so I'll probably be selling or giving away the Vivitar in the near future. :) Anyway, thanks for everyone's contributions -- they were much appreciated, even if I couldn't convert the lens.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-09-2014, 03:40 PM
|
| |
Hi,
These days I got a manual Vivitar 100mm Macro lens advertised as Pentax, which in truth turned out to be a Yashica/Contax lens. Since I paid next to nothing for it, I decided to keep it anyway, thinking that a fully reversible DIY conversion would be easy to accomplish. Unfortunately, this has not turned out to be the case.
I noticed that the drill holes on the Vivitar Y/C mount are totally mismatched when compared to other PK mounts like original Pentax PK, Sigma PK and Helios PK. But then it dawned on me that maybe if I get another Vivitar-branded PK mount lens I might be able to swap mounts between the Vivitars, since -- I am guessing -- the drill hole pattern should be the same for any Vivitar-branded mount.
Could anyone confirm or deny my suspicion?
Thanks in advance,
Guilherme.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
01-19-2014, 04:53 AM
|
| |
Update: I just saw that the EXIF info is available for this shot, which means no extension tubes were used (min don't have any contacts at all).
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
01-18-2014, 05:16 PM
|
| |
Hi,
The ISOs in the pictures' EXIF info look quite high for (what I imagine) must have been a well-lit playing field in a mostly white environment. I think some of these shots could benefit from a slower shutter speed and a little motion blur in order to show players' movements and speed. And I really like pic #1486!
Best regards,
Guilherme.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
01-18-2014, 04:37 PM
|
| |
Hi,
This is definitely not a masterpiece but I think the idea is neat enough to be retried in a more aesthetically pleasing way. I would be interested to read anyone's comment on how to improve it.
This was shot with a Sigma 28-80mm macro lens at 80mm and possibly extension tubes (I cannot remember whether this particular shot was take with or without them). I blew the background to clipped white because the original floor was also beige-ish, which I think detracted a lot from the thorns. Would like to hear your opinion on that, too.
Best regards,
Guilherme.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
01-10-2014, 09:05 AM
|
| |
"When you load the film for the first time, the shield tab sort of gets clamped down on and sticks out"
Thanks a lot -- this seems to solve the mystery once and for all. Now I'll order some Fuji film in order to test it. Comments about how things went should be posted in the near future!
Best regards,
Guilherme.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
01-10-2014, 04:25 AM
|
| |
Hi,
I am not absolutely sure about what you mean with "prime the shutter", but if you mean activating the shutter with an empty film case, then yes, I am able to do it now.
The video was really helpful -- I was looking for info on the ProBack, not on Fuji's film. After watching it, I am only not 100% sure about how to place the pull tab in the ProBack -- do I just load it and close the latch (that seems unlikely looking at the back, though not impossible) or should I run the black shield through the rollers, or through the narrower opening for the photo numbers?
Best regards,
Guilherme.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
01-09-2014, 03:24 PM
|
| |
Hi,
I have bought a Pentax 67 with a complimentary Forscher Proback for Polaroid Land Camera film. I haven't tested it yet because I couldn't find out exactly how it works, and that is why I am asking for some help in the forum. Basically, my questions are:
-- Do I have to use that little trick of pressing down and turning the tiny button on top of the advance lever before closing the back in order to "unzero" the counter so the camera shutter will operate as if without film? (I refer to the same procedure one would use to make the camera fire without any film at all -- I watched a video o YouTube which led me to think it is necessary to use it, even though I am not sure.)
-- Once the film is loaded and the shutter is activated for the first exposure, then what? Will it be ejected automatically (how, if I see no contacts at all inside the ProBack)? Do I have to take the picture out manually (how)? What is the full procedure after exposing for picture picture one and being all set to take picture number two?
I am sorry if these questions sound naïve, but I have never used a ProBack before and I really couldn't find much useful info on the web -- most explanations I find are only about which film to use.
Any help will be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Guilherme.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
12-30-2013, 02:26 PM
|
| |
Can't believe this photo hasn't received any comments so far. Though I think it would look better if taken at closer range, as you mentioned yourself (even though I am not sure it would look better with a crop on the underside -- maybe a slight crop on the top could work better?), it is a very interesting image nonetheless. The only other thing I could find to mention is that your model looks a little bit stiff, even though that might also be explained by the longish posing time.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
12-30-2013, 01:24 PM
|
| |
Interesting shot -- I just think the sky looks a little bit overly processed, and I don't particularly like the fact that the branches are underexposed, but not underexposed enough to silhouette. I think you might have obtained a more interesting result with a little silhouetting here (a result you can probably still achieve in PP).
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
12-30-2013, 01:12 PM
|
| |
Thanks for all your insightful answers, and particularly to wombat2go for the lovely test picture -- blackcloudbrew's advice to buy proper a light meter, well-meant as it certainly was, is easier said than done for folks who happen to live in a country where import taxes amount to almost 900% of the total purchase price (including shipping cost and insurance). This is very unfortunate, but I could all too easily do away with USD 250 by winning an auction for USD 100. :(
Will have to make do with the K-30 for the immediately foreseeable future...
|
