dirtdorphins said:Asa is not so foolish, he shot with some longer lenses...maybe he will share

Longer lens brings another bit of foolishness to the table...at least in my case. This was shot at 300mm, f/5.6, ISO 400, and 1/20. The 1/20 was the problem because I do a LOUSY job of holding still at 1/20 (and the longer focal length compounds that problem, obviously). Apologies for not taking the time to tripod it.

This is unretouched (apart from resizing to upload - straight out of the camera - not cropped/otherwise fiddled with). So it's both out of focus and blurry (both techniques I have uniquely mastered) - but probably serves well enough to illustrate the point in question:


So side-lesson: if you're gonna take the time to wrestle with lights and stands and lighboxes and preparing the shot and all else, it's probably worthwhile to take the time to figure out how to hold the camera still

Maybe that is why I gave up on perfection or even very good photogarpy

Not enough hands and too much heavy equipment (for me) to deal with. But I love all these wonderful lessons.

Thanks for all the sharing.

So side-lesson: if you're gonna take the time to wrestle with lights and stands and lighboxes and preparing the shot and all else, it's probably worthwhile to take the time to figure out how to hold the camera still



Asa just said, "Well, it's true. You could put that in the bible of picture taking (whatever that is?) and have it be an oft quoted verse."

he did say exactly that except the part in parens--that was me

Asa, I don't think yours and Dirt's images are directly comparable for out of focus effects as they are taken at different magnifications - you would need to get a bit closer to achieve a truly correct comparison. Perhaps your at minimum focusing distance here? If so, this illustrates another problem with long lenses as they usually don't offer very good magnification. For this reason I often prefer to add a teleconverter to my 300mm.

I don't think you do a lousy job at hand holding, as I don't think anyone can hand hold reliable at slow shutter speeds at macro distances with a long lens (or a short lens for that matter ). Not even possible with image stabilization (in camera or lens) as that don't work very well for macro distances. You need much more light if you want to hand hold with good results.

If you absolutely hate the tripod, then it could be worth trying a beanbag. Sure on it's own it would only work at low heights, but a lot of macros are best taken at that height anyway. For more flexibility you could also try placing the beanbag on top of something (like a small box or a chair or a table) to be able to adjust the height in a bit wider range. It would only cost you some dried beans or peas and an empty bag, so if you haven't tried it yet, it could be worth while, just to see what you think.

It's me who hates the tripod!
but I might give a go with a wheat bag in some cases--I've got a great one that could work perfectly for that!
Capital idea

Actually, we were not going for direct lens comparisons (that's on Asa's list for someday in the far off future, though)
Mostly he was working the lights and wrangling the cats and the box for me

Yeah, it wasn't a good example for the reasons you point out. With a 2x teleconverter, that lens would be shooting at 1:1 rather than 1:2. I don't have the highest quality teleconverter, though, so I don't use it much. I think the vivitar makes a decent 2x and 1.4x, but I haven't seen any good copies for sale for some time.

I'm not at all averse to tripods, monopods, beanbags, rails, or any number of other cobbled-together solutions for holding still. Here's my latest on the cobbledtogether front:


But...it was a quick thing - I was more managing the lights than shooting anything - which is why I didn't make the time to get the tripod out.

Ah, thanks for the explanation guys

Yes, wheat, rice, whatever works great for a bean bag! For the record I don't love the tripod either. I would much prefer to be without it, but most often it's not possible here in the dark, dark, dark forest (which of course is extra dark when I photograph at or after sunset and yes I only have myself to blame for that ).

Asa, 1:2 is really good for a 300mm lens, so you have much less need for a TC than what I have I have a 1.7x TC that is very good, but it only fits on my 300mm prime lens so have never tried it on a zoom lens - not sure I'd like the result.

A really nifty thing you constructed there!!!

Some of my, "I like to pretend I'm good at this" handiwork. Sorry not all plant themed. I got carried away. I don't share photos anywhere normally. I just take them for me and for fun

Critique away I could use some input and technique advice (in general).

Those are beautiful!

Thank you so much, Catmint!
Means a lot.

Hi all,
Okay, so I know I am seriously late to this party, but I just came across this thread while I was actively procrastinating (and still am). One of the opening remarks from Asa caught my eye:

evermorelawnless said: I'd like to see what someone who knew what they were doing with photoshop could do to this one.

I cannot speak much to photography, but I can some to editing. First off, many of the "granted-s" apply -- such as "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," and "If you start with crap, you'll end with crap." The thing is, you people are awesome at taking photos, and the raw material you present is already wonderful. Yet, the power of the editor is not to be overlooked.

Yes, photoshop can be used to create something that isn't. For example, here's a picture of backyard visitors, escapees from the zoo!, that is presented as a excited snap. (My old place, and just an okay job at schoppin')
I don't think one readily picks up on the chop-job, but rather that the photo isn't excellent. It does, however, work as a pretty decent spoof.

Yet as for less dramatic changes which we're undoubtedly going for here, I think a good editing program (and some skills) can turn good photos into even better ones. Photoshop is good for that. There is, however, the danger of so altering the lighting and color that a plant can look like a different cultivar. And, as stated, the edited photo will largely depend on how it looks on your computer with its own variances on color and contrast.

Okay, so back to the go of this thread. Here's the downloaded version of Asa's starting photo:


I played with it for a heartbeat or two. Had I spent more time, it would be better. I did a bit of lighting, contrast and color adjusting in addition to cropping it a little. To my eye, on this computer, the edited one, without dramatic difference, looks better. There's more mood, more story, and a greater emphasis on the "rule of threes."


So, I guess, what I'm saying, is a little editing goes a long way, but it will ultimately amount to what you what story you want to tell with your photo, and I expect that the grand challenge for us all. Cheers.

JamesAcclaims said:Some of my, "I like to pretend I'm good at this" handiwork.

Hi James!
First of all, it doesn't look like you are pretending! good job
What is the plant on the beach? how cool!
I really like all of the landscapes, first two are my favorites! I don't know enough to offer any landscape technique advice, but I'll be watching with you to see what others offer
The scenes are really neat, love the lighting and the 'mood' or drama created with what you caught and the way you caught it.
I don't know if I'm just feeling especially crooked this morning, or what, but about the only thing striking me as "off" a little bit is the straightness--or rather, lack of straightness in the scapes. I'm seeing the forth one straight, but the rest all have me canted a bit.

The elastica leaf...hmmmm...cool on the close-up of water drops; the idea of the second leaf behind is alright, but practically speaking, I'm finding the background very detracting here with the harsh lighting and level of detail. I'd crop that one a lot more to 'fix' that picture for myself (then I'd admonish myself, again, for the lighting--trust me--I am the queen of clicking away in miserable light--then to improve the shot in the future, I'd do something different to soften up the background/foreground. I don't know what to suggest for you because I would only be guessing at what you did here. And I'm no good at that).

Whitebeard said:
Okay, so back to the go of this thread. Here's the downloaded version of Asa's starting photo:


I played with it for a heartbeat or two. Had I spent more time, it would be better. I did a bit of lighting, contrast and color adjusting in addition to cropping it a little. To my eye, on this computer, the edited one, without dramatic difference, looks better. There's more mood, more story, and a greater emphasis on the "rule of threes."


So, I guess, what I'm saying, is a little editing goes a long way, but it will ultimately amount to what you what story you want to tell with your photo, and I expect that the grand challenge for us all. Cheers.

Interesting!
I like the crop
I gotta say though--the color is looking really freaky to me
I guess I need to know how others are seeing this...

To be honest, I prefer the original - and agree about the freaky colours, although that may be something to do with monitors?

dirtdorphins said: First of all, it doesn't look like you are pretending! good job.
What is the plant on the beach?

Thank you for your kind words. I take a lot of landscape pictures, because they're the most captivating to me. They very well may be slightly crooked--I'm a bit crooked myself.

That plant on the beach is Ipomoea pes-caprae "Beach Morning Glory". Very common along the entire Gulf Coast from Florida to South Texas. They're beautiful aren't they? I love when they creep over rocks and large stones. There are entire dunes on the south-side of North Padre Island that are fully capped with it. Just beautiful in the early morning hours with the Sun rising over the Gulf.

Thanks!
I imagine that's spectacular!
I just submitted your photo for 'habitat view' in the ATP database because I think it's awesome
hope you don't mind
if you do--sorry and I won't do it again--you can change your profile to block that and you can request the photo be removed.
But I do hope that you'll find this place good for sharing more photos

I don't mind at all! I didn't even know there was a Habitat View section. I'm still new here Learn something new every day

That other picture you like is actually a picture of the protected grasslands behind the dunes of Padre Island National Seashore. Since I'm pretty close to the Seashore, I go whenever I can. Both of those pictures were taken 60 miles down the island where the channel separates North Padre from South Padre islands--it's a long, but beautiful beach drive.

There are entire beaches of nothing but shells. If you get the chance, come visit! I'm blessed to live in such a beautiful place!





I enjoy it as often as I can :)

@JamesAcclaims some smashing landscapes. Beautiful scenery, excellent depth of field and well composed images. Can only agree with Dirt's suggestion about straightening the horizon lines a bit, but other than that

For the close up of the leaves I'd suggest allowing the leaves to fill the entire frame as to avoid the distracting background, but that's all I got.

Great work and fun to see some interest in this thread

Since I mainly take landscape photos, my close-ups are normally not well framed or composed. I just recently started trying to take macro / close-up photos.

I have always had an interest in photography, but have never really studied it, and like I said, I just like to play around and "see what happens". I appreciate the feedback and support! I will try to work on my lines in the future