|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/04/2002 02:18:17 PM · #26 |
Carsten, Gordon & Mark - thanks for the tips.
I have a feeling the winner will be a picture that gets super-close-up simply because these photos tend to have more of a 'wow' factor.
That's not going to stop me from trying though - I have a feeling I'll end up taking a *lot* of pictures this week.
Oh, and insects, there will probably be plenty of insects ;)
|
|
|
|
11/04/2002 02:18:43 PM · #27 |
| A belly button close-up is creative and legal if the lint is in focus and not 'fuzzy' :-) |
|
|
|
11/04/2002 02:29:54 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by marksimms:
Originally posted by Gordon:
[i]I've got a hoya 49mm set that gets me to +7, (+4, +2, +1) though
they start vinetting because of the large stack of filters :)
Try to get Close-up lenses several steps up from your lens thread size, i.e. I have a 55mm thread but use 58mm closeup lenses (with a step-up), this cuts down on CA as you are using more of the center of the lens and not the edges...
[/i]
That's good advice - though the larger lenses will cost more. I'm just
cheap, using a 49mm thread ;) Haven't had much problems, I think
only really once trying for a far zoomed out shot, with the 3 lenses,
plus a polariser. Was solved by realising I could zoom in and lose a
+1 lens... |
|
|
|
11/04/2002 02:59:30 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by marksimms:
[i]Originally posted by Gordon:
[i]I've got a hoya 49mm set that gets me to +7, (+4, +2, +1) though
they start vinetting because of the large stack of filters :)
Try to get Close-up lenses several steps up from your lens thread size, i.e. I have a 55mm thread but use 58mm closeup lenses (with a step-up), this cuts down on CA as you are using more of the center of the lens and not the edges...
[/i]
That's good advice - though the larger lenses will cost more. I'm just
cheap, using a 49mm thread ;) Haven't had much problems, I think
only really once trying for a far zoomed out shot, with the 3 lenses,
plus a polariser. Was solved by realising I could zoom in and lose a
+1 lens...[/i]
I´ve just ended a lot of shooting with my macrolens-add (+1, +2, +3, +4).
I have tested one, two, three and all four at the same time. Good lightning, tripod and various distanses. And it wasn´t a good idea with all four - not even three. So I have to come up with something better. Perhaps use my old Nikon-lenses in some way. Read somewhere that you can use them wrong way about. Well, really don´t know - more testing. |
|
|
|
11/04/2002 03:07:49 PM · #30 |
Oh! Now I'm really p'd! :-)
The first challenge in which I think I will really have a chance to score well, as "close-ups" are my specialty, and my camera is out for repairs. Administrators - your timing is impeccable!! |
|
|
|
11/04/2002 05:38:03 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
photographically, im excited about the macro challenge.
macro is one of my favorite photographic aspects and the NL+4 closeup lens i got to attach to the front of my e-10 really enhances the camera's macro abilities. for example: Using My Macro Setup was shot with this setup.
The native macro abilities of the e-10/20 are not as good as many cameras - closest you can get is about 11 inches, although you can use full telephoto from that distance. however, the thread-on lens (cost $30 from bhphotovideo.com) let's you get within an inch of the subject.
i cant wait to get off work so i can go explore the 'small world' : )
I hate to tell you this Mag, but I was checking out yourwebsite for model photography, which is very cool BTW, and I noticed your logo at the bottom of the page... you know, the one that says "discover the magic of photograpy", yes photograpy... hehe discover the magic of the spell checker :oP (hey we need to see more of those models too...) :o) |
|
|
|
11/04/2002 05:50:49 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
Macro is a digital photography term, and I think it definitely has a place on this site. I don't know how much better we can do for those without the macro feature than saying flat out in the description, "You need not specifically use your macro feature, but your image should be a close-up shot."
Drew
Um, no its not a digital photography term (although that doesn't mean it doesn't have a place on the site), the term macro was around well before digital. The common definition of macro I've seen is that the image is approximately true to life size or larger on the film or sensor, a 1" object is about 1" or greater on the recording medium, although down to about 1:2 ratio (1" life -> 1/2" recording medium) is often considered macro.
Found a good page on macro vs. close-up photography
Keep in mind when voting that the line between macro and close-up is blurry.
* This message has been edited by the author on 11/4/2002 5:52:01 PM. |
|
|
|
11/04/2002 05:58:39 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by puppet10:
The common definition of macro I've seen is that the image is approximately true to life size or larger on the film or sensor, a 1" object is about 1" or greater on the recording medium, although down to about 1:2 ratio (1" life -> 1/2" recording medium) is often considered macro.
In that case I'd guess few of us shoot true macros, since the CCDs in most camera are 1/2-1/3" across -- even a small daisy is larger than that.
* This message has been edited by the author on 11/4/2002 5:56:12 PM. |
|
|
|
11/04/2002 06:40:47 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by mcrael:
Oh! Now I'm really p'd! :-)
The first challenge in which I think I will really have a chance to score well, as "close-ups" are my specialty, and my camera is out for repairs. Administrators - your timing is impeccable!!
I'd like to second that. I've just received an Olympus C-300 on loan, but from what I've tried so far I don't think I'm going to be able to produce anything of a decent standard with it. Always assuming I can get the photos downloaded - my computer uses Windows 95 and the camera software demands 98.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2002 07:26:19 PM · #35 |
It doesn't matter.
49 mm on a G2 works fine. The G2 lens size is 43 mm, there are plenty of edges.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by marksimms:
[i]Originally posted by Gordon:
[i]I've got a hoya 49mm set that gets me to +7, (+4, +2, +1) though
they start vinetting because of the large stack of filters :)
Try to get Close-up lenses several steps up from your lens thread size, i.e. I have a 55mm thread but use 58mm closeup lenses (with a step-up), this cuts down on CA as you are using more of the center of the lens and not the edges...
[/i]
That's good advice - though the larger lenses will cost more. I'm just
cheap, using a 49mm thread ;) Haven't had much problems, I think
only really once trying for a far zoomed out shot, with the 3 lenses,
plus a polariser. Was solved by realising I could zoom in and lose a
+1 lens...[/i]
|
|
|
|
11/04/2002 07:52:58 PM · #36 |
*mugs @ allen* Here is the shot I took Sunday.
|
|
11/04/2002 09:21:42 PM · #37 |
just participated in another macro competition elsewhere. lots of flowers. lots and lots of bugs (thank god it's no longer summer!). fun competition. quality of lens/camera as always matters, but also as always ideas matter more (in other words - don't blame the equipment :-)
cheers, tomzinho
www.pbase.com/tomzinho |
|
|
|
11/04/2002 09:42:47 PM · #38 |
| JEM, go for it! Everyone's seen my belly button now. Let's see yours. I know...why not stick a flower in it? ;oP |
|
|
|
11/04/2002 09:47:03 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by puppet10:
Keep in mind when voting that the line between macro and close-up is blurry
Actually, keep in mind that for this challenge, the difference between macro and close up is non-existent.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2002 10:09:48 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Jak:
Originally posted by puppet10:
[i]Keep in mind when voting that the line between macro and close-up is blurry
Actually, keep in mind that for this challenge, the difference between macro and close up is non-existent.
[/i]
Well I'd agree, but there seemed to have already been a distinction made between the two so the literalists have already put it on their scorecard ;> |
|
|
|
11/04/2002 10:16:45 PM · #41 |
Well, the literalists would be dead wrong in this instance as Drew has made clear in the original description of the challenge.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2002 10:18:17 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Jak:
Well, the literalists would be dead wrong in this instance as Drew has made clear in the original description of the challenge.
The literalists are often wrong, it doesnt seem to bother them.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2002 10:21:13 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by puppet10:
Originally posted by Jak:
Originally posted by puppet10:
Keep in mind when voting that the line between macro and close-up is blurry
Well I'd agree, but there seemed to have already been a distinction made between the two so the literalists have already put it on their scorecard ;>
i assume people don't need to post whether they used the macro function or not . . .
* This message has been edited by the author on 11/4/2002 10:21:42 PM. |
|
|
|
11/05/2002 10:33:31 AM · #44 |
HEY!
Thanks for checking out my page!
Re the 'Photograpy,' I should be more clear. One of my favorite artforms is using a particle accelerator to excite molecules in grapes so that they emit light. Hence, 'photo-grapy'. : )
JK, thanks for the heads-up on that one ! :)
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
[i]
I hate to tell you this Mag, but I was checking out yourwebsite for model photography, which is very cool BTW, and I noticed your logo at the bottom of the page... you know, the one that says "discover the magic of photograpy", yes photograpy... hehe discover the magic of the spell checker :oP (hey we need to see more of those models too...) :o)
|
|
|
|
11/05/2002 10:53:10 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by aelith:
*mugs @ allen* Here is the shot I took Sunday.
...
Iron Rose. Hand held using my zoom. 1/8 sec. I think.
aelith
That is a truly beautiful photo. I love the marriage of metallic texture and sheen with the floral form of the rose, and the water droplets. Gorgeous!
|
|
|
|
11/05/2002 11:53:40 AM · #46 |
| Indigo, yours is exceedingly attractive - unfortunately, even a flower wouldn't help mine. |
|
|
|
11/05/2002 01:03:43 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by aelith:
[i]*mugs @ allen* Here is the shot I took Sunday.
...
Iron Rose. Hand held using my zoom. 1/8 sec. I think.
aelith
That is a truly beautiful photo. I love the marriage of metallic texture and sheen with the floral form of the rose, and the water droplets. Gorgeous!
[/i]
Thank you Lisae from the bottom of my heart for those kind words. You restore some of my self comfidence.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2002 06:53:41 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
Macro is a digital photography term, and I think it definitely has a place on this site.
Drew
MACRO is not a digital photography term, it is a term that has been around since before i was born in 1961
|
|
|
|
11/05/2002 08:25:01 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
HEY!
Thanks for checking out my page!
Re the 'Photograpy,' I should be more clear. One of my favorite artforms is using a particle accelerator to excite molecules in grapes so that they emit light. Hence, 'photo-grapy'. : )
JK, thanks for the heads-up on that one ! :)
Originally posted by Anachronite:
[i]Originally posted by magnetic9999:
[i]
I hate to tell you this Mag, but I was checking out yourwebsite for model photography, which is very cool BTW, and I noticed your logo at the bottom of the page... you know, the one that says "discover the magic of photograpy", yes photograpy... hehe discover the magic of the spell checker :oP (hey we need to see more of those models too...) :o)
[/i]
oooh now that would have been an incredible shot for the light source challenge! ;o)
|
|
|
|
11/06/2002 01:49:07 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Originally posted by alansfreed:
[i]I just hope that SOMEBODY will post a macro image of a flower! (End of sarcastic remark :)
I just hope that whatever people choose as their subject it looks better than a snapshot.
Work on the technical aspects like lighting, composition, depth of field creative cropping, etc, etc.
Seems like so many photos have turned into snapshots with flat compositions, straight on shoots, poor lighting and flash and no real concern for technique just to fulfill the challenge. <:-[/i]
sometimes it's hard for images to look like the photographer took effort in technique... particularly with shoddy equipment. for instance... this challenge I tried 3 different light sources (a flashlight, a candle, and a lava lamp.. it has a great color...) from no less than 20 angles and it still looks like I just grabbed my camera and shot blindly...
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 04:14:47 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 04:14:47 AM EDT.
|
|
