| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/15/2006 03:44:29 PM · #1 |
Ok, if you have experience with doing this, or at least with macro photography, what type of lens do you thing the following photographer would have used?
//www.ordovergallery.com/BillAtkinson/portfolio01.html
I saw this in San Diego this weekend and the shots were incredible. He actually found lanscapes in the rock shots... they really are amazing in person.
Anyways, do you think he would have used a 100mm macro lens (1:1) or an even crazier 5x macro lens? Why?
Thanks
Message edited by author 2006-02-15 15:44:38. |
|
|
|
02/15/2006 03:51:45 PM · #2 |
He makes beautiful images. I don't think there's anything exotic about his equipment; these look like normal macro shots to me, not extreme closeups. Virtually all of them are of flat-cut, polished rocks, though I did see one geode that had actual depth.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2006 03:52:43 PM · #3 |
i get no sence of scale
but yes 100mm or even a 60mm could do that
mostly subject & lighting (and a good rock polish) |
|
|
|
02/15/2006 03:57:39 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by ralphnev:
i get no sence of scale
but yes 100mm or even a 60mm could do that
mostly subject & lighting (and a good rock polish) |
In person these are jaw dropping. When I went to this gallery, I was thinking that the rocks would be total "duds" and so I was only going for some landscapes that were also on display. These rock shots actually look like landscapes in person (ie waterfalls, trees, etc). It's actually quite amazing...
Message edited by author 2006-02-15 15:58:04. |
|
|
|
02/15/2006 04:17:56 PM · #5 |
"..The process Atkinson goes through to photograph these rocks would constitute an entire article in itself. Instead of using a typical digital camera, Atkinson uses a high-resolution, large-format scanning camera, the kind used to make digital reproductions of fine art paintings.
"If you just put the rock on a flatbed scanner, you get horrible results because of the flat frontal lighting," he explained. "But with the large-format scanning camera, I was able to get high enough resolution for 4-by-6-foot prints that are tack sharp, and I was able to get much more accurate color than was possible with film."
The rocks photographed were all between 1 and 10 inches wide. Atkinson photographed them with reflected light and used cross-polarized lighting to reduce glare, to enable seeing deeper into the rocks and to fully bring out the rocks' colors and textures. "Each capture, each original scan, is 275 megabytes of uninterpolated data. So that's what preserves all the detail when you [make the large print]. We're talking 6,000 by 8,000 pixels at 16 bits deep. And full color for each pixel..."
Edit : //www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/11.10.04/atkinson-0446.html
I don't think he is using average equipment to do this ;-)
Message edited by author 2006-02-15 16:20:02. |
|
|
|
02/15/2006 04:26:56 PM · #6 |
Aren't rocks amazing!?!? Don't you wish you were a geologist now?
:-)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 11:23:17 AM EDT.
