New camera and lights

In terms of using a smaller aperture, you need f/11 or greater (meaning a smaller aperture, because the higher the "f" number, the smaller the aperture) to get anything approaching what I feel is adequate depth-of-field. But, it is also important not to automatically use the smallest aperture. Put simply, use the smallest aperture necessary to achieve the desired depth-of-field. The distance from the focal plane to the object affects the depth-of-field. The closer you are to the object, the shallower the depth-of-field, given the same aperture. A macro lens with a longer focal length generally allows you to achieve greater depth-of-field given the same apparent image.

Also, I find that Lightroom has much better controls when it comes to processing digital photos, when compared to Photoshop or Photoshop Elements.
 
mymindisamob said:
Wow! The second one is much better lit and richer in color.
f11-f3.5 is an awfully wide range for any advice to hold any water.
As far as using Adobe for editing, Chuck can go to guys who really know, like Lunde and Rat Finkenstein to name just a couple. Autolevels is not a fix for lighting.

I suggest you do more homework on who and how you're critiquing before you give such advice.
Click to expand...

Change your tone, first.

Now. Second picture has dark side - if you notice I was talking about lighting sides. And picture is just darker then first one, auto level can bring this two pictures to same level otherwise they are different. Autolevels is good first step to start with and may fix many pictures.

Now presence of adobe employee in the forum does not really mean that I can not make advise on digital correction.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
lunde said:
Vassili, you wrote::confused:
Click to expand...

I am also confused with your question.

I checked EXIF and see that exposition was 1/5 - which mean he use tripod. At the same time aperture was 3.5. It may provide enough depth-of-field for small optic on small camera (Kodak) but if he uses tripod anyway and may have longer exposure for this reason he may set aperture to 11 or something to have even better depth-of-field.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
nozh2002 said:
Change your tone, first.

Now. Second picture has dark side - if you notice I was talking about lighting sides. And picture is just darker then first one, auto level can bring this two pictures to same level otherwise they are different. Autolevels is good first step to start with and may fix many pictures.

Now presence of adobe employee in the forum does not really mean that I can not make advise on digital correction.

Thanks, Vassili.
Click to expand...

I will not change my tone. You march into these threads each time with advice that is just as condescending as I've become, if not more so. What I find offensive, is your tone in insinuating that you know better than others who by their posts alone show more qualification.
 
nozh2002, you wrote:
Now. Second picture has dark side - if you notice I was talking about lighting sides. And picture is just darker then first one, auto level can bring this two pictures to same level otherwise they are different. Autolevels is good first step to start with and may fix many pictures.
Click to expand...
I have seen "Auto Levels" destroy many images, too. For more usual photos, such as candid shots of the family, Auto Levels may be fine, but in my experience, it causes nothing but problems if blindly applied to photos, especially ones taken with special lighting. I found that it is best to learn how to adust levels manually. At least, if Auto Levels doesn't do what you intended, there is always the "undo" command.

Now presence of adobe employee in the forum does not really mean that I can not make advise on digital correction.
Click to expand...
Quite right, especially when said Adobe employee doesn't work on the Lightroom, Photoshop, or Photoshop Elements teams. My area of expertise is type (aka, fonts). I am a simply user of these applications just like you guys.

Anyway, we're getting a bit far from Chuck's original message. Photography is a complex subject, and is part art and part science. I enjoy seeing the photos posted to the forums in which I participate. As with any art, the more one experiments, the more one learns. I still have plenty of learning to do.

And yes, adequately lighting the sides of the object, if the intent is to show the sides, is an appropriate thing to do.
 
mymindisamob said:
I will not change my tone. You march into these threads each time with advice that is just as condescending as I've become, if not more so. What I find offensive, is your tone in insinuating that you know better than others who by their posts alone show more qualification.
Click to expand...

Well I did talk about certain thing - side light, and here many photographers has same mistake - dark side of the knife or sheath. They may be show more qualification but still making same mistake. I do not see any reason why I can not point this out with full explanation and everything.

Yes lunde and even SharpByCorp did not use direct light to expose side of the object. I point this out again and again and it is easy to fix.

However as a replay I have someone like you attacking me - "How dare am I to challenge such a highly qualified photographers" etc. Why can not I? This is obvious mistake and easy to fix. If I am wrong somehow - why not to tell me where I am wrong?

But I will not accept this ignorant and arrogant tone of you - like who am I to even talk about this in the presence of such high experts.

So you eather change you tone or I will have to put you in my ignore list.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
lunde said:
I have seen "Auto Levels" destroy many images, too. For more usual photos, such as candid shots of the family, Auto Levels may be fine, but in my experience, it causes nothing but problems if blindly applied to photos, especially ones taken with special lighting. I found that it is best to learn how to adust levels manually. At least, if Auto Levels doesn't do what you intended, there is always the "undo" command.
Click to expand...

Yes but it was good staring point for me to learn all this staff. I just recently find how I may use manual levels tool. And Adobe Elements most likely is in package with camera for free so no need to buy additional software.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Vassili, you wrote:
I am also confused with your question.

I checked EXIF and see that exposition was 1/5 - which mean he use tripod. At the same time aperture was 3.5. It may provide enough depth-of-field for small optic on small camera (Kodak) but if he uses tripod anyway and may have longer exposure for this reason he may set aperture to 11 or something to have even better depth-of-field.
Click to expand...
I used a "confused" smiley simply because your suggestion that f/3.5 provides good depth-of-field is far from accurate. Many outstanding lenses have maximum apertures that are smaller than f/3.5, and the resulting depth-of-field is extremely shallow, to the point that it is useless for any level of macro photography.

The following are your words:
3.5 gives good depth field for this kind of optic
Click to expand...

Anyway, it's water under the bridge.
 
I think all those pictures are terrible, and the workmanship is so-so, except for the sheaths pictured in the second to the last picture: great quality, excellent attention to detail.

(Those are the ones headed my way next week...)

I hope you have set extra sheath-making time aside, because with pictures like those, you'll soon get more biz than ever. Keep up the great work.
 
lunde said:
Vassili, you wrote:I used a "confused" smiley simply because your suggestion that f/3.5 provides good depth-of-field is far from accurate. Many outstanding lenses have maximum apertures that are smaller than f/3.5, and the resulting depth-of-field is extremely shallow, to the point that it is useless for any level of macro photography.

The following are your words:

Anyway, it's water under the bridge.
Click to expand...

Compact digital cameras with small 1/2.5" sensor usually has better depth-of-field because they have smaller focal length in absolute value. So f/3.5 on small cameras has better depth of field then f/3.5 on Digital SLR.

However this particular one has 1/1.72" sensor which is pretty good!

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Very nice CB. And the best part is that no matter how good your pics are your sheaths are still better in person. Great job. :)
 
Vassili, you wrote:
Compact digital cameras with small 1/2.5" sensor usually has better depth-of-field because they have smaller focal length in absolute value. So f/3.5 on small cameras has better depth of field then f/3.5 on Digital SLR.

However this particular one has 1/1.72" sensor which is pretty good!
Click to expand...
You are correct, and thank you for pointing this out. But, before everyone rushes out to buy a digital camera with a tiny CCD, it should be understood that as you decrease the CCD size, you are trading away image quality. One aspect to consider is correct perspective. A genuine macro lens not only allows one to focus more closely (it is measured from the focal plane, marked on the body, not from the front of the lens, to the object) or to use smaller apertures, but also have correct perspective. For wider-angle zoom lenses, as you zoom out, objects that are or have straight lines may appear bent or curved. With zoom lenses, one way to minimize or eliminate this distortion is to zoom in, meaning using a longer focal length. Ideally, if you have a digital SLR, use a genuine macro lens. I have two, and prefer the Nikkor 60mm Micro for its working shooting distances.

There are two trends today.

One is toward full-frame 35mm (24x36mm) CCDs, which is primarily driven by compatibility with 35mm cameras and lenses. 35mm represents a benchmark. Nikon is about to debut its first full-frame digital SLR, the D3 (its pricetag is $5K for the body alone, without memory card [it can hold two]). Canon has been selling such digital SLRs for a couple of years, perhaps more (I don't keep track of Canon's developments).

The other trend is toward smaller digital cameras. They are getting smaller, thinner, and lighter. And, as a benefit for us consumers, their image quality is also increasing. And, as you wrote, they benefit from greater depth-of-field. If I were to buy a more compact digital camera today, something more compact than a digital SLR, I would probably buy the Canon PowerShot G9. Soon, its capabilities will be found in cameras a fraction of its size.
 
Definitly charcoal! Far superior to graphite. :) Reason I'm telling you is that I was thinking the same thing last night as I was looking at those very nice pics. Nice work Chuddy! In spite of Nohz crapping all over your thread. :confused:
 
I am just shaking my head in dismay as I read this thread.

There is no such thing as lighting which qualifies as "best" or "lesser", or "correct" or a "mistake", except insofar as it congrues or does not congrue with the photographer's communicative intent (which is unknown to the rest of us, at the moment). There are no apertures which are useless for macro photography, and wide apertures are often desired; it is, again, simply a matter of the photographer's expressive intent.

There are no rules, only tools to use for an informed choice.

___________________________________________________________________

Chuddy Bear,

They look like a fine start, to me. If you want serious criticism, let me know. Otherwise, I'll just say that I think they are good, for someone new to lighting and studio work. Congratulations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top