2018 Project 52, 1st quarter by Sandy (skitterbug)

[skitterbug]

I'm "jumping the gun" but I found myself reviewing photos and decided to post three for Week 3.
Comments and suggestions are always welcome!

Settings used for all three: f/7.1 - 1/40ss - ISO200 (manually selected - camera handheld)

I got the chance to head outdoors since our weather had a break from the very cold temperature. I wanted to use the macro lens and see what it would do. I can't say that I love the Mark II camera yet. It has a more complicated focusing system that I haven't figured out. So I used the trusty Rebel T3i for these. I do like the 100mm f/2.8L macro lens though! So it was "rock day" for my choice of subjects.

#1 - My first entry is obviously not going anywhere. I will call him prehistoric since I haven't any idea when the rock was formed. But of course being sculpted from the rock makes him a very old turtle. <LOL>

Prehistoric Turtle




#2 - This one is a pic of rocks gathered by hubby from nearby farm fields. The farmers are glad to have them picked up and we delight to have beautiful rocks around our small pond. Since I like using my imagination, I can almost see these as the face of a mountain that someone might want to try and climb!
My goal here was to capture the the texture of the rocks and I like how this photo turned out.

Rocks




#3 - This last one is a bit more puzzling to me. I used settings that I thought would give me plenty of DOF but as you can see, the top right and bottom left of the photo are more out of focus than I wanted. The rock does curve back a bit.... maybe f/11 would have been a better selection? I will experiment more when the weather allows it.
The growth of what I think is lichen on this rock was my target and it has some interesting variations. I also like the way the color of the rock came through.

Rock with Lichen

[Cantab]

Sandy, I enjoyed all three photos. Congratulations on the handholding a 100mm lens at 1/40s!

Concerning the third photo, you asked,

The rock does curve back a bit.... maybe f/11 would have been a better selection?

All other things being equal, f/11 would definitely have increased your DOF. But you'd have had to increase the ISO or decreased the shutter speed, which was already probably as low as it could be for a handheld 100mm lens.

How far away from lichen and rocks were you? As you probably know, the DOF decreases as the distance from the camera to the subject decreases.

[skitterbug]

Hi Bruce!

Sandy, I enjoyed all three photos. Congratulations on the handholding a 100mm lens at 1/40s!

Concerning the third photo, you asked,
All other things being equal, f/11 would definitely have increased your DOF. But you'd have had to increase the ISO or decreased the shutter speed, which was already probably as low as it could be for a handheld 100mm lens.

Thank you! I probably need to expand my horizons but I do enjoy rocks and all the variations they have to display!
I was pushing my limit for steadiness. I'd grabbed one of those canvas folding stools and was sitting on a pile of rocks while resting my elbows on my knees to help steady the camera. I was next to the pond and I figured the next thing that might happen is me toppling over into the frigid water! <LOL>

How far away from lichen and rocks were you? As you probably know, the DOF decreases as the distance from the camera to the subject decreases.

Good point! I was as close to the rock face as I could be and still focus on the lichen, so maybe around a foot away. I am more used to working with a telephoto lens than I am with the new macro that I used for this. Instead of the lens moving in and out, it means I have to do the moving! Anyway, I want to keep experimenting with the lichen covered rock but it is going to have to wait now. We went from 50+F to currently 10 F with snow on the ground. <brrr>

[Wavelength]

A very pleasing set of images; all i grab as my favourites

[skitterbug]

A very pleasing set of images; all i grab as my favourites

Hi Nandakumar! Thank you for commenting!

[Geoff F]

I would expect, Sandy, that the third scene was beyond the focus depth capabilities of just one shot. Which means a merge of focus points or choosing a slightly different angle for the scene so you can remove, or at least reduce, the out of focus areas.

Frequently, I will walk around a potential scene and consider a number of possible angles before actually shooting anything.

The tortoise/turtle is looking particularly good.

[skitterbug]

Hi Geoff

I would expect, Sandy, that the third scene was beyond the focus depth capabilities of just one shot. Which means a merge of focus points or choosing a slightly different angle for the scene so you can remove, or at least reduce, the out of focus areas. Frequently, I will walk around a potential scene and consider a number of possible angles before actually shooting anything.

I won't be able to walk around that rock since the koi pond is on the other side of it but I understand what you intend for me to do. I think the idea of stacking photos would be my best option and I'll have that one on my "to do" list hopefully before this year is over!

The tortoise/turtle is looking particularly good.

Thank you!

[FootLoose]

Try playing with a Depth of Field calculator to gain an idea of what different focal lengths and apertures will give you, Sandy, and see how the depth of field varies with the distance to subject. I think there is one on this site somewhere, but there are plenty of apps available for you phone.

[joebranko]

Hi Sandy. Looking forward to seeing your shots on the Mark II camera. It's a full frame isn't it? Did you have to replace all your lenses too? I haven't decided to take the plunge as yet 🤔.

[skitterbug]

Try playing with a Depth of Field calculator to gain an idea of what different focal lengths and apertures will give you, Sandy, and see how the depth of field varies with the distance to subject. I think there is one on this site somewhere, but there are plenty of apps available for you phone.

Hi Greg - I've looked at many apps for my phone but have never picked one that I thought would be decent. Do you have a favorite one that you use? And I agree, it would be nice to have it handy rather than the guess and by golly I've been doing so far!

[skitterbug]

Hi Sandy. Looking forward to seeing your shots on the Mark II camera. It's a full frame isn't it? Did you have to replace all your lenses too? I haven't decided to take the plunge as yet 樂.

Hi Joe - I didn't go for a full frame camera and in hindsight, I rather wish I had. I really detest making decisions. But anyway, the Mark II is cropped. I've been able to use my older three lenses with it and I sprung for the EF 100mm 1:2.8L IS USM lens. Also, whatever the next lens it is that I purchase, I will make it an EF model as well. I'm still eventually going for the FF camera - just because I want it. No other sensible decision than that! LOL But now I have to save $$ again until I can do so.

If I were you Joe instead of being logical, I'd suggest you follow your heart! But that's just me so take my suggestion with a grain of salt (as they say)

And thank you for looking at my photos! I enjoy the thoughts you express about them!

[Cantab]

Try playing with a Depth of Field calculator to gain an idea of what different focal lengths and apertures will give you, Sandy, and see how the depth of field varies with the distance to subject. I think there is one on this site somewhere, but there are plenty of apps available for you phone.

Sandy, the CiC depth of field tutorial contains a link to its depth of field calculator: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...h-of-field.htm

[skitterbug]

Sandy, the CiC depth of field tutorial contains a link to its depth of field calculator: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...h-of-field.htm

Hi Bruce - Seems like I saw this a long time ago but it didn't make much sense then. Now that I have a bit more understanding "under my belt", perhaps this will sink in better. I don't suppose that CiC has an app for a phone though....

Thanks for the reminder that this excellent info is just a click away!

[skitterbug]

Week 4 - Due to the miserably cold weather, going out for photo work wasn't for me! I received a surprise bouquet and made use of it in my beginning effort to learn about macro/stacking techniques. I have a thread here that initiated a lot of interesting info that has been helpful.

So I tried working with a rose. I think this is comprised of 18 shots because I wanted to be thorough and I wanted to see what Affinity Photo would do blending them. Affinity Photo offers a "focus merge" and that's the way I did this one. There is one extra rose petal that I wish I had removed but for the rest of the picture, I am pleased. I will appreciate opinions, ideas for improvement, etc.

f/2.8 - 1/15ss - ISO100 - tripod - no flash but used a couple of lamps for extra lighting

Pink Rose

[Geoff F]

Plenty of fine detail there and the lighting looks good.

Is the colour correct? It seems a bit on the blue side but some modern roses are a long way from the 'traditional design'.

[skitterbug]

Plenty of fine detail there and the lighting looks good.

Is the colour correct? It seems a bit on the blue side but some modern roses are a long way from the 'traditional design'.

Hi Geoff - I don't see the "blue" you are noticing? I had hubby take a look and he didn't spot any bluish tint either. Is there a way to take the photo back into a photo editing program and check this because in ordinary light the rose looks pink?

[Geoff F]

I will have a look at it on my other monitor. Colours do vary quite a bit between screens.

By blue side, I mean more of a purplish pink colour; like some of those images in the cheaper gardening catalogues where reality never matches their print colours.

So I'm just guessing without seeing the actual bloom; but I would have expected a pink rose to appear more like this.



Edit in CC mostly using ACR.

[skitterbug]

Hi Geoff - Interesting and yes there is a difference! I went back into Digital Photo Pro and looked at the Raw images of this rose and they do have the shade of the one I loaded. So maybe there is a variance of color in this rose that is causing it to appear slightly less pink?

I can't try capturing them again since the flowers are fading fairly quickly. I think the delivery in the bitter cold that we had was hard on this bouquet. They should have easily lasted a week but they aren't going to make it.

Thanks for the comparison! It gives me something to think about!

I will have a look at it on my other monitor. Colours do vary quite a bit between screens.

By blue side, I mean more of a purplish pink colour; like some of those images in the cheaper gardening catalogues where reality never matches their print colours.

So I'm just guessing without seeing the actual bloom; but I would have expected a pink rose to appear more like this.

Edit in CC mostly using ACR.

[purplehaze]

The rose is nicely captured, Sandy. If the colour is off, it may be because the camera did not calculate the right white balance.

[skitterbug]

The rose is nicely captured, Sandy. If the colour is off, it may be because the camera did not calculate the right white balance.

Hi Janis - It doesn't seem off to me on my monitor but you and Geoff indicate that the color is not quite pink so I'm going to need to be more diligent apparently!
Thanks for commenting!