B&W Abstract

[Mike Buckley]

Some fun with my rented macro lens

[John 2]

I Like that Mike. I could see that being quite intriguing mounted against a white background.

[FootLoose]

Sweet. I'm not sure about the white corners on the left, though.

Best viewed large.

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, guys! Abstracts are definitely beyond my comfort zone and are an area that I want to explore more, so I appreciate your comments.

I'm not sure about the white corners on the left

Thanks for suggesting that, Greg. The change improves the image for me.

[Ken Curtis]

Hi Mike.

Just a thought. I would crop the right side just to the point where the black triangles in upper right and lower right corners do not show. Those triangles give me a clue that I am looking into a vase of some kind. By removing the corners, the image becomes more abstract because I do not know what I am looking at. My two cents.

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks for the idea, Ken. If I were to remove the two triangles that you mentioned on the right side, I think I would also remove the two on the left for the same reason that you mentioned.

I actually am not bothered that the photo gives you the impression that you are looking into a vase of some kind. That's because I want viewers to have the impression that they are looking into something tubular and don't care if they can accurately identify what or how large it is.

[Loose Canon]

So Mike I’m curious?

How are you liking/not liking the DoF differences with the macro lens?

The reason I ask is because there is obviously a huge difference in your glass work with macro and without. As this is an abstract it may be irrelevant, but there seems to be very little in focus and a lot of what was in sharp focus in the first has been cropped with the second version.

So I was hoping to get your take on that.

[Mike Buckley]

Great question, Terry. I'll do my best at handling it even though after only two days of ever using a macro lens, I imagine that my answer would change with more experience.

The major issue for me pertaining to depth of field is to know what works best and worst and to use the lens accordingly. While I'm able to fill the frame with the subject when using the macro lens, the depth of field is of course limited. So, I use that to my advantage when I don't want everything sharply in focus.

Another capability that I like is that I can fill the frame with the subject while still focusing reasonably close. The macro lens I am using is 100mm and focuses as close as 12". That's very helpful considering the limited size of my makeshift studio. In fact, that characteristic has been especially enjoyable to use.

This is the only prime lens I have ever used that has a variable aperture. I didn't even know prime lenses are ever made that way. Depending on the focal length, which apparently varies considerably more on a macro lens when focusing, certain small apertures are available. I had been shooting for awhile at f/38, which I had thought was the smallest aperture setting. I was really surprised to learn later on in a different circumstance that f/47 is also available. I should probably look up the specs to determine the smallest aperture, huh.

a lot of what was in sharp focus in the first has been cropped with the second version

Fooled ya!

Seriously, one of the nice things about an abstract photo is that it's not always possible to tell what is and isn't in focus. None of the image that was lost to the crop is in focus. Based on viewing the image in the camera's LCD magnified at 100%, the only part of this image that is in focus is the band in the center that has white streaks in the top making it seem as if the object is spinning. It was shot at f/38, which was the smallest aperture available in that situation.