[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scompton /img/forum/go_quote.gif Auto focus can be a PITA at times. If depth of field is critical, I usually switch to manual focus. I just had to post pictures of the Starving Student Millet Hybrid that I build and wasn't working. In order for people to help me, everything in the picture had to be in focus. I was taking macro shots of some components as well as shots that covered about 4 inches of components. I switched to manual focus, stopped down to f/22 and did 2-3 second exposures. Here's an example http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w218/scompton_photos/DSC_6540.jpg[/IG][/i] [/td] [/tr] [/table] The only problem I find with using small apertures (eg F/22) is the softness caused by diffraction. It's rather obvious for night photography. If I want a relatively deep DOF, I tend to use F/8-16 and try to avoid F/22 for the above reasons. It's also difficult to properly isolate your subject (eg poor bokeh) if the DOF is so deep.

 

[devwild]

one more from sf, while we're enjoying the wide angles:



Quote:

Originally Posted by devwild@flickr [size=small]nausiatingly californian[/size] I wasn't originally going to post this, what with the gazillions of lombard shots out there, but I found the end result just too appropriate for the subject. I walked clear from union square up to lombard and back again this day. It's amazing how peaceful and pleasant it can be walking around nob and russian hill, until you get to this one amusingly chaotic block of roadway...

 

[Towert7]

Oh darn, I can't quite put my finger on what car that is.
Hm...... Looks a little like a Hyundai Elentra, but for some reason it looks too long.
ANy idea what it is?

Edit: N/M, it is a Hyundai Elentra.

 

[scompton]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif The only problem I find with using small apertures (eg F/22) is the softness caused by diffraction. It's rather obvious for night photography. If I want a relatively deep DOF, I tend to use F/8-16 and try to avoid F/22 for the above reasons. It's also difficult to properly isolate your subject (eg poor bokeh) if the DOF is so deep.

I agree except for pictures for illustration like the one I posted. Everything in the frame is part of the subject, so maximum DOF is mandatory. I did have a few assignments in the classes where we needed to find a subject that required full DOF to get everything in focus. That's not as easy as it sounds. If I remember correctly, the wide angle lens I had at the time had a minimum aperture of f/32. Almost no landscapes need f/32.

Because I really haven't figured out how to do hyperfocal distance on my auto focus lenses, I tend to stop down more than I need to. I really should research how to do it. For 30 years, I'd focus on the closest object in the frame, read the distance scale, and pick an f-stop that had that distance and infinity on the DOF scale. So final focus would be set looking at the barrel of the lens, not through the eye piece. It's a 30 year habit that's hard to break.

 

[Baines93]

Yeah, Scompton, i have a 1gb card and dont shoot often, but when i do i dont delete pics and havnt filled it since xmas 07! I have a few of the best to upload etc on my laptop and then the best and pics for forums on my Photobucket. Dont have any on my PC, but havnt used it for yonks, had problems with it... Need to get some new parts and get all the music on my laptop in sync with my PC, including photo's!!

Matt

 

[Wil]

Shot wide open.

Testing out my newly acquired Rollei 50mm Planar 1.8/f Manual focus lens on my 450D. Unfortunately, with the adapter required to mount the lens on the body, it cannot focus to infinity. Luckily enough, it is VERY sharp when in range.

 

[Agnostic]

 

[ronin74]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scompton /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'd never go back to film either. I used to though away 3/4 of the slides I took. The last class I took, I shot around 20 rolls of 36 exposures for a 15 photograph portfolio. More than those 15 were good, but only around 10 of the shots were truly outstanding. I get a much better ratio of good shots with digital.

It's funny that you said you'd never "go back" as I'm about ready to head into my darkroom to print up the negatives I DIY'd. I've also spent around 30-years in photography, the last 10 in digital, and I'm back to film.

I've taken on a sniper mentality, "one-shot, one-kill." Won't take the shot if it's marginal. I'm shooting 120 film, only 12 shots per roll, can't waste too many on bracketing. Plus I won't take the camera out unless I know what I'm going to shoot.

 

[scompton]

The only thing I've wanted to try with film is large format. Unfortunately, I don't have room for a darkroom and the closest rentable darkroom space is not very convenient.

Outside of the 2 classes I took, film for me was first color negative, and then color slide. I don't have much desire to go back to that. I could see going back to B&W if I had a more convenient darkroom. I don't know that my wife would be happy about it.

The last class I took was at a community college 30 miles away, although somewhat near where I worked. She was not happy about how much time I was spending in the darkroom. Darkroom work is a blast.

 

[ronin74]

"She Who Must Be Obeyed."
-- Rumpole of the Bailey --

 

[BigSurSpoon]

B&W film is a blast. I also shoot 120 film and it certainly requires a different mentality than shooting digital as it is indeed as ronin says, "one shot, one kill". I'm lucky enough to have my own darkroom and I always look forward to doing some work inside. I find that my film work tends to be of better quality (generally) than my digital work simply because I stop and think quite a lot about each shot. Having a fully manual camera further enhances the experience as it becomes a much more "hands on" experience.

By the way, large format is a blast. Just prepare for a little learning curve.

 

[flashnolan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scompton /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have others that have the whole boat. Unfortunately, the background for the top of the mast is a very busy shoreline. You can just see it creeping in at the top of that picture. I stood on the highest point I could find, but there just wasn't any ground high enough to get the whole mast without the background. I need to get rid of the red thing at the bottom too. This is the only shot that has it, but it also has the best position of the boat. Edit: Here's the boat with the whole mast. It's not nearly as effective IMO. It doesn't help that the boat's centered horizontally.

Here is what I meant you can do in Photoshop.




Either you can simplify the background or move the boat itself. Either way you would not have to cut the mast out of the picture.

(Original picture on page 241 of this thread.)

 

[ronin74]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigSurSpoon /img/forum/go_quote.gif By the way, large format is a blast. Just prepare for a little learning curve.

Been there, took me a week just to figure out how to load the film, remembering which corner of the holder the notch goes. But once you get things going, LF is totally absorbing.

 

[KevDo]

1.

2.

3.

4.

 

[KevDo]

1.

2.

3.

4.