I'm looking to get a cheap, yet good long distance lens for my Sony DSLR-A100. The lens I have right now is the stock lens (3.5-5.6/18-70). Any recommendations? A lens hood to go with it would be pretty cool too.
Nice! I'll try to shoot some more macro this week, and maybe even some micro in the next few weeks!
I just heard that our school has a microscope which can be attached to a camera
Nice! I'll try to shoot some more macro this week, and maybe even some micro in the next few weeks!
I just heard that our school has a microscope which can be attached to a camera
Nice! I'll try to shoot some more macro this week, and maybe even some micro in the next few weeks!
I just heard that our school has a microscope which can be attached to a camera
I spent two years working with a camera microscope set up in school. Get a polarizer and put it below the slide. Get another put in on-top of the slide. Crystallize some vitamin C by drying some out on the slide mixed with water.
Basicly try and photograph any chemical which will crystallize. I spent forever doing it. I would post the pictures but they are slides.
It's called birefringence photomicrography, if you want to look it up.
The first shot reminded me of this new photoshop effect I just figured out. After finding it by chance I realized that others have been using it and over-using it for years.
You open up a RAW file in PS 5.1, then you see the sliders before going into the basic photoshop program. You then move the clarity slider toward the un-clarity area and you get that pixal softness that you have captured with Polaroid film. Not the color but the soft detail, only.
Because of where you are aiming, these two shots are exposed differently. The second one is slightly darker and the sky isn't blown out because you are pointing more towards the sky and the camera adjusted the metering. It's also steady so there's no motion blur, and that makes it look clearer. Otherwise I don't see a difference, and that makes sense since it looks like you are standing in the shade.
A hood only has an impact on your image if you would normally have light reflecting off the front element or filter of your lens if the hood wasn't there (look at the front of your camera, is the lens glass in light or shadow). It eliminates lens flare/glare from the sun or street lights outside of the image area by acting as a well engineered shade that will cover the lens as much as possible without getting in the way of the image (less so on zooms because it can only shade enough for the wide end of the zoom). In a pinch if you don't have a hood you can do the same thing with your hand or a piece of paper, though you have to be paying attention to the glare in the first place, which can be hard through a viewfinder. A hood will also protect the lens from debris and spray though somewhat, which is nice.
Personally I rarely use lens hoods, mainly because I find many of them inconvenient to carry in my bag, and I use polarizer filers a lot, which is really difficult if you have to remove the hood to adjust it. I have payed for that from time to time with a shot lost to glare. The one time I use the hood a lot is with the canon 70-200 outdoors, because the 70-200 is very easy to accidentally pick up glare and hard to shade by hand.
Good luck exploring the camera, hope to see some cool photos posted here soon
The camera settings remained the same, and I pointed in that direction because the sun was to my left. I basically shot the first pic, put the hood on and shot the second as close to the original spot as possible. I didn't even move, I stood in the same position.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
