Also, in general, the flower ...
too much proof that a soap dish does a good job with macro, more precisely, it's just easier for them to cope ... pity that Jpeg devoured it completely during compression ...
Added @ 05.09.2007, 20:37
And these are already real flowers, but I don’t know the names ...: Well, here it is just possible to argue. What does "the right"? What are you, a colleague mean by that? To me, it just did not deliver. The fact that the whole ball of dandelion sharp left - not a plus. Because of this, it has turned out "flat", without any volume. But the diaphragm was opened "full hole" - f / 4 maximum of 4 opportunities. And GRIP was almost equal to the "plus or minus infinity". And why did this happen? Again, because of the extremely short focal length F = 5.41mm. Already on the next shot volume is transmitted much better because removed already at F = 85mm, although the diaphragm and is f / 4,5
Welk @ 09/05/07 9:28:45
Well, the whole dandelion and had to get into sharpness. To be honest, I don’t really like when, due to a small depth of field, a part of the flower is in focus, a part is blurred. About this and that, because of the small size of the soap box, the GRIP matrix is ​​always large and there is no need to clamp the diaphragm in order to place the entire object into focus. Here for portraits, where a small GRIP is very much needed, soap boxes are not suitable at all, but for macro it is just fine. By the way, the bottom shot is cropped from the whole frame, the colors were much larger, and the zone of sharpness is already.
, Well, I do not know ... I do not like. It turns solid meltishnya ... not, very small depth of field - is also a matter, I agree. That's why I wrote in the header of this theme that the DOF is actually the main artistic tool in macro photography. It is they who transmitted the volume and depth of the image. "Dances" I vylozhel just above, were removed many times almost full aperture range from 2.8 to 22. At 2.8 and 3.5 the depth of field turned out to be too small. In fact the picture was lost. On the diaphragms 8 and above - picture becomes flat, as ALL buds on the stem appeared in DOF field, and when the diaphragm 11 and higher still and the background read. 5.6 - I found the "sweet spot" because the idea was to show exactly how the inflorescence "obbegat" stem. In this case, the front flowers do not merge with the rear, it is important to ...
Welk @ 09/05/07 10:37:10
Well, I will not argue and prove that the soap box removes better
Naturally, only one depth of field can be transferred.
It would be more correct to say this: for beginners, it is easier to remove a soap dish than a mirror.
In the sense that obtaining an acceptable result is achieved with less effort or without effort at all
Okay, what's the theory here to plant now find another flower
Post has been editedkochrob - 07.10.07, 22:50