A Picture I Took 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeremiah_Bostwick_-_All_the_World_is_a_Stage_-_Nora_Ann-Francis_Martin-Hall_-_0243.jpg


On 500px.
 
^^Man, I would hate to owe that chick money. :p
Those are all looking good - lots of personality.

Anh N. said:
Those [jelyfish] are just absurdly good.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I really enjoy underwater photo. Someday hopefully I can get into the real thing - 'till then I'll just stick to aquariums.

So macro season has arrived again! I'm going to try and get some more exciting ones this coming weekend. Here's a few from Easter Sunday. I tried using my 70-300 VR for a few, and they looked ok on the camera, but once I switched back to the Tammy 90mm it was night and day difference. Now I really want a longer macro lens too... the Tammy 180mm is now inching its way up my list to buy.

EasterMacros1024-2.jpg


EasterMacros1024-3.jpg


(70-300 is nowhere near as sharp)
EasterMacros1024-1.jpg
 
I am devising a new evil scheme for macro! Just picked up a new strap-on softbox for my speed-light and tried it out last night – amazing soft light! Can’t wait to get this thing out in the field! I have a feeling cranking down the aperture with this thing is going to give me a lot of black-background macro shots, but it should still look pretty cool with the right subjects. Another upside of using the strobe is: because it’s so close, I have to turn down the strobe output to ~1/32 which means the effective shutter-speed is super-quick and will freeze motion extremely well. :D

Next part of the scheme: trying the 20mm/1.8 reversed! From what I’ve read, this should give me something insane like 3:1 level magnification, but it’s going to be nearly impossible to focus. I’m waiting on my reverse-ring and front-end aperture-controller ring to come in – hopefully I can try out that setup by this weekend too.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
You mentioned your softness issue with the 70-300VR. Was that with or without VR on? I remembering having problems when using mine, and I had to change the VR, but I can't remember if that was turning it on or off.
 
MN Scout said:
You mentioned your softness issue with the 70-300VR. Was that with or without VR on? I remembering having problems when using mine, and I had to change the VR, but I can't remember if that was turning it on or off.
Click to expand...

I always use it with VR-Active on - don't think I've touched that setting in years. Maybe I'll try the other settings and see if that helps. It's normally plenty sharp for larger wildlife and normal telephoto applications, but for macro use at near 1:1 cropping it's just nowhere near as sharp as the actual macro lens.

There are a few other user-error issues that were probably a factor: it's also possible I was trying to use it closer than the minimum focusing distance or right on the verge of it. I also had trouble getting a fast enough shutter speed, started at 320, then 500, then 800 - it kept getting better but never got quite as sharp as I wanted. I may try it out again next time I am doing macro, but with all my other schemes to try out, I doubt I’ll have time.

Oh, and I’m going on safari (drive-through game ranch in south-GA) in a few weeks! So excited about that! I’m going to rent a Tamron 150-600 to try out then, and I’ll be comparing that to the trusty 70-300 then for sure.
 
madFive said:
Oh, and I’m going on safari (drive-through game ranch in south-GA) in a few weeks! So excited about that! I’m going to rent a Tamron 150-600 to try out then, and I’ll be comparing that to the trusty 70-300 then for sure.
Click to expand...

Check out the Sigma's- from what I've seen, even the Contemporary version is quite sharp, comparable or better to the Tamron, while having better out-of-focus rendering (the only real optical complaint of the Tammy).
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Check out the Sigma's- from what I've seen, even the Contemporary version is quite sharp, comparable or better to the Tamron, while having better out-of-focus rendering (the only real optical complaint of the Tammy).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm keeping an eye on all of the 150-600's, and so far I am more sold on the Tamron, but I most-likely won't be buying any of them 'til tax-season next year, so I have plenty of time to decide. The current Sigma Sport is twice the price and nearly twice the weight, with only minor improvements (if any) in IQ. After comparing all the images I could find between the Sport vs Tamron, I decided I liked the look of the Tamron better, and it was actually because of the smoother bokeh which reminded me of the nice smooth bokeh on my 90mm, and that was before I even realized there was a massive difference in price. So for my purposes of mostly hand-held wildlife photo, the lighter cheaper Tamron is winning so far.

But yeah, the Sigma Contemporary 150-600 is set to be released in a month or two which will be more in-line with the price of the Tamron (Contemporary Nikon-mount isn't being sold in the US 'til June iirc). I'll definitely be interested in making a head-to-head comparison between those two once the Contemporary is more available.
 
madFive said:
But yeah, the Sigma Contemporary 150-600 is set to be released in a month or two which will be more in-line with the price of the Tamron (Contemporary Nikon-mount isn't being sold in the US 'til June iirc). I'll definitely be interested in making a head-to-head comparison between those two once the Contemporary is more available.
Click to expand...

The Contemporary is out and orderable. However, if you like the rendering of the Tamron, there isn't a solid reason to choose the Sigma ;).

In terms of rendering, though, the Tammy looks great so long as you have good separation, i.e., everything is either in focus, or not.

It's the rendering of transitions that the Sigma's (both Sport and Contemporary) tend to stand out from the samples I've seen. And personally, I expect to be shooting against complex backgrounds like grass more often than not, which totally destroys my Canon 70-300 non-L's rendering (granted nothing can save that lens beyond 225mm or so).
 
^big eyes, good shot!

I was going through my old photos because I've been too lazy to take new ones and managed to salvage some shots from my old 20D. Lightroom is an awesome editing tool.

My current initiative is to set my favorite pics as backgrounds on my PC. Otherwise they just live on my hard drive and I never look at them :(. These are all 16:9 because of that. I do have a nice Pixma Pro-100 I plan to bust out as soon as I have a bit more permanent residence in the next few months here though, so some will get up on the walls too (eventually).

Step by jamsomito, on Flickr

11289 by jamsomito, on Flickr

Barren by jamsomito, on Flickr

Roots by jamsomito, on Flickr

Moss by jamsomito, on Flickr

This got me thinking... I want to do a noise comparison between my 20D and my 70D to test the sensor age vs MP and how they relate to noise debate. If you check out my flickr page, that's what all those boring pics of the house are. I'll do a write-up soon for anyone interested.
 
I have thought about discussing and comparing MP.
I'm using a 21MP camera now, I made a 36"x24" print with it and it really seems like there is a sharp decline in rate of return.

16MP is plenty, 24MP is more than you'll ever need, but now we're pushing 50MP on 35mm. Sensor size and dynamic range have a much bigger impact on quality for the vast majority of usage cases, as well as clean upper level ISO's.

So despite the insanity of the D810, I think the D750 is a superior camera. And I think that the Canon 5D3 is darn near perfect (although if we're going to nitpick, the DR could be higher). I look at images off of my 5D2 and I can honestly say that I don't really need an upgrade on my chip at least in terms of MP. (And yes I've seen 80MP Phase One images at 100%. Yes they are incredible for pixel peeping, but since everything is all web anyway, it doesn't matter. And even for print it won't make a difference unless you're making a poster sized print to hang on your wall and you're looking at it at a distance of 2-5 inches).

If you have interesting and unique insights about ISO, that would be interesting.
 
These were actually shot back in 2010, but I don't think I ever got around to stitching them before. Had to find something to try out the new lightroom. :D

31 photos shot vertically with a 50mm lens, click for the full 123mpx insanity. :eek:


50mm, horizontal, 10 shots - I was fairly impressed how clean this turned out with the moving cars in the lower-left corner. The only flaw I found so far is that black SUV that shows up twice. :p
 
Last edited:
My pinhole photos from Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day 2015. Taken on a modified Holga 120 WPC camera using Kodak New Portra 400 120 color film developed in Caffenol C-L for 70 minutes. All photos taken with a shutter speed of "1 second" using a manual shutter release cable; the photos where I pressed and release quicker turned out sharper. My exposure meter read 1/1000 to 1/2000 second at F5.6 at 400 ISO. Scanned on an Epson V500 scanner with Vuescan as a slide, pulled out the red channel and inverted in Photoshop, and processed in Adobe Lightroom for minor contrast adjustments and black and white levels.

I used a modified Holga 120WPC camera this year. On my previous use, I got large flare on the right half of the picture from the internal reflections in the camera. I glued black felt to the protruding sections of the metal shutter bracket to prevent this flare, and the modification worked (link to picture of modification). I think the most important area to cover is the vertical surface to the right of the shutter. Some of the light from the pinhole hits this vertical surface and likely then strikes the film on the left.

This was my first time developing color film as black and white in caffenol. The film was newish and there wasn't any base fog from age. Everything looks like it came together just fine.

2015-04-26_-_Pinhole_ Day_1_by_Adam_J_Bavier.jpg
2015-04-26_-_Pinhole_ Day_2_by_Adam_J_Bavier.jpg
2015-04-26_-_Pinhole_ Day_3_by_Adam_J_Bavier.jpg


My gallery page at the official WWPD site: http://pinholeday.org/gallery/2015/?id=1052
 
I had a blast yesterday taking the tammy 150-600 on safari! Still going through the pics, but I really like this one because it has the best sharpness I've seen in the set so far. Lots more safari pics incoming later. :D

peacock-1024.jpg


And I have to show off a 1:1 crop while I'm at it. The low-res doesn't do this one justice. This would be a good one to print, except I don't really want a giant picture of a peacock hanging on my wall. :p
peacock-crop.jpg
 
madFive, I just got to say "WOW". The 1:1 crop loaded first, and then the full image popped in. Dang. That picture would look really great in rooms that lacked a bit of color (sterile).
 
MN Scout said:
madFive, I just got to say "WOW". The 1:1 crop loaded first, and then the full image popped in. Dang. That picture would look really great in rooms that lacked a bit of color (sterile).
Click to expand...

Thanks! One of the things I'm loving about the cleaner FX sensor is that I can push the saturation a lot farther before it starts artifacting. I haven't figured out yet how far is too far, but now that I'm checking on my other monitors, it looks like I came pretty close on that one. May need to dial it back a few clicks. :p
 
Actually, the low resolution picture does do it justice; they're both gorgeous.
 
Check out my new paper weight

i-3Zpj9jm-L.jpg


i-HxNGSTt-L.jpg


Dropped from a height of about 50cm onto a wooden floor. $750 in damage. :(
 
:eek: OMG that sucks!! But it is kindof cool looking on the inside. Thanks for posting. ;)
Hope you had it insured. Did you already buy a new one, or is that the insurance replacement, or what? That lens is a little ways down my wish-list, but I'd still like to own one eventually.

It's looking like the next glass I pick up will be a Tamron 180mm Macro. I really want something to get a better working distance for bug macros. Really want the Nikon 200mm, but for ~1/3 the price, I'm thinking the Tamron is going to be just fine (the great IQ of the 90mm has turned me into a bit of a Tamron fanboy in case you haven't noticed yet). Nikon 200mm currently going for $1750, or the Tamron 180mm for $750 (or buy used to save a couple hundred); but is the image quality of the Nikon really worth that much more?? I'm not convinced yet.

Any other recommendations for Macro lenses in the 200mm range? I've been looking and haven't seen any comparable offerings from Sigma or other 3rd party manufacturers.

Also, does anyone know of any stock macro lenses that offer greater than 1:1 magnification? I've been trying to shoot some with my reversed 20mm, and I don't think I have the skill or patience to get any decent shots with that setup. The max (not min, max) focusing distance is like 1.5" from the front of the lens, and the DOF is paper-thin. Even with a tripod I can't see how people get in-focus shots with a setup like this, especially with live subjects like bugs. Focus-stacking would be an absolute must, but finding a living subject that would sit still that long must be nearly impossible…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top