--With a flash! Ssee the entire gallery for notes on why I took these
pictures and what I was trying to discover.
http://www.pbase.com/fjp/byp_2004_07_jul_10
Here are some samples from that gallery, not necessarily the best:
--
FJP
--With a flash! Ssee the entire gallery for notes on why I took these
pictures and what I was trying to discover.
http://www.pbase.com/fjp/byp_2004_07_jul_10
Here are some samples from that gallery, not necessarily the best:
--
FJP
Thanks. Using flash with macro photography, I'm always worried about generating specular reflections off the subject, which gives an unnatural look. But I didn't see much of a problem in these. We could attribute this to the diffuser, but also none of my subjects were very shiny. When I was doing a lot of ring flash work with the 105mm Micro Nikkor, I was taking pictures of mushrooms and plants in the rainforest, where there was a lot of wet subjects and I was picking up specular reflections all the time, and I received complaints about them from critics!
Would using a polarizing filter help to cut flash reflections on wet/shiny macro subjects?
Possibly, but I don't know how that would work with a ring flash. How would you turn the polarizer if the ring flash was in the way?
For birds behind glass in a zoo, you don't need the polarizer, because you just shoot off on an angle. I once did this in the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago. Standing there in front of the glass bird cages, the reflections were so bad to the human eye you could hardly see the birds. But when I got the slides back, I was amazed to see that the intensity of the flash had completely washed out the reflections and the birds were seen crystal clear, as if no glass were separating them from me. I saw the birds clearly for the first time in the slides!
Paper diffuser? What's that? Did you use the SB-800 plastic diffuser? That easily gets to f/22, is slightly underexposed at f/32, and that's with the head pointing directly at the subject (7 1/2 degrees below the horizontal), although with the diffuser I'm not sure what difference it makes the angle you set the flash.
No, I did not. If I understand this correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong), you set the camera up as described, press the trigger, then move back and forth until you hit the focus and the shutter automatically goes off. That would be fantastic (and exactly what hand-held macro photography would need) if this is true. Can't wait to try it out.
Thank you for giving me that reference on macro focusing.
--
--Please promise to post your results back here.
--
Stinson
D-70, 18-70 kit, Sigma 70-300 II APO, C-750, D-40, B-300, Nikon 4T
macro, PS CS
http://www.StinsonsTerra.NikonD70Gallery.photoshare.co.nz
http://www.StinsonsTerra.StinsonsC750Gallery.PhotoShare.co.nz
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
ViewExif at http://ak.no-ip.com/EXIF/
--Please promise to post your results back here.
--
Stinson
D-70, 18-70 kit, Sigma 70-300 II APO, C-750, D-40, B-300, Nikon 4T
macro, PS CS
http://www.StinsonsTerra.NikonD70Gallery.photoshare.co.nz
http://www.StinsonsTerra.StinsonsC750Gallery.PhotoShare.co.nz
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
ViewExif at http://ak.no-ip.com/EXIF/
Hmmm...well, I shoot raw. Then I use NC to read the NEF files and make a preliminary setting of the levels (it's very inaccurate compared to PS, but it's a start) and save to TIFF. I didn't have to change the white balance for any of these macros, since (virtually) all the light came from the SB-800 and Nikon knows what color that is. In PS, I fine tune the levels, and sample down with "Bicubic Sharper" to my screen resolution (1920x1440), and if the focus was spot on (most of the time for shots I save) I USM 70, 0.7, 0 and save to JPEG. Then I sample down one more time for images I display on the WEB to 1024x768, and apply no more USM.
Oh, that baby is SWEET! From reports I've read, it's as sharp as the Nikon 200mm Micro at half the price and weighs less, and its working distance is about the same. Plus, mechanically, it is a dream. The manual focus is silky smooth and precise, so different from the crude Sigma I was playing with for the images I posted here in this thread. I can't wait until I can spring for it (any month now LOL) and get my hands on it. The autofocus is slow, but the way you're supposed to use it doesn't matter (manual focus to get within a ballpark, then autofocus for touch up to perfection). The manual focus ring is very wide, so unlike the thin ring on the Sigma. This lens was built with manual focus in mind, exactly what a true macro lens should be designed for.
--
I would never sully my camera by doing in-camera sharpening. That's blasphemy in my book. I set white balance and that's it (except for ISO of course).
With a flash! Ssee the entire gallery for notes on why I took these
pictures and what I was trying to discover.
http://www.pbase.com/fjp/byp_2004_07_jul_10
Here are some samples from that gallery, not necessarily the best:
--
FJP
I don't know. When I first got it, I read about it, set it up in its most capable mode (iTTL or something), and then just forgot about it.
No.
Well, that happens when it isn't powerful enough to give a full exposure, then the red light blinks. Other than when that happens, I haven't noticed any problems in particular.
Can't say as I've had mixed results. It behaves a lot more consistently than the sun and the sky does, not to speak of indoor lighting. I wish I could use flash for everything, but my daughter won't let me pound her newborn with light from either the SB-800 OR natural light from the windows. She has some cockamainy notion that bright light is bad for infants.
Thanks a lot.
Lest I be misinterpreted, let me make it clear that I was talking about the Sigma 70-300 (with the red ring), not the Sigma 180 macro, which is a lot nicer mechanically than the el cheapo 70-300. But FROM WHAT I READ (no hands-on experience) the Tamron is peerless in its mechanical feel. I read that the Canon in this range is also superb, and of course the Nikon is too, but who wants to pay $1,000+ when you can get something like the Tamron (every way comparable) for $650 or thereabouts?Thanks for the reply... and I'm glad you mentioned both the Nikon
and the Sigma, both of which are also in my peripheral vision
I'm counting the months too.
