Gerry Winterbourne

Lives in United Kingdom Berkshire, United Kingdom
Works as a Retired
Joined on Mar 24, 2007
About me:

Sigma 8-16/4.5-5.6
DA 35/2.8 macro ltd
FA 50/1.4
DA 70/2.4 ltd
DFA 100/2.8 WR macro
DA* 200/2.8
Tamron SP 300/5.6 tele-macro
Pentax AF Rear Converter 1.4X AW
Kenko 2x DGZ TC
13, 21, 31mm extension tubes
8.5/1.9 (01)
K-to--Q mount adapter
3 tripods


Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4
On article Beta: try out our new 'light' color scheme (722 comments in total)

One problem with the new style is legibility of the blue text used for links. It's OK when it's surrounded by open space, such as on this page. But on the profile page, where there are many rows of text each in a black outline the blue is too pale for easy reading.

I suspect that this will be as bad or worse when looking down forum pages.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2016 at 09:05 UTC as 265th comment
On article Macro photography: Understanding magnification (126 comments in total)
In reply to:

solsang: A good macro lens is the one that allows you to shoot insects at enough distance to leave them sitting instead of becoming scared or shaded by the lens; any compact saying macro within 1cm of the lens is pretty useless for this!

Thus a macro lens ought to have the maximum magnification at a specified distance written on it, assuming you put the lens on a normal camera (mostly aps-c) so we can be able to choose from real-world usefulness.

As explained in the article, most true macro lenses have something like "Macro 1:1" engraved on them. There are very few macro lenses that give more than 1:1 and they all announce the fact.

The maximum magnification is always at closest focus distance: that is rarely engraved on the lens but easily ascertained from the published specifications, so it's easy enough to know before you buy the lens.

It's not common these days but many older macro lenses have magnification engraved on the moveable barrel so it can be read as the lens extends. Look at the focus scale in conjunction and you have what you want.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2014 at 13:22 UTC
On article Focus Stacking in Macro Photography (131 comments in total)

Is focus stacking natural? Our eyes saccade (skip about) over a view concentrating on tiny bits each time. Our brains constantly merge the most recent bits into a coherent picture that is sharply focused both across the view and from near to far.

Focus stacking replicates a part of this process so, yes, it's completely natural. Indeed, it's more natural than freezing just one instant. It's just a lot slower than nature ...

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2013 at 08:24 UTC as 54th comment
On article How the iPhone changed my photography (104 comments in total)
In reply to:

aquadust: mobile phone photography - it is just about high PP, nothing else... PP is not an art, not for me.... if i want uncompromising quality i grab my 7D, for everything else i grab my LX5... i tried to shoot photos with my mobile phone but i gave it up and bought LX5, mobile phones can not replace compact cameras, not within next 10 years or so. but i understand, many people doesn't really care because they are unable to spot the difference between good and bad photos, people so called consumers

Some people PP excessively whatever camera they use - it doesn't mean that that's what their camera is about. I use my iPhone in much the same way as my K-5, on occasions when the DSLR is inconvenient to carry.

IQ is, obviously, lower but I PP to get the same sort of look to my pictures. I'm fully aware of the difference in picture quality: I'm also fully aware of the difference in convenience. Leaving my real camera at home doesn't magically transform me from a photographer to a "consumer".

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2011 at 21:59 UTC
Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4