PDA

View Full Version : Third macro photo sesson failed.


DerekRob
21st of September 2008 (Sun), 12:27
I have the new tamron 17-50mm and I've been trying get a good macro shot, However I can't for the life of me figure out why all my macro attemps on this lens is failing.

Here is an example with the exif intact.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y98/Docpeplvr/Camera%20Gear/IMG_1265.jpg
By the way this was gifted to me by my folks because they know how much I'm into photography,

midnight_rider
21st of September 2008 (Sun), 12:35
Do you have a macro sample?

John_B
21st of September 2008 (Sun), 12:40
I have the new tamron 17-50mm and I've been trying get a good macro shot, However I can't for the life of me figure out why all my macro attemps on this lens is failing.

Here is an example with the exif intact.


By the way this was gifted to me by my folks because they know how much I'm into photography,
DerekRob,
Sorry but that is no where near what a macro photo is!

A true macro photo is life size 1:1 Some lenses consider 1:2 (1/2 life size) as macro but the photo you posted isn't even anywhere close to any macro definition ;)

ImRaptor
21st of September 2008 (Sun), 13:00
I think I have a good idea why your macro shots aren't working looking at that picture...

Here, this will help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography

DerekRob
21st of September 2008 (Sun), 15:14
Thanks guys hey Frank, Any idea why this photo turned out so crappy?

Keegan
21st of September 2008 (Sun), 15:22
1156 posts and you don't know what macro photography is?
No offense, but you might wanna do some reading on the subject and then apply that to your shots.

DerekRob
21st of September 2008 (Sun), 15:22
1156 posts and you don't know what macro photography is?
No offense, but you might wanna do some reading on the subject and then apply that to your shots.Well I've never messed with the macro stuff until now and none taken mate.

midnight_rider
21st of September 2008 (Sun), 15:29
Here is a quick example of a macro shot. Were you taking this with your 17-50? if so you would need to buy a reverse mounting ring and a another lens to place on the front of it to get this close or some serious ER

midnight_rider
21st of September 2008 (Sun), 15:31
Here is a link so you can see how some people do it.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=142566&highlight=macro+rig

DerekRob
21st of September 2008 (Sun), 15:43
Thank you gang. midnight_rider, Yes I was since it's a macro lens ain't it?

midnight_rider
21st of September 2008 (Sun), 15:47
there are a lot of lenses that are marked macro and I believe they are marked that because they can focus closer. But even the Canon 50mm compact macro is not a true macro. It is only a true macro if it can get 1 to 1 mag.
If you are looking for a real macro I would suggest the Canon 100mm 2.8

ImRaptor
21st of September 2008 (Sun), 15:50
Thank you gang. midnight_rider, Yes I was since it's a macro lens ain't it?

The Tamron 17-50 F2.8 is not a macro lens.

DerekRob
21st of September 2008 (Sun), 15:51
midnight_rider, First let me say thank you for the links mate and your right maybe they should be called portrait lens instead of a macro lens and call a macro lens a true macro lens.

John_B
21st of September 2008 (Sun), 16:31
Thanks guys hey Frank, Any idea why this photo turned out so crappy?DerekRob,
You might want to try a smaller aperture to help your photo. As per the Exif data you used f/4, try again with f/11 and you will get all of the subject in focus.

Another tip is to reduce the light coming from the window as it looks overpowering.

Keep trying :)

DerekRob
21st of September 2008 (Sun), 17:42
John_B, Duh

And thanks.

PhotosGuy
21st of September 2008 (Sun), 22:08
1156 posts and you don't know what macro photography is?
No offense, but you might wanna do some reading on the subject and then apply that to your shots. "No offense", but how is that comment helpful? Lighten up a bit.

Keegan
21st of September 2008 (Sun), 23:21
"No offense", but how is that comment helpful? Lighten up a bit.

I was actually going to post a link with some great macro shots, but never got back to the site this afternoon...
So, however late to some people's liking, here's my "helpful" part...
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/09/21/25-beautiful-macro-photography-shots-photos/

DerekRob
22nd of September 2008 (Mon), 02:45
Keegan, thank you for the link and they're great shots by the way.

PhotosGuy
22nd of September 2008 (Mon), 09:41
here's my "helpful" part.. Great link!

DerekRob
22nd of September 2008 (Mon), 09:55
Thank you for the links guys, I've started to understand macro a little bit more.

And I may try some in school this summer, "wow that felt weird to say school" LOL.

Anyways thanks again for the helpful links everyone.

Ook
26th of September 2008 (Fri), 00:16
The Tamron 17-50 F2.8 is not a macro lens.

But a mighty fine lens nonetheless.

Irfan
26th of September 2008 (Fri), 00:55
man i was certain it was just a joke thread! and then i'd have replied "well youve got the gear I dont know why the pics arent working!". actually, i still believe its a joke thread. well played Derek.

DreDaze
26th of September 2008 (Fri), 01:14
man i was certain it was just a joke thread! and then i'd have replied "well youve got the gear I dont know why the pics arent working!". actually, i still believe its a joke thread. well played Derek.

i'm 99.9% sure it's not a joke...

S-S
26th of September 2008 (Fri), 01:17
i was wondering how small all those bodies & lenses actually were LOL - like dollhouse size or something ;)

ImRaptor
26th of September 2008 (Fri), 01:25
But a mighty fine lens nonetheless.

Oh I agree; been very happy with mine.

DerekRob
26th of September 2008 (Fri), 07:53
But a mighty fine lens nonetheless.I agree with you right there mate.

macro junkie
28th of September 2008 (Sun), 03:49
what flash and diffuser are you using?