The Photo Below Me

No - I'm too lazy to walk from the office to the kitchen.

congrats on the tubes jamie........ i just got back from my moms and i was trying various lenses on my tubes.......... tried out the 100-400 so Thomascanty can see some samples from that..... did the nifty 50 for cat ... and had my macro lens on for some ant shots...
got lots of bees in flight which i havn't looked at yet....but after a chimping session it looks like there's some good ones

thomascanty wrote:
Different technique for me. Haven't used it since, either.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I'm getting too tired to think. Here comes a wildcard.

It's pretty cool... The only part I don't really like is the tree, or whatever it is on the right side. It just kinda pulls my eyes away. Otherwise, pretty neat.

It's a tree. Yeah, for some reason, back then I had this thing about cropping. I refused to do it. Now, I crop like a madman! I have lots of photos I should really go back and reprocess...

Yep, that's the one! There are several falling down or being taken over by nature barns around here, I plan to play with this effect when I'm satisfied with my captures.

thomascanty wrote:
It's a tree. Yeah, for some reason, back then I had this thing about cropping. I refused to do it. Now, I crop like a madman! I have lots of photos I should really go back and reprocess...

I try really hard to avoid cropping. I think it's because I want my final image to have the highest resolution possible. After a while though, I did realize that I could cut out half of my image and still get a decent 8x10.

"Wild" blueerries are in season here

holy crud..... 87 macro shots to process ....... I didn't realise i took so many
bbl

How would the 50 f/2.5 Compact Macro do on tubes? I've had this lens since back in my film days, but I very rarely use it. I've always been a little underwhelmed with it's performance. Last time I used it was in March of 2005 when the wildflowers were in bloom in Death Valley, and I was just too disappointed with the sharpness (or rather, lack of it) in most of the photos.

chemicalbro wrote:
holy crud..... 87 macro shots to process ....... I didn't realise i took so many
bbl

I take A LOT of them when I am trying macro. Almost none of them come out well, but out of 50 I normally get 5-10 pretty good ones, and maybe 1-3 really good ones. Good thing film is cheap.

what aperture were you using thomas?
I've never used the 50 macro but the 50 1.8 gives awesome results....the 1.4 even more so

What happens when you put tubes on a "macro lens"? Can you do that, and does it help or make things worse or do nothing at all?

braduardo wrote:
I take A LOT of them when I am trying macro. Almost none of them come out well, but out of 50 I normally get 5-10 pretty good ones, and maybe 1-3 really good ones. Good thing film is cheap.

the keeper ratio goes up brad once you get a good technique (i admit tho with the 100-400 it was a bit harder because of the weight and the length of the thing on tubes.......
with the nice light Sigma macro lens out of 10 i probably keep 7 or 8

it magnifies it even more

if i put all 3 extensions on my macro lens and set the lens to 1:1..... the magnification works out to roughly at 2.3:1 so if you took a photo of a ruler or tape measure about 9.5mm of the scale would fill the frame of the 22mm sensor
(22 divided by 2.3)

it has no effect on the image quality whatsoever (its just a hollow tube)

i can also put a 2 x tcon on with the tubes and get about 3.6:1....but the quality degrades a bit...... (that fills the frame with 6mm of the tape measure)

I usually try to keep the aperture around 8, but vary a little depending on the shutter speed. I just glanced through some of those shots, and it looks like I was mostly at 7.1 with a few at 9. Oddly, I don't see any right at 8...

Now that I look at them again, another complaint I had was that I just couldn't get close enough to the tiny flowers. The tubes should help with that, I assume.