How do you shoot (piano keys) in two different methods(close up focus,...)

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #8927836
Um Mark, that's a seriously disturbing Avatar there...

Maybe that's why the trick-or-treaters wouldn't come to the door last year.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #8926363
I Love POTN...

Ask "What Time Is It?" and someone will tell you how to build a watch!

But that's what makes this place so much fun. There are so many ways to tell time.

Alright, you doubters. Here are a couple of images (attached--these need not be on my web page forever!). The first is the keyboard of my piano made using a 24mm TS-E Mk. I, and the second is using an ebay tilting adapter and an 80mm/2.8 Zeiss Jena Biometar. The second combination would cost under $200. But the 24mm lens allows one to get closer. It's a good capability to have, if you do product shots in particular.

Oh, and BOTH were made WIDE OPEN. That's f/3.5 for the 24mm TS-E, and f/2.8 for the 80mm Biometar. Six degrees of tilt in the first case, and 8 degrees in the second. Both were made using a tripod, because I only had a couple of lamps on in the room. With the lighting I had, f/22 or smaller would have required LONG exposures. And then stuff in the image that I would just as soon leave blurry would have been sharp. Both were made on a 5D at ISO 400.

Overkill? It depends on what you need.

Rick "thinking this a basic skill for an experienced photographer" Denney

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

rdenney wrote in post #8931518
Alright, you doubters. Here are a couple of images (attached--these need not be on my web page forever!). The first is the keyboard of my piano made using a 24mm TS-E Mk. I, and the second is using an ebay tilting adapter and an 80mm/2.8 Zeiss Jena Biometar. The second combination would cost under $200. But the 24mm lens allows one to get closer. It's a good capability to have, if you do product shots in particular.

Oh, and BOTH were made WIDE OPEN. That's f/3.5 for the 24mm TS-E, and f/2.8 for the 80mm Biometar. Six degrees of tilt in the first case, and 8 degrees in the second. Both were made using a tripod, because I only had a couple of lamps on in the room. With the lighting I had, f/22 or smaller would have required LONG exposures. And then stuff in the image that I would just as soon leave blurry would have been sharp. Both were made on a 5D at ISO 400.

Overkill? It depends on what you need.

Rick "thinking this a basic skill for an experienced photographer" Denney

I didn't see any posts doubting your suggestion.

It also occured to me, I could try putting on my 10-22mm lense and then manual focus to infinity- that should get all the keys in focus... Right?

EdBray wrote in post #8932529
I didn't see any posts doubting your suggestion.

Heh. Nobody doubted the truth of it, but it seemed several were poo-pooing the complexity of provided answers, particularly if they required an equipment solution. So, maybe they were doubting the relevance of it. I chose to take it that way to poke fun if nothing else. Gotta entertain myself somehow!

Of course, my f/2.8 image was sharper than the example shown that was shot at f/32 or whatever, because the tilted focus plane provided better focus where needed than the (not quite enough) depth of field. Sometimes, you just can't do with standard equipment what is required, no matter how sturdy the tripod.

Rick "the camera support for the first image, shot at 1/8, was me leaning against the edge of the piano" Denney

legacymobilestudio wrote in post #8932581
It also occured to me, I could try putting on my 10-22mm lense and then manual focus to infinity- that should get all the keys in focus... Right?

Not infinity, be better using the hyperfocal distance and using a wider aperture.

I agree that using a tilt lens would be the best option, but very few people have them in their armoury, and even when they have not all know how to use them properly!

legacymobilestudio wrote in post #8932581
It also occured to me, I could try putting on my 10-22mm lense and then manual focus to infinity- that should get all the keys in focus... Right?

No.

Note that even with depth of field, there is only one plane that is "in focus". Depth of field just makes stuff on either side of that plane "appear to be in focus". It's still fuzzy if you look at it with enough magnification. That's why depth of field calculations, if you want to spend time with a calculator, require setting a standard for sharpness, as characterized by the circle of confusion.

Spend a little time at DOFMaster's online calculator. It can be enlightening.

Let's say your piano keyboard is 48" long (typical of a modern 7-1/3-octave keyboard--my Victorian piano has only 7 octaves and is a couple of inches shorter). Using your 10mm lens (on an APS camera--required, of course, for that lens), focusing at 12 inches at f/16 will give you depth of field from a hair over 6" to well beyond the end of the keyboard. But at 10mm, an object 6" away might seem quite a distance. At f/22, you could focus at 8" and everything from 4.4" to the end of the keyboard should be within the depth of field. That's based on acceptable sharpness with an 8x10 or 8x12 print.

Longer focal lengths will push your objective right outside the realm of possibility in a hurry. You can just make it at f/22 and 10mm, if you want that first key to be only 4" away.

At that tiny aperture (and f/22 is extremely small in the APS format), you'll get diffraction. Diffraction limits the resolution to about 1500 divided by the f-number, in line pairs/mm, assuming everything else is perfect (which it isn't). So, at f/22, you'll get at best 68 line pairs/mm. If you want 8 line pairs/mm in your print (which is a typical objective for a print to survive close scrutiny without a loupe), you'll be limited to an 8.5x enlargement (68/8 = 8.5). That will limit you to a 5x8" print before diffraction visibly degrades the image, in the ideal case. If you need the depth of field, that's the trade-off you have to make (insufficient depth of field will have a much bigger effect).

That's why I favor the tilt lens approach for this sort of a problem. At f/8 instead of f/22, diffraction will limit you far less than your lenses will, so it won't be a factor. And instead of depending on depth of field, the keys will actually be exactly in focus. You'll be able to enlarge to the full extent of the sensor's capability.

Now that really is getting complicated, though it still isn't tedious like focus stacking.

Rick "who likes the old ivory key tops on your piano better than the replacement plastic tops put on my piano by an idiot previous owner" Denney

rdenney wrote in post #8932737
No.


Spend a little time at DOFMaster's online calculator. It can be enlightening.

Now that really is getting complicated, though it still isn't tedious like focus stacking.

Rick "who likes the old ivory key tops on your piano better than the replacement plastic tops put on my piano by an idiot previous owner" Denney

Thanks, Rick. You have given me a lot to wrap my mind around it. I get the "concept"- but I'm still trying to wrap around it.
That piano is really ooollddd! And the keys are all there- ivory and all. A key tuner came and tuned it to itself because it was too old and I didnt want to pay to replace all the strings. It's more for my family- I was surprised you could tell because, frankly, the exposure was a tad high, blowing out the white ivories. I just did this as an excerise and like they say, ask a question, get the whole book and more thrown to me (IN A GOOD WAY)

So time to sit and apply. practice the concept until I understand it.

Thanks, ya all! later on, I might (if this thread is alive) post a newer picture with a better set up.

Lance

legacymobilestudio wrote in post #8932789
....Thanks, ya all! later on, I might (if this thread is alive) post a newer picture with a better set up.

Lance

*Cough*

Bump

CH.

Walk around from the side of the piano and face it square on. most of the keys will be in perfect focus. ;]

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #8926363
I Love POTN...

Ask "What Time Is It?" and someone will tell you how to build a watch!

Nice, Jay.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #8927836
Um Mark, that's a seriously disturbing Avatar there...

The avatar or the shirt?

asysin2leads wrote in post #9508594



The avatar or the shirt?

He was talking about my Halloween avatar (now retired until October) - and what's wrong with my shirt, anyway?

Mark_Cohran wrote in post #9508809
He was talking about my Halloween avatar (now retired until October) - and what's wrong with my shirt, anyway?

I thought Portland was in OR, not in HI