Dangerous Spouse Pics
- Thread starter Dangerspouse
- Start date
Dangerspouse
Senior Member
Thanks for the suggestions, Dawg! I was trying various settings, but...I guess I still need more clicks under my belt before I get good at this. I mostly stayed in the higher f-stop range because the depth of field from my office out to and across Manhattan was so massive I thought I'd need high numbers even with hyperfocal distance shooting. But hey, live and learn, right? I'll give it a shot your way next time, thanks very much!
Dawg Pics
Senior Member
Yeah, the greatness of digital is you can click away, no biggie.
Been there, still there, I forget techniques and re-learn them as I go. If you understand hyperfocal distance, you are a step ahead of me. I need to go back and read an article. I might get it now.
Been there, still there, I forget techniques and re-learn them as I go. If you understand hyperfocal distance, you are a step ahead of me. I need to go back and read an article. I might get it now.
Last edited:
Thanks for the suggestions, Dawg! I was trying various settings, but...I guess I still need more clicks under my belt before I get good at this. I mostly stayed in the higher f-stop range because the depth of field from my office out to and across Manhattan was so massive I thought I'd need high numbers even with hyperfocal distance shooting. But hey, live and learn, right? I'll give it a shot your way next time, thanks very much!
Dawg Pics is right. You can lower your f/stop and still have a decent amount of DoF. Do you have a DoF app on your cell phone? I use Simple Depth of Field (which is a paid app), but there are really good free ones out there, too. I plugged in some arbitrary numbers. Keep in mind I only based this on you being 150 feet from your focus point. Most likely you were much further away - and that would increase your DoF quite a bit. The first pic is your focal length at f/11. In the second, I changed the aperture to f/7.1.
Make sure you focus about 1/3 of the way into your subject. There is a greater DoF BEHIND your focus point compared to the area in front of it. You can see the details on the diagrams below.
In the first diagram, you have a total of 70 feet in focus. On the left side, it shows how much is in focus in front and behind your focus point.
Last edited:
Dangerspouse
Senior Member
Hi Cindy!
Ohmigosh, thanks again for another terrific tutorial! I eill certainly take your instructions to heart here and put them into practice.
I don't have a cell phone, believe it or not. But I'm sure I can find tables to calculate distance, etc., elsewhere on the web and print them out. Thank you so much!
:encouragement:
Last edited:
The reason I mentioned it is back when I used a 35mm camera, many of those lenses had more details in their DoF scales. These newer lenses have very little info in comparison. I found the newer lens scales left me wanting for more information.
An alternative is to get a tripod (I know you are looking at the GorillaPod). That way you can lower your ISO which would also require a slower shutter speed. But as long as the tripod is secure and there isn't a whole lot of wind, landscape photos should be fine. Movement from cars etc would require faster shutter speeds unless you are looking to blur tail lights at night. Good luck!
Dangerspouse
Senior Member
Some of the shots I took for this week's "Leaf" challenge.
I've wanted to try taking a picture through a water droplet for a while now, so this seemed like a good opportunity. Unfortunately I couldn't get a drop big or round enough to make a good lens. Searching online it seems the secret is to add some glycerine to the water, but lacking any I did the best I could. Unfortunately, "the best I could" did not result in what I thought was a very good shot. This is a cilantro leaf shot through a bubble that I built up with a toothpick on a blade of grass. If you're familiar with cilantro leaves you can probably make it out, but if you're not...well:
Then I moved onto one of our poinsettia plants, which had one very interesting leaf that was variegated in color, mostly red and green with some yellow. I first tried a low key shot of the tip, but I had a real time of it trying to get more than one small area of the leaf in focus. Like most leaves it curled at random points, and I had trouble getting a deep enough DOF to make it acceptable:
I then took a picture of the middle of the leaf, which lay a bit flatter. I put a baby spotlight behind it, almost touching, to back light it. Although the right side did curl away some which put that portion out of focus, I like the overall effect. It's the one I entered:
I know I could have focus stacked and gotten everything sharp on those last two pictures, but I really wanted to try it without. I'm glad I did, it was fun manipulating the various components to get the best shot I could.
Can I add also how much I love that little Nikkor 40mm Micro? I think I paid 90 bucks for it, used, from B&H. It was the lens I purchased with the body, and was the only lens I had for some months afterwards. It's still my favorite.
I've wanted to try taking a picture through a water droplet for a while now, so this seemed like a good opportunity. Unfortunately I couldn't get a drop big or round enough to make a good lens. Searching online it seems the secret is to add some glycerine to the water, but lacking any I did the best I could. Unfortunately, "the best I could" did not result in what I thought was a very good shot. This is a cilantro leaf shot through a bubble that I built up with a toothpick on a blade of grass. If you're familiar with cilantro leaves you can probably make it out, but if you're not...well:
Then I moved onto one of our poinsettia plants, which had one very interesting leaf that was variegated in color, mostly red and green with some yellow. I first tried a low key shot of the tip, but I had a real time of it trying to get more than one small area of the leaf in focus. Like most leaves it curled at random points, and I had trouble getting a deep enough DOF to make it acceptable:
I then took a picture of the middle of the leaf, which lay a bit flatter. I put a baby spotlight behind it, almost touching, to back light it. Although the right side did curl away some which put that portion out of focus, I like the overall effect. It's the one I entered:
I know I could have focus stacked and gotten everything sharp on those last two pictures, but I really wanted to try it without. I'm glad I did, it was fun manipulating the various components to get the best shot I could.
Can I add also how much I love that little Nikkor 40mm Micro? I think I paid 90 bucks for it, used, from B&H. It was the lens I purchased with the body, and was the only lens I had for some months afterwards. It's still my favorite.
Dangerspouse
Senior Member
Thanks Needa, good advice :encouragement:
Lol. Yeah, I hear ya on the love/hate thing. As much as I love that lens, having to get thisclose to very small subject when I want the Full Monty macro does make things difficult sometimes.
Thanks again!
Lol. Yeah, I hear ya on the love/hate thing. As much as I love that lens, having to get thisclose to very small subject when I want the Full Monty macro does make things difficult sometimes.
Thanks again!
Dangerspouse
Senior Member
For this week's challenge of "Earrings" I had to move out of my usual studio space upstairs and set up in the basement (long story). Because of the cramped conditions I didn't set up my soft boxes the first day, thinking I'd be ok with a speedlight and some reflectors. Uh-uh. Couldn't get an acceptable shot. So today I set up the soft boxes and just squeezed around them. That made all the difference.
My biggest headache was figuring out how to suspend the piccolo so that the earrings dangled AND you could see the top of the sheet music (Mozart's Flute Concerto #2, a piece I've never mastered in the 40+ years I've been practicing *sigh*). In a stroke of inspiration (if I do say so myself) I took one of my fencing trophies and carefully slid the back of the piccolo down the extended sword. It fit perfectly! By adjusting the height with books and my camera case I got the angle I wanted.
Here's the final setup:
.
.
And here's the final shot:
.
I did try one variation. Using the adjustment brush I desaturated the three earrings and then slid the tint adjuster up to make them gold. I don't like it as much, as it doesn't stand out from the slightly yellowed sheet music like the silver version does. But it was fun to play around and see if I could do it:
.
I should have known to use the soft boxes from the beginning. I do a lot of macro product shots for my wife, and whenever the subject is shiny and can't fit in my light tent, the soft boxes always save me. I wish I'd saved the speedlight pics for comparison. Because there was no comparison. The speedlight, even with modifiers, bounced, and with reflectors, always ended up with some shadows on the sheet music and very problematic glare spots. I'm glad I took the time to re-do it properly today.
My biggest headache was figuring out how to suspend the piccolo so that the earrings dangled AND you could see the top of the sheet music (Mozart's Flute Concerto #2, a piece I've never mastered in the 40+ years I've been practicing *sigh*). In a stroke of inspiration (if I do say so myself) I took one of my fencing trophies and carefully slid the back of the piccolo down the extended sword. It fit perfectly! By adjusting the height with books and my camera case I got the angle I wanted.
Here's the final setup:
.
.
And here's the final shot:
.
I did try one variation. Using the adjustment brush I desaturated the three earrings and then slid the tint adjuster up to make them gold. I don't like it as much, as it doesn't stand out from the slightly yellowed sheet music like the silver version does. But it was fun to play around and see if I could do it:
.
I should have known to use the soft boxes from the beginning. I do a lot of macro product shots for my wife, and whenever the subject is shiny and can't fit in my light tent, the soft boxes always save me. I wish I'd saved the speedlight pics for comparison. Because there was no comparison. The speedlight, even with modifiers, bounced, and with reflectors, always ended up with some shadows on the sheet music and very problematic glare spots. I'm glad I took the time to re-do it properly today.
Dangerspouse
Senior Member
This week's Challenge was "Still Life with Fruit", a subject I've always liked but haven't tried since my college film days 30+ years ago.
For this challenge I decided to try a more monochromatic approach, with just one pop of color from a cut kiwi fruit. I've seen 17th and 18th century chiaroscuro still lifes done this way and they've always struck me as being noteable for forcing the viewer to concentrate on composition and lighting, rather than colors. It's a nifty effect when done right, so I thought I'd try my hand at it.
Here was the setup. One window, as key light. Opposite is a white plastic tray reflector for fill. A black cloth backdrop, some cedar shingles for the base, and a flat garden rock to elevate the knife a bit:
.
.
These three are test shots I did, each the same except for the distance I placed the reflector. It was pretty amazing how much difference just an inch or two closer or farther could could make. I really wanted to do as little post processing as I could get away with to keep it a more "painterly" feel:
.
.
.
Once I decided on the reflector distance I cut the kiwi and took the shot. (I also changed the aperture to give a greater DoF.) Here's the final shot. I did do a bit more processing than I'd originally intended, but not by much. It's no Caravaggio, but for my first crack at it I'm very pleased:
For this challenge I decided to try a more monochromatic approach, with just one pop of color from a cut kiwi fruit. I've seen 17th and 18th century chiaroscuro still lifes done this way and they've always struck me as being noteable for forcing the viewer to concentrate on composition and lighting, rather than colors. It's a nifty effect when done right, so I thought I'd try my hand at it.
Here was the setup. One window, as key light. Opposite is a white plastic tray reflector for fill. A black cloth backdrop, some cedar shingles for the base, and a flat garden rock to elevate the knife a bit:
.
.
These three are test shots I did, each the same except for the distance I placed the reflector. It was pretty amazing how much difference just an inch or two closer or farther could could make. I really wanted to do as little post processing as I could get away with to keep it a more "painterly" feel:
.
.
.
Once I decided on the reflector distance I cut the kiwi and took the shot. (I also changed the aperture to give a greater DoF.) Here's the final shot. I did do a bit more processing than I'd originally intended, but not by much. It's no Caravaggio, but for my first crack at it I'm very pleased:
Last edited:
Dangerspouse
Senior Member
My birthday was yesterday, and my wife and I went away for a couple of days to celebrate. On the way back today I took some shot for this week's "Mammals" challenge. We live in farm country, so horses, cattle, goats, etc., are in no short supply. Unfortunately we pulled into our driveway late enough that I may have missed posting my picture by the deadline! Oh well, I had fun regardless, and I'm pretty happy with some of my pictures. So...next week!
Here's my favorites from today, in no particular order:
.
.
.
.
.
Here's my favorites from today, in no particular order:
.
.
.
.
.
Dangerspouse
Senior Member
Dangerspouse
Senior Member
This week's challenge is "Birds", but I'm having a really tough time finding any. I'll give it one last shot tomorrow and see if I can find any examples of the few species that winter over, like vultures and cardinals. Otherwise, I'm gonna have to skip this one.
My little local camera club meanwhile meets once a month, and they do the same sort of thing as we do here at Nikonites. We're given a theme, and at the monthly meeting we present our shots to the group. Usually it's just for group critique and discussion, but twice a year they also hold juried competitions. It's a lot of fun.
This month's theme is "Cemeteries and Monuments". It's not a juried competition, just a fun one. I just know that the other members are gonna submit very pretty, very stereotypical pictures that follow the theme, like they do every month. So, like every month, I tried to inject a little originality into the proceedings.
I just need to decide which of these to submit:
.
.
.
My little local camera club meanwhile meets once a month, and they do the same sort of thing as we do here at Nikonites. We're given a theme, and at the monthly meeting we present our shots to the group. Usually it's just for group critique and discussion, but twice a year they also hold juried competitions. It's a lot of fun.
This month's theme is "Cemeteries and Monuments". It's not a juried competition, just a fun one. I just know that the other members are gonna submit very pretty, very stereotypical pictures that follow the theme, like they do every month. So, like every month, I tried to inject a little originality into the proceedings.
I just need to decide which of these to submit:
.
.
.
Attachments
Last edited:
Michael J.
Senior Member
I like this one, it's not to dramatic but dramatic enough to see what the theme is about. And the style of pp gives something special to it. The two glasses of beer are fresh and alive where the bottle is already empty and gone and is just a memory of its glory day when it was full. The pizza behind is fading its deliciousness and the mouthwatering picture slowly looses its magical wanting right now a bite.
Dangerspouse
Senior Member
Dangerspouse
Senior Member
Thanks very much for your thoughts, and for the fulsome description!
Very interesting composition. :encouragement: