|
Image Title: Yellow Macro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Photographer |
Roger Williams {K:83282}
|
| Project |
N/A
|
Camera Model |
Voigtlander Bessaflex
|
| Categories |
Macro
Florals
|
Film Format |
|
| Portfolio |
Macros
SLR
|
Lens |
Tamron 90mm F/2.5
|
| Uploaded |
7/15/2005 |
Film / Memory Type |
Fuji Superia 800
|
| |
|
ISO / Film Speed |
0 |
| Views |
148 |
Shutter |
1/500
|
| Favorites |
0
|
Aperture |
f/5.6 |
| Critiques |
5 |
Rating |
Pending
/ 1 Ratings
|
| Location |
City - Ochikawa
State - TOKYO, HINO CITY
Country - Japan
|
| About |
This is almost the last image taken with my Tamron 90/2.5 macro lens. It proved unrepairable... so now I have a 100/3.5 Cosina macro. I think I may be starting tp get the hang of this macro thing, though. About time!
|
|
Random Pictures By:
Roger
Williams
|
|
There are 5 Comments in 1 Pages
1
|
|
|
Rob Ernsting
{K:8949} 7/15/2005
|
Roger I agree, macros are great. I have noce macro lens but abyse an 70-200mm lens and a 50mm lens for that purpose sometimes with the use of an extension tube.
why are you using Superi 800 and not 200 ISO and why not positive film like provia? You are going to scan them anyway. Isn't positive film better in the case of scanning?
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
{K:83282} 7/15/2005
|
I prefer working with negative film for its much greater exposure latitude, Rob, and I have never had any problems with scanning it. I tried slide film and actually had MORE problems with the scans, probably because I wasn't used to it. I use both 400 and 800 ISO, and sometimes there is 800 ISO film in the camera when I would have chosen 400, as in this case. I mostly have slow lenses, F/3.5 to F/4, and my hands are shaky, so I prefer fast emulsions so that I can use faster shutter speeds. I'm beginning to think that the Fuji Superia 200 ISO emulsion (which I love and use with my Widelux swing-lens panorama camera because its fastest shutter speed is 1/250th and smallest aperture F/11) would be better for macros. But I'd hate to be trapped into using 200 ISO film for most of my town and country shots. Sorry to be so long winded, but I wanted you to know that quite a bit of thought and experience went into the choice of fast negative film...
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Ernsting
{K:8949} 7/16/2005
|
Thank you for the explanation Roger, clear to me now and appreciate your considerations.
At the moment I am questioning myself whether iis worthwhile for me to go into scanning and achieve better results than with my 8MP digital camera. It is a lot of work and costs lots of money. this against the only advantage of using my 17-40mm lens as a true 17mm where on the digital it is a 28 mm.
So my problem is a luxuary one. Canon has a special 10-20mm lens for digital but the quality is not as good as mine.
Besides I like to get old negatives scanned, would be gun. Cheers, Rob.
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Cartwright
{K:15699} 7/16/2005
|
Hello Roger,
I read, with interest, your comment to Ron, about focusing on the nearest petal. I didn't know that, and will practice that in future macros with any depth.
This a lovely macro from your old lens. The post sharpening has caused a bit of speckling (unless it's film grain). This doesn't spoil it.
I've just bought an old canon T70 and my film was very grainy, when I got it processed digitally on cd.
Regards
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
{K:83282} 7/16/2005
|
Thanks, Colin. The DOF in front of the actual focus point is about one-third to one-half that behind it, so you should focus just BEHIND the nearest point. You're right about the grain AND the sharpening, though. This is a commercial Fuji scan to CD (I'm usually very fortunate with the results). But I also wanted to sharpen up the frill around the edge of the petals and applied a litte local sharpening there.
|
|
|
|
