Sometimes, but not mostly. I only have the 85mm 1.8G currently (had the 35mm before and almost never used it). Been thinking of picking up a 50mm 1.4D, but I want to get my 70-200 2.8 first before anything, but the new damn 150-600mm Tamron is seriously tempting me.

Most my shots were with a 17-70 2.8-4 on my DX or my current 24-70 2.8.


Did you know that the Long Exposure Noise reduction in camera, the body literally just takes another photo of the same exposure with the shutter closed, and then stacks the images to remove hot pixels and shit?

If you want to save battery and delay, I'd suggest keeping that function off. If you take a 30sec exposure, the camera with be useless for 1min (your 30sec shot, plus the second), plus any buffering time. I'd rather do it in post.

ever just thought about light painting during a longer exposure?



this was with my 85mm:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390918437
Pookie in Autumn Sun 2 by The Braineack, on Flickr

Yeah, I knew that about the Long Exp NR. I thought about it after that post and realized how pointless that would be if I would also be stacking. Light painting works, but you end up with something pretty unnatural looking. Not that any light in a cave is natural per se. I was hoping to just let the light from a few small sources radiate a nice gradual glow throughout the scene. I think I can do this with ISO 12800 and a stack of several images. But the only bad thing about stacking, is capturing subject in the scene will not be possible. Maybe unless I take a separate long exposure shot with curtain flash and edit them in.

I want a long fast prime like the 85. I've really had the 105 2.8 VR on my want list for years now. Excellent bokeh, great portraits and also macro function. Such a useful lens for under $1k.

I've never shot in a cave, but I was thinking a diffused flash fired multiple times in various spots during multiple long exposures to create one evenly lit photo.

similar to what he did here maybe: http://www.pgdesigns.co.uk/blogInner...logID=11&id=11

That would work. So long as you could find suitable places to hide the flash. There are usually lips of rock and cracks to hide things in. It would just be nice to avoid bringing anything I didn't absolutely need. I would either need a larger Pelican case, or more than one to bring camera, lenses AND speedlights and remotes. It's tough enough getting into some of these places with no camera gear. Which is why I like the idea of the stacking with just headlamp light and maybe a high power flashlight with a diffuser. I can carry my camera in a small Pelican case that straps to my equipment pack.

hide? multiple exposures! see my edit to the post.

honestly use dont even need a flash, you could use a spare lamp.

Well, the only problem with that method is that some of these chambers I'm wanting to fill are quite gigantic in size. So I would have to do a lot of walking and painting to get a decent fill.

Kind of an extreme example, but this is a bit... large.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390939346

To get that lighting, they used a high power studio light with battery pack at the entrance, at the top where the light is spilling down, and at the bottom it looks like they probably have a few speedlights for fill, as well as their headlamps. The stuff I'm wanting to fill is probably only 1/3 of that, but still a bit too large for painting I think.

And I have now proven my camera in snow and cold. Was outside earlier at 8 degrees with decently heavy snow fall. Viewfinder eye piece was completely packed closed with snow/ice and I had to use live view to frame. Body got pretty soaked as well. Never a second of concern, it did well.

This snow is stupid! People around here lose their damn minds when it snows. Cars piled up everywhere on roadways.

Stop thinking in 1 exposure, that car shot took at least 9.


lets say you were doing it in 1, you can walk around with a speedlight and fire it at will during the exposure across the faces of walls. If you cant get everything "painted" in one shot, do another flashing in different spots, and put those together.

But yeah I can see how an area that large can be tricky.

I am thinking multiple exposures. But that's still a lot of surface to cover with a flash or constant light. It can be done. I'll just have to get in there and play around and see what works.

Finally! I've spent the last 2 or 3 hours trying to sort out some colorspace issues. Files in photoshop, adobe raw, my desktop and webpages ALL looked different from one another. Apparently, Adobe Raw was the only real issue, as it was embedding AdobeRGB profile, which was then opened and saved by PS in sRGB, but my proof setup was checked by Working CMYK which was displaying files open in PS as more saturated and slightly bluer than they were in reality. Then I found out my favorite browser, Chrome, doesn't even support embedded colorspaces. So when I or anyone else views them with the Chrome browser, they won't look true to color. Why must this shit be so damn complicated!?

Now I just need to calibrate my monitor colors and I'll be good to go.

So how did you guys all go about starting to learn photography? Did you get a camera and just dive right in? Read up on every little aspect? Both? I just had a d3000 fall into my hands and I would love to learn how to take some semi-decent photos. I have off work tues/weds every week and I think this would be a fun way to get out and see the world, instead of my usual ritual of sitting on the couch eating mozzarella sticks while watching reruns of "boy meets world"... Any tips?

I pretty much got a camera and dove in. It's been a learn as I go process, reading a little here and there, but mostly finding things out through experimentation and practice. Started with a D50, moved to a D5100, and now I'm at a D7000. Slowly climbing the ladder. Just now after 8 or 9 years of owning a DSLR, I'm only now beginning to feel comfortable with what I have learned and generally feel pretty confident. I'm also just starting to really focus on making more of my shots look artistic and creative, and not just capturing a moment with correct camera settings. It's proving a bit more difficult that I had anticipated, but it's still a fun learning process. Learning and training yourself to see composition and perspective almost instinctively is a tough thing for me to get a grasp on. I have a hard time seeing a final shot in my minds eye, and deciding what actually looks good. Still a lot of my decent or good shots are mostly luck. With more practice and study of other peoples work, I'm confident in the near future I will begin to improve at a faster rate than the last 8 or so years.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391431462
IMG_4380 by skidude108, on Flickr

Here is my next entry for critique. Taken in northern Quebec on a camping trip I took through Labrador.

Oh man, I know the feel. I had this issue on my last PS install. I have no idea how I fucked it up, but everytime I opened any file in PS it would ask me what colorspace I wanted to open it in, and if I picked anything but "keep original" it would use the Adobe Colorspace and then completely fuck the colors.

Before I figured out what was happening, I was working on some web graphics and I'd pick colors, and then when I'd save them and publish they weren't even close to a match, when in PS when I thought I was at #000000 (pure black), it might have been a dark gray when uploaded.

I did figure out if I saved the file I had to save it a certain way to make sure it was all a match.

I never figured out how to clear out the Adobe colorspace thing until I redid the install. It was annoying.

I took 3 years of photography in HS and learned on film so I new the basic techniques of photography before digital and auto-focus. But I was never a scholar and really put little effort into learning/experimenting, I regret that.

I also worked for a 1-hour photo when they still had those things.

During college I only had a little Kodak PNS (before cell phone cameras were a big thing) and that was better than nothing, and once I graduated I upgraded to a D40 because I missed having an SLR.

And I mainly used it to take pictures of cars on the track/autox and the miata stuff. Nothing really beyond that.

But it really wasn't until last May when I went to the Dominican Republic that I really got back into photography to do more than just take "good" pictures. I ended purchasing a Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 lens, for my D3100, so I'd just have one decent lens I could travel with and while there I took some pretty good shots that I'm proud of.

That really sparked up my interest again beyond just taking car pics.

Since then I went from a D3100 to a D5100, replaced my 55-300mm with a 70-300mm, sold my 10-24mm and bought a 85mm 1.8G, bought a second flash and remote triggers and modifiers like umbrellas and softboxes. And now since I started part my car and moving my money back into this hobby I've upgrade further to a D600 and a 24-70mm F/2.8 and I'm about to pull the trigger on a 70-200mm F/2.8 once I can sell my wheels/tires.

I still don't shoot enough, and that bothers me with all this money invested into it. Come spring I have a few peeps that want some portraits done and I hope that it takes off a bit and I can monetize the hobby a bit by doing it. But yeah, besides my cats, I don't have much to shoot at home, so I need to start venturing out and making opportunities for myself to practice and learn. The more you shot the better you get; photography is really a technical skill, it's what you do with that skill that makes you a good/noteworthy photographer or not.

Also, anyone who's trying to venture in to flash photography would be smart to read: .

Not a bad shot, tough to expose for both a sky and subjects and I think you made the correct choice of exposing for the sky and letting the subjects go to silhouette. Could have been interesting with some off camera flash to fill the subjects, but whateves. I wouldn't mind if you pushed the saturation just a bit in the sky.

Here's a few shots of my backyard this weekend:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391435108
Thirsty Squirrel by The Braineack, on Flickr

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2842/1...863741ca_b.jpg
Thirsty Squirrel by The Braineack, on Flickr

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391435108
Deer in Sun by The Braineack, on Flickr

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391435108
Deer in Woods by The Braineack, on Flickr

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391435108
Deer in Woods by The Braineack, on Flickr

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391435108
Deer in Sun by The Braineack, on Flickr

That's awesome! Keep it up because you definitely have some talent!

The wife and I were discussing taking a photography course at the local community college, but I'm not sure if it will happen with our work schedule's

Here are a few of the first pictures I ever took with our "new" D3000. I really struggled with the shots off my deck... No idea what I'm doing obviously lol. Pretty bad but I hope to keep at it and learn how to take some decent shots.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391441124

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391441124

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391441124

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391441124

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391441124

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391441124

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391441124

This is the type of shot I hate. Especially if you don't have an ND Grad filter.

But you can fake it by bracketing and stitching...

finally found the one shot I wanted to link when we were talking about high ISO.

From that same Flickr page:
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391454881

iso 20,000

That's my biggest problem too. Like any other skill, you have to use it, and use it often to improve. I might fire off only 5-8k frames per year, which is nowhere near enough to really learn from your errors or build upon good shots. A seasoned pro will shoot 5k frames in less than a week. I also need to force myself to actually plan more photography stuff. Currently and in the past, I'm nothing more than an opportunist and shoot whats around me or where I usually go anyway. Which leaves me with pretty boring shots with boring light. I also read something the other day that said to set yourself special projects. Like this guy wanted to shoot through arches, using them as a frame. So any time he saw an arch, he would shoot through it. Doing something like that really teaches you to see things you normally wouldn't.

Well, yeah. It looks fine. But it also looks like 90% of that image is way way right on the histogram, so of course the noise is minimal.

I wanted to bring my camera to work today to capture the sunrise over DC. I forgot and the washington monument would have been badass today, the sky was completely pink/purple.

here was friday:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391538260

Finally got around to ordering an M42 adapter so I can use my Super-Takumar 50mm 1.4 on my camera. I'm quite excited to see for myself how delicious this lens is. The bokeh is awesome, and it's optically one of the best lenses out there. It's also built like a tank, and handles like a dream. Creamy smooth focus and perfect aperture control ring. It is quite a sought after lens. This will be my fastest lens ever. Never had faster than 1.8

This lens has a bit of radioactivity going on though. Yellow tinted glass, and a surprisingly high dose of radiation from it. I might actually like the slightly yellow tint it will give images though, so I might just leave it alone. If I don't like it, I can fix it with a few weeks of UV treatment.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391849443

6hr/day for a month of close proximity (strapped around neck, side, or up to your face) is equal to a chest x-ray of exposure. Not anything to worry about, but I still find that surprising.

you have what body?

old lenses and nikons dont work well together, best on a canon body or pentax.

I have the same useless lens with the same useless adapter:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391866872


unless you spend like $200 on an infinity focus adapter with REALLY good glass in it...


I took this with it back in 1999:

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5452/9...bbbae522_z.jpg
Joe Hitt in B&W (Film) by The Braineack, on Flickr

What would you guys recommend as my first, all around good lens? I only have the shitty "kit" lenses that came with my Nikon

most like to start with the 35mm 1.8G, but I didn't really like it much. I'd much rather have a 50mm 1.8G or some sort of telephoto if you're going outside and taking pics.

what do you like to shoot?

Honestly I have been attempting anything from the dog in the house, to snow covered scenery last week, to my car... My mom goes to this local spot that has a ton of bald eagles so it would be cool to tag along with her to see if I could get a shot of one...

The best zoom for the buck is the 70-300 f/5-5.6 VR.

Used it's around $300. But, the 55-300 is optically about the same (doesn't work on FX), but the auto focus is slower, it hunts a bit more, and there's no focus override. But used they are close to $150-200.

the 55-200 can be found for free. It's cheap and optically sub-par.


Or if you just want a better all around lens, i really did like my Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4. Really sharp lens and pretty good bokeh. Around $300 used.



I'm ordering the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC tomorrow.

I would agree with Brainy, Sigma 17-70 2.8-4, though I have no personal experience. The performance and price blows away pretty much anything else out there. Plus that focal range is very nice. Like a kit lens, just slightly wider, and a good bit longer, and definitely faster.

My first good lens was a 50mm 1.8D, and I don't regret it. I would recommend that as the perfect second good lens to have. Or I should say the 1.8G version, which I also have. Everybody should have a nifty fifty.

Don't say such things. Why exactly do you say it is useless? Only because of the no infinity focus? Or are there other problems that you have found? I have a D7000 body. I'm completely prepared for no infinity focus and all manual controls. I went with the cheap Fotodiox adapter, Type II without the crappy diopter element. How far will it focus? Does it get anywhere close to infinity? I've read as low as 3'-5'? Oh well, I got it mostly for close work. I also have a 49mm Nikon mount reverse ring, so I can use with for macro work, and use extension tubes for some really up close work. Anyway, for $12 for the adapter, $12 for the reverse ring, and $12 for the extension tube set... I'm not losing any sleep if they aren't perfect.

Thanks for the input guys! Looks like I have some lens shopping to do! My Kit came with:

18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6G
55-200mm 1:4-5.6G

Are those the versions with or without the VR? If with VR, those are still very good lenses to have. The 18-55 VR is still one of my favorite lenses, even if it is just a kit lens. Might not be the sharpest or fastest, but it's a handy little thing. Of course having a 17-70 2.8-4 would completely render it obsolete.

I guess thats a no on the VR... This is all it says

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391878878

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391878878

Yeah. that's the non VR. VR makes ALL the difference on a telephoto lens. Even my old 18-55 non VR kit lens that came with my D50 wasn't all that great. When I dropped the mere $100 on the updated 18-55 VR, it was night and day. Where I could only shoot at 1/60 handheld with the non VR, with the VR version I should shoot at the same focal length at something much much lower like 1/20 or even 1/15 and still get crisp images. I couldn't imagine shooting a 55-200 non VR. My 55-200 VR I was able to get sharp images handheld at 200mm at as low as 1/40. The rule of thumb for non VR, you would need ~1/300sec at 200mm on a crop camera to get the same results. 1/40>>>1/300.

Well damn.... Now I REALLY want to get a new lens! Lol

The 55-200 VR is about $250, but if you can swing $450, the Tamron 70-300 VC is a pretty amazing lens. That's about $150 cheaper than the Nikon 70-300 VR, and some of the reviews I have read say the Tamron VC works better than the VR on the Nikon.

Don't buy new.

Yeah I think there was a VERY limited range for focus AND DOF, I'll have to try it again.

I was sad cause I have all this:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391899989

and I really couldn't make any of it work.

Here was an example from it:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-g...DSC_9518-1.jpg

I'll dig it back out of the box and try it again.


This entire gallery is with the 17-70 2.8-4 Sigma on my D3100.

One thing to keep in mind is that it's a LOT larger and heavier. Although nothing like my 24-70 f/2.8.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/1...CLicr7rx1qXbYw

I'd believe it. I'm damn impressed with the Tamron VC. It's quieter too; you don't hear it engage or shake the frame.

One thing that concerns me about the Tamron VC, which I have no verifiable information on, is that it works so well that small and slow hand movements to adjust composition are cancelled out. That seems like it would become annoying. Again, that might be bullshit, and I'm guessing that only would be noticeable on longer lenses.

I wouldn't think an adapter would have any effect on DoF. I am guessing however, if the long focus is effected, the adapter is acting as a small extension tube, and moving the lens away from the sensor. So in fact it probably increases the focal length slightly. Probably not much though.

Or am I wrong? Doesn't DoF only depend on focal length, aperture and subject distance? Moving the lens should only effect the range of focus, not the DoF? Maybe it's a perceived change in DoF because of the perception of a slight focal length change?

For the sake of actually contributing an image, found this one I took a few years ago after just getting the D5100 with 50mm 1.8G. I considered it unusable with my old knowledge of post processing. A little BW and some adjustments and it's now usable.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391901915

The focus issue has more to do with where the rear element of the lens ends up in relation to the sensor. The extra 2.5mm between a Nikon and Canon (in regrads to mount distance to sensor) makes all the difference when adapting these lenses.

It's pretty much like using an extension tube, the more you stack, the more you make your lens a macro lens. This changes the DOF. Since the rear element is moved further away from the focal plane (sensor), that makes the DOF shallower and the min. focus distance is moved a bit.

Something like this:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1392042265

That lens normally has a min focus distance of 17in with a .15x magnification. With a 5mm extension over normal (estimated flange size), you move the min. focus distance to a 12in min focus distance and a 0.25x magnification (An extension tube increases lens magnification by an amount equal to the extension distance divided by the lens focal length.).

I'm not sure the distance between the film/sensors and rear element natively between the old pentax/canons and new Nikon DLSRs, but I know that's different as well. I think that the adapter, plus the difference in sensor to element is significant enough where you can't really focus on anything very far. So it pretty much only works as a short focus, or very weak macro, lens.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1392043407
Moves the min. focus THAT much closer so only part of the subject is now in focus. Magnification will increase as well.

If the issue was that they were too close now, the adapter could be used to space it further away and correct the focus, but that's not the case, it's too far away and optics are needed to really correct it, but there's no good optics you can buy. The one adapter I got (PK Mount) was pretty much plastic "glass" and gave me the IQ of shooting through the bottom of a beer mug.

I suggested an old Canon or Pentax because they kept the same distance to sensor and they are both backwards compatible. It IS a shame because I've seen shots of that lens on Pentax DLSRs and it's great.

Like I said, I'll dig the lenses and adapter back out to see what I can come up with, but I don't think that's anything useable.

EDIT: looks like the pentax is 1mm closer than that Nikon, so that puts the lens roughly 6mm further away. So roughly 11.5 min focus distance, and 0.27x magnification if my 5mm distance increase in the adapter was correct.

I found the max distance formula online, let's see if I can do this correctly:

D' = F [ (F / X) +1 ]

F = focal length (mm)
D = distance (mm)
X = extension (mm)

So we'll do F=50, X= 6

D' = 50 [ 50/6+1 ] = 466mm

So min focus is 298mm and and infinity is 466mm. That a working range between 11.7ft. to 18.4ft; not very useful at such low magnification.

I'll try to remember to pull it out tonight when I'm home and try to focus on a measuring tape and see how close I get to that.

Get Silver Efex 2 for LR. It's awesome for B&W conversions.



I think you can improve on yours a bit by increasing the contrast, it's just all gray right now. In most B&W shots I like to see full DR between whites and blacks. I'd probably lighten his skin and get the white shirt looking closer to white without blowning out, and then darken the BG.

B&W conversations really save images. This one looked bad in color, but the B&W saved it:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392045147
Julia staring up (no crop) by The Braineack, on Flickr

Here is my example of black and white. The original image was incredibly orange, but in black and white it is much better. Still not my best image, but not terrible. Thoughts?

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392045743
IMG_3481 by skidude108, on Flickr

not bad, the lights and fence are fighting for my eye's focus--since they are teh brightest thing in teh scene, and the person in the tree is getting a little lost.

I'd also clone out that beer can and make crop it in jsut a touch.

Where's the best place to look for used lenses?

I generally go straight to Amazon, but I imagine there is a photography specific site that is better?

Also, how much should I ask for a Nikon 55-200 AF-S DX VR? We got a Nikon 18-140mm with the D7100 so the 55-200 is likely to never get used again. The extra bit of zoom isn't really worth changing a lens out for. The 55-200 we have has less than 500 exposures.

I use keh.com a lot. Adorama and B&H have used stuff. Even Amazon does used. Here's a place I've been recommended as well: Pro Photo Supply - Used Photography Equipment, Used Cameras, Used Video and Used Lenses in Portland OR

In like new condition, I'd expect you to get around $100 for it, if you're lucky. KEH.com only pays $73.00 for it.

Thanks.

I was planning on asking $100 for the 55-200, I thought that was about what they go for used.

I need to really read up on b&w converting. The colors were so harsh and blotchy looking in the color version that simply using the b&w converter in Photoshop didn't allow for much variation beyond normal tones. Any time I would move a color slider one way or the other, immediately I would start to see weird blotchiness in the skin. I kind of like the soft, low contrast look myself. At least for that image. I do really like that b&w of yours though. Nice contrast really makes it pop. It doesn't look like silver efex is for cs6? I need to look into more plugins. I currently have none. Or maybe it is, the more I look, seems like it is supported as a CS6 plugin.

It should be.

Portraiture works awesome for smoothing skiin.

Meh. Not all that impressed with the reversed 50mm on the cheap extension tubes. It gets close, but the DoF is really stupidly small. Getting shit in focus without actually being able to focus (moving the camera) is frustrating. Image quality is decent, and I suppose if I had something interesting to photograph it could be fun. All I could find was an old pine cone and some moss on a tree. WOOO! It also sucks that now every spec of dust in the lens is visible.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392070589

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392070589

No harm, no foul. 40 year old lens that I got for free, and a $10 set of tubes.

actually produces great images. Such a shame I cant get it to work, almost makes me wanna buy an older canon or pentax. I have tons of manual lenses to use with it, including an 85-205mm f/3.5.

On my body I have to be about 5" from the subject and I have about 4" of workable focus range:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392082452 https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392082452

seriously dat Bokeh is intense.


Looks like it works great as a macro, remember the DOF will always be crazy short in macro, most people shoot at like f/22 in macro and even then focus stack images. Color me impressed.

I've been wanting to get a macro lens, but then I figured it's much cheaper to get tubes for my 85mm.

Is that the 50mm 1.4? Damn, that's not much range at all. I was hoping for considerably more than that.

I think not impressed was the wrong way to show my dissatisfaction. Image quality is great, but goddamn it's hard to frame shit up and get things in focus. I think you could get shots as close or closer with the 50mm mounted reversed on a long prime or zoom. And you would still keep aperture control on the camera, and focus. If only I had a long prime or decent zoom.

I'll have to get out tomorrow and find some things to shoot. I caught those just before dark and didn't have much light to work with, which made it even tougher to see what was going on through the f/16 aperture in live view. And really, f/16 might not be enough dof for getting this close. I guess I could always focus stack if it's a stationary object.

Get a reverse ring to mount the 50 onto your 85. That should give you some pretty decent magnification with tubes.

This is apparently a 50 on an 85, no tubes.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392084305

But it seems like single lens on tubes might be the better deal, to avoid complicated optics. I'd like to have a wide prime, maybe an old 24 or 28mm 2.8D, though neither of those have nearly the awesome optics of the super takumar 50.

PS, I have another set of tubes on the way, for a total of 98mm. Probably not realistic, since the dof will be the thickness of a sheet of paper even at f/16. Worth a try, for such little money. It'll be a backup set anywa, as these threads and metal feel very fragile. One time lightly cross threading and the threads are probably done.

Love this guys stuff. 50mm lens on 68mm tubes.

http://digital-photography-school.co...ml#post1215022

Yeah, the 85mm on tubes works well as is:



you can get 1:1 with it. I was shooting 1:2.7 at 70mm with my sigma and I thought that was pretty close as it.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392121128
Spider on Purple Flower 1 by The Braineack, on Flickr

I was considering that Tamron 90mm Macro, You can get them for under $300 non-VC, and like $600-700 VC. $40 for a set of tubes is much cheaper.

1:1 is nice, but something about seeing things on scales that you normally just don't see, is exciting to me. Like I never knew what the pore structure on a pine cone seed looked like... and now I do.

For sake of comparison, here is my 40mm at 1:1 vs the 50mm reversed on 50mm tube (whatever reproduction ratio that would be) Sorry, they are handheld, and both at f/4.

Close:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392130275

Really close:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392130275

I hadn't really noticed it till now, but that picture makes the element yellowing very apparent on the 50mm

Attachment 239353

Bokeh on the 50mm at 1.4, which I find quite pleasing. Still very sharp even at 1.4, on the little that is actually in focus.

Had another nice little snow last night. More snow than we had a few weeks ago, and far less retardation on the roads since everyone was prepared for this one. Of course I got stuck over at a friends house with that damn 50mm 1.4 and couldn't zoom past 4', so I was buzzing around people all night like a fly. We had a bit of a snow-in party, though I didn't think it was going to do anything. Ended up with 6-7 inches, which for around here is a metric fuck ton.Trying to frame shit with a 50mm on a crop, while being limited to 4' and closer is tough. At least it's 1.4 and let in enough light to hand hold at 1/60 and get decent exposure at ISO2000-4000.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392315443

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392315443

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392315443

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392315443

Attachment 239342

I rediscovered a shot i did in 2010:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392814944
Blue Bulb by The Braineack, on Flickr

it's up to 96.6 on 500px.

someone bought us a bottle of Reisling:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392984618
Riesling Bottle by The Braineack, on Flickr

Was it any good? I hope so, they put some work into making a cat bottle for it. Not sure if that matte finish lends itself well to being photographed. Lacks that usual reflection that is so nice in bottle/glass images. It's still nice in its own way.

I wanted so bad for this to look good, but no matter how I edit it, it's just not looking right to me. Though I don't suppose it helped that I shot it handheld from a running car without taking time to shoot it properly. It lacks sharpness and detail, which is to be expected. Can't make a diamond from a turd I guess. I guess maybe it's still presentable. At least a good image for me to tinker with in PS to try and improve my more natural looking HDR techniques, which still have a ways to go. So many ways to approach HDR, and some better suited for certain situations and images. I edited it to more resemble a hyperrealistic painting than a photograph.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1393043577

yeah that one is tough. bg is too distracting. dunno what you can do. I'm horrible at landscapes.



I sat outside all day, under a picnic table, and finally got decent shot:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1393191863
Tufted Titmouse by The Braineack, on Flickr

I shot at 3.2, I wish I was at f/8.

I'm pretty bad myself, but trying to learn since I'm such an outdoors type of person. It helps to actually go places worthy of pictures, of which not many are very close. I have to drive at least 100 miles to get to nicer Appalachian "mountains".

I love the shot at 3.2, though I think maybe f/5.6 would have been about ideal for balance between foreground focus and bg bokeh. You were UNDER the table? Or just under a roof over the table?

Yeah 3.2 was too narrow, I think f/8 would have ensured the entre bird/foreground was in focus while still mainting plently of smooth bokeh. and that's a pretty sharp stop on the lens. at 3.2, 200mm, and about 7ft to subject, that's a DOF of about an inch. Which seems about right when you see how narrow on the bird it is. f/8 would have given me only even 2 inches of DOF.

Although, the light was starting to fail when I took this shot and I was already at iso 500 with 1/800. Next time I need to try to start at 1/1200 as a few of the shots I took were blurry from how fast it moved.


I zip tied a bunch of fallen branches on the verticals on my deck. I made a huge pile of bird seed just below them.

Then I got two canvas tarps and made a "blind", layed them strategically on a table on my deck and sat under it patentially waiting.

It failed on me when a squirrel finally jumped up to eat and I knock half it down on me and it blocked the damn shot

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1393244614
Half Squirrel by The Braineack, on Flickr

Could have been a really great shot... I chuckled a bit at thought of you hiding under the table then the image of it all collapsing made me laugh... :rofl:

In all seriousness this inspired me a little bit to try and put more effort into setting up some cool shots.