Lemmy DA35mm f/4.5 100% centre Samsung GX10


[IMG]http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk244/Anvh/Untitled-1-8.jpg[/IMG]
Photozone DA35mm f/2.8 100% off centre K10D


[IMG]http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk244/Anvh/Untitled-2.jpg[/IMG]
Photozone DA35mm f/8 100% off centre K10D


Is this better lemmy?
I thought I linked you to the full frame photos but guess not.

Ah okay then I've said nothing

Canon 5D is a full frame camera they handell high iso noise better and also with smoke you don't have a lot of fine detial so throwning over a noise reduction at higher then standard setting shouldn't harm it too much. also you see some noise in his photos.

He used manual focus or the camera was set on manual focus when taking the photo. I really don't know about What F-stop to use but he really did that so don't ask me, sorry.
When you look at his photos you can see that some of the smoke isn't in focus.

When you use the gel try something like f/8, 1/180 (so that you've normall flash) iso400 and place the flash so close as you can.
When post processing use some noise reduction software and even try some shots iso1600 with noise reduction, they might not look so bad as you think.

That fan...
Sorry I didn't read it so good

But still I don't see the point of a shutter speed of 1 second and a time triger.

Why not put it on blub and a remote, click the remote and hold it set the flash of with the hand and release the button on the remote.
I might even set of the flash wirelessly with the build-in flash.
Amin does that probable or simply put the flash on the camera even.

With one second it really depends on how well litt the room is.

We learn to focus on the eyes and the right eyes is out of focus though

That's to long I believe and certainly with a fan you won't get one sharp photo.

Amin about the sharpness.
you use f/16 1/250 100mm iso100
he use f/6.3 1/100 100mm iso2500

I'm not going to calculate it but he has less light then you've that's one thing that's certain but still he's able to get the shutterspeed low enough so a projector might have been the light source.

Jeanette, also take a look at the Tamron 90mm macro.
It's also a very good lens and comparable with the sigma 105mm but because it's 90mm just a tiny bit cheaper so it simply gives you another options to try out for macro there wouldn't be much diffrence but you might like the handling of one better maybe.

I'm sorry Andy but no adivce for you, I don't have any lenses for wild life. My longest lens I ever had was the 18-250 but hardly use it to shoot animals. I did capture some birds with those and it was just good enough so to say so 200mm might be just too short.
But then again I also have photos taken with the 100mm from a wild bird so???

I would like to see some more photos from you two, the one from Jeanette was very good.

You did a great job commenting RR don't worry about that

Glad to hear that Jeanette.
Most of the time special software for removing the noise works much better, neat image and noise ninja are the most populair I believe.
Over some months you're already a lot further so it isn't that special believe me.

Amin, I used Topaz. I also have neat image but not the 64bit version so it doesn't work inside photoshop 64bit like Topaz do so that's why I mostly only use that.
I like neat image better and it's also a lot better with high noise but untill noise like this Topaz do a fair job aswell.
- I run it through topaz, a bit lower then the standard settings to preserve the details of the bee.
- duplicate the layer a couple of times.
One ended up as an unsharpen layer, one as a softlight layer and one as darken layer to darken the highlights. you can see the effect of the darken layer at the aft of the bee, you really have some highlights there but with my they are tone down.
- then played with the curves, levels and vibrance