+1

But is the lighthouse slightly leaning to the right or is it my eyes...?

Steve

Thanks. I tend to agree with you. It was more a 'proof of technical concept' than an attempt at art but thought the result (the best from many failures!) was interesting enough to post and see what people thought of it. More DOF might be possible, although can't try for a couple of days because of life and impending weather. As always with close-up/macro, more DOF means less light through the lens... so another interesting challenge!

Steve

Whatever one thinks of housing developments, some of the machinery used to build it is fascinating. And this is a fine picture, contrasting the hard, angular, brightly coloured machine against the soft, gently undulating, subtly shaded distant landscape. I like it (a comment on the picture, not the housing development :wink.

Steve

You could well be right!

Steve

Oops! Too quick with the title. That looks like a dragonfly pose, rather than damselfly. Anyone hazard a guess at the species?

Steve

Two sets of pictures posted in one day... it must be the heat! Anyway, this little thing paid a visit while the camera was to hand. It would have been rude not to give it some attention, particularly as it posed where the sun would catch it at just the right angle and in one of the few places where the background would be good. K3 + Irix 150mm was in the hands, so that was what did the job. No flash, by the way, just good old sunlight.

The second picture as seen in the thread looks a bit dark to me. They both look better if you click and open the slightly bigger version, goodness knows why!

Thoughts, comments etc. welcome as always.

1.



2.



Steve

No need to wait for Chris - the answer is 'YES'. And it's very good indeed .

One of the reasons the crop works for me is that it removes the big, white, distracting blob to left of centre in the original.

Any chance of the same shot with the FA 77 wide open (or whatever aperture was used here)? Just curious to see what difference a big, expensive, modern lens makes...

Steve

No, it's not the view from a spacecraft during close approach to an asteroid. It's the view from a K3 + Irix 150mm during close approach to a pear in full sun.

The pear is hanging from a tree in the garden (photo has been rotated, the fruit is actually hanging at a crazy angle). Cokin variable ND filter is set so that the background is dark at chosen aperture and flash synch speed. Off-centre ring flash acting as an artificial (and flashing!) sun to illuminate the pear but not the background. Experiment a bit with balance between flash and what's left of ambient light after it's been through the ND filter. And here's the result. Not everbody's cup of tea, I know...

This is fun - but it definitely needs a new way of thinking about light!

Thoughts, comments etc. welcome as usual.




Steve

Thanks, stub. My natural inclination is to go in close, so the ring flash has plenty enough power for that. All three pictures were less that full power. However...
Done it already - flash unit plus wireless trigger. A whole new world is opening up!

Steve
PS: I'm Steve, not Serge - but our tastes do seem to overlap at times!

It's a good question and as stub points out, it isn't just a matter of speed of lens or the need to squeeze in AF motors etc. The Pentax D-FA 100mm macro takes 49mm filters. The Sigma 105mm EX macro takes 58mm filters. Both are FF, screw-drive lenses. And then there is the Irix 150mm macro. Still FF, only manual focus, but it takes 77mm filters. And for comparison, the medium format Pentax-FA645 150mm AF macro, which of course has to cover a bigger sensor, take a 67mm filter.

My guess is that a lot depends on how far the designers want to go in reducing abberations. Less abberation typically means more (and fancier) glass. So given the current obsession with pixel peeping and sharpness, it's perhaps not surprising that lenses (and filters) are getting bigger - and more expensive .

Steve