I tried something a little different today

I usually shoot at between f4 and f5.6, which still "de-focuses" the
background, but gets more of the car in focus. DOF Preview helps. It's
that little button next to the lens that stops down the lens to the set
aperture and you can see what's in focus and what isn't. Shooting wide
open, of course, you just have to be aware of what's focused.
I'm jealous, though. An f1.2 lens? Wow, wish I had one of those. I'm
still lusting after the 85 f1.2L.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
"Paddy's Pig" > wrote in message
...
> "Paddy's Pig" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> Looks to me like you fuzzed up the background! Sure focuses attention
>>> on the primary subject!
>>>
>>> -Vlad
>>
>> Yup. That was the whole idea. Most of my stuff until now was pretty
>> sharp from foreground to background. You get that effectg when you use a
>> small diameter (large number) f/stop. Generally I've been using f/16.0.
>> When you have a little hole in the diaphram such as f/16.0, it provides
>> maximum depth-of-field but it requires a long shutter time to get
>> adequate light to the sensor.
>>
>> Today I used an ultra-wide f/stop (f/1.2) which has a very short
>> depth-of-field. A short DOF helps to isolate the subject in the
>> foreground from the background. To compensate for that large diaphragm
>> opening I had to use ultra fast shutter times. That's not an altogether
>> bad thing from a photographer's point of view. In the dim light of
>> morning I've been forced to use shutter speeds of 1 to 5 seconds with
>> f/16.0. But with f/1.2, I used from 1/1250 to 1/4000. That means no
>> tripod is needed, which is cool. I get tired of lugging that damn thing
>> around.
>
> Problem is that I've got to learn how to control the short DOF. Some of
> the shots ( like the red Porsche 911) turned out with such shorot DOF I
> didn't even get the whole car in focus. I need to work on that. )
> --
> Pat
>

Hey, the new Canon 1D mkIV and Nikon D3s get up to ISO 102, 500 or some such
unbelievable number...

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
"Vlad" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:15:14 -0600, Paddy's Pig wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Paddy's Pig" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>> Looks to me like you fuzzed up the background! Sure focuses attention
>>>> on
>>>> the primary subject!
>>>>
>>>> -Vlad
>>>
>>> Yup. That was the whole idea. Most of my stuff until now was pretty
>>> sharp from foreground to background. You get that effectg when you use
>>> a
>>> small diameter (large number) f/stop. Generally I've been using f/16.0.
>>> When you have a little hole in the diaphram such as f/16.0, it provides
>>> maximum depth-of-field but it requires a long shutter time to get
>>> adequate
>>> light to the sensor.
>>>
>>> Today I used an ultra-wide f/stop (f/1.2) which has a very short
>>> depth-of-field. A short DOF helps to isolate the subject in the
>>> foreground from the background. To compensate for that large diaphragm
>>> opening I had to use ultra fast shutter times. That's not an altogether
>>> bad thing from a photographer's point of view. In the dim light of
>>> morning I've been forced to use shutter speeds of 1 to 5 seconds with
>>> f/16.0. But with f/1.2, I used from 1/1250 to 1/4000. That means no
>>> tripod is needed, which is cool. I get tired of lugging that damn thing
>>> around.
>>
>> Problem is that I've got to learn how to control the short DOF. Some of
>> the
>> shots ( like the red Porsche 911) turned out with such shorot DOF I
>> didn't
>> even get the whole car in focus. I need to work on that. )
>>
>
> I know the problem. Try getting a train or even the two or three diesel
> units
> all in focus at f/1.4. And remember, the train is MOVING, so I don't have
> the
> luxury of a tripod and long exposure time!! Maybe I should get one of
> those
> new whiz-bang cameras with the ISO 26,500 option...
>
> -Vlad
>
> --
> Vlad & Genny Kedrovsky
> Edina, MN, USA
> e-mail: vjkedrovsky at gmail dot com
> http://picasaweb.google.com/vjkedrovsky
>

"Skip" > wrote in message
...

>I usually shoot at between f4 and f5.6, which still "de-focuses" the
>background, but gets more of the car in focus. DOF Preview helps. It's
>that little button next to the lens that stops down the lens to the set
>aperture and you can see what's in focus and what isn't. Shooting wide
>open, of course, you just have to be aware of what's focused.

My DOF preview malfunctions on both cameras. When I push it it just
blackens the viewing screen.

> I'm jealous, though. An f1.2 lens? Wow, wish I had one of those. I'm
> still lusting after the 85 f1.2L.

Yeah 1.2 but don't get too excited Skip. This isn't some ultra exotic
modern lens. It came on my OLD Nikon F2A film camera in about 1973. It's a
fixed focal length (55mm on a 35mm camera) and all manual of course so it's
kind of unwieldy and focusing can be a hit-or-miss proposition. Viewing
screens on modern higher-end digitals are designed with the understanding
that there'll be some sort of auto focus lens attached to the camera - hence
there's no special need for camera optical engineers to worry their pretty
little heads about providing large well lit split screen ground glass with
micro pebble surfaces to act as focusing aids. Interchangeable viewfinder
glass for different lenses is unheard of. So when I mount this thing on my
D80 any focusing I do is pretty rough. I got quite a few shots yesterday
that looked fine but when I got home were blurry as hell. I guess I just
can't see well enough on my view screen to make fine adjustments.

And then there's another problem with this lens: It was designed for use on
a film camera! I found some weird chromatic aberrations on some of the
shots when I came home. I had to painstakingly touch them out in Photoshop.
--
Pat

"Paddy's Pig" > wrote in message
...

> And then there's another problem with this lens: It was designed for use
> on a film camera! I found some weird chromatic aberrations on some of the
> shots when I came home. I had to painstakingly touch them out in
> Photoshop.
> --
> Pat


I'll tell ya one thing I found that I really liked --- when shooting wide
open --- even with my ISO set at 100 --- I was able to use really fast
shutter speeds. The guy in the Eldo convertible, the guys in the black
Dodge, the BMW M3 were all driving by at about 35 to 40 MPH. If you look at
the Caddy and the Dodge wheels it appears they were stationary. No blurring
at all. And I liked not lugging that freakin' tripod around.
--
Pat

"Paddy's Pig" > wrote in message
...
> "Zilbandy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>I don't want to jump all the way up to f/8.0 or something like that
>>>because then my short DOF will be just a memory.
>>
>> Yeah, but your pictures are so damn good now... what's the difference.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Zilbandy
>
>
> Thanks Zilbandy. I'm glad you like 'em. I'm lucky to live in an area
> where there's a major concentration of cars and carshows all year-round.
> I know other guys who could do this just as good or better than me but
> they don't have the gold mine of subject matter I've got.
> --
> Pat
>
Pat, I've been impressed with the quality of your pictures, increased depth
of field or not, and I've been actively involved as an amateur
photographer since 1946.

Bill Yowell

"Bill Yowell" > wrote in message
...

> Pat, I've been impressed with the quality of your pictures, increased
> depth of field or not, and I've been actively involved as an amateur
> photographer since 1946.

Wow. Thank you Bill.

Well, I like doin' it. Glad you like seein' it.
--
Pat

Pat
(Gee if I could only come up with a writing style like Mostly Old Parts And
Rust) I don't care what you do - and can't follow it anyway.
You guys (and you know who you are) are really impressive with these
adaptations of old techniques to these new-fangled digital camera things.
But the impact of your pix come from the constant (mostly) quality of the
subjects as then interpreted by your personal choices in composition and all
of the other 'things' that make photo art.
Thanks
john

"Paddy's Pig" > wrote in message
...
> ...that made a pretty big difference in my photo results. I'm not saying
> everybody will think it's better that what I did before but you can't look
> at today's shots and not recognize a difference.
>
> Skip & Z~ will know exactly what I did. And I'm sure others will know how
> I did it too. I hope people like the effect. I do, personally. I'll
> probably do more this way.
> --
> Pat
>
>

"John Bradley" > wrote in message
rlakestechnologygroup...

> Pat

> (Gee if I could only come up with a writing style like Mostly Old Parts
> And Rust) I don't care what you do - and can't follow it anyway. You guys
> (and you know who you are) are really impressive with these adaptations of
> old techniques to these new-fangled digital camera things. But the impact
> of your pix come from the constant (mostly) quality of the subjects as
> then interpreted by your personal choices in composition and all of the
> other 'things' that make photo art.

> Thanks
> john


No no no. Thank YOU John!

PS - You don't miss Mostly Old Parts And Rust do you? (I assume by Mostly
Old Parts And Rust you mean He's (the) Missing Idiot)

No, Pat....I just have a much broader and deeper reservoir of insults and
don't get to use them much anymore. Like "you flaming bo fabrikazi!" and
such.
8-)
jean

"Paddy's Pig" > wrote in message
...
> "John Bradley" > wrote in message
> rlakestechnologygroup...
>
>> Pat
>
>> (Gee if I could only come up with a writing style like Mostly Old Parts
>> And Rust) I don't care what you do - and can't follow it anyway. You
>> guys (and you know who you are) are really impressive with these
>> adaptations of old techniques to these new-fangled digital camera things.
>> But the impact of your pix come from the constant (mostly) quality of the
>> subjects as then interpreted by your personal choices in composition and
>> all of the other 'things' that make photo art.
>
>> Thanks
>> john
>
>
> No no no. Thank YOU John!
>
> PS - You don't miss Mostly Old Parts And Rust do you? (I assume by Mostly
> Old Parts And Rust you mean He's (the) Missing Idiot)
>
>

"Paddy's Pig" > wrote in message
...: "Skip"
> wrote in message
: ...
:
Interchangeable viewfinder
: glass for different lenses is unheard of. So when I mount this thing on
my
: D80 any focusing I do is pretty rough. I got quite a few shots yesterday
: that looked fine but when I got home were blurry as hell. I guess I just
: can't see well enough on my view screen to make fine adjustments.
:
The Canon 1D bodies can utilize interchangeable screens, and they have a 1.3
crop, rather than the 1.6 of the XD and Rebel series.