New User Introductions
1,189 topics in this forum
-
- 5 replies
- 603 views
-
- 3 replies
- 634 views
-
- 3 replies
- 698 views
-
- 1 reply
- 476 views
-
- 1 reply
- 533 views
-
- 2 replies
- 998 views
-
- 2 replies
- 641 views
-
- 5 replies
- 591 views
-
- 0 replies
- 469 views
-
- 4 replies
- 542 views
-
- 12 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 0 replies
- 484 views
-
- 0 replies
- 535 views
-
- 2 replies
- 589 views
-
- 8 replies
- 777 views
-
- 2 replies
- 941 views
-
- 1 reply
- 540 views
-
- 0 replies
- 431 views
-
- 6 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 0 replies
- 573 views
-
- 1 reply
- 604 views
-
- 0 replies
- 379 views
-
- 2 replies
- 523 views
-
- 5 replies
- 694 views
-
- 2 replies
- 581 views
-
Who's Online 22 Members, 1 Anonymous, 449 Guests (See full list)
-
Recent Gallery Images
-
Recent Forum Wide Posts
-
-
-
By chris_autio · Posted
Fiber based papers are no longer available through Adorama. As for film, I would still stick with kodak or ilford. Even though Kentmere films are 40% cheaper, they exhibit high baselines, eliminating any detail in shadow zones. -
Notice that the letters are not all in focus. This is not surprising: the label is curved, and DOF is razor thin at these distances. The only solutions are to stop the lens down or focus stack. If you stop the lens down, you are likely to find that the increased appearance of sharpness from having everything in focus far more than offsets any loss of sharpness from diffraction. For example, this shot was taken at f/13 nominal with a 100mm macro lens and a 36mm extension. The effective f stop was much smaller, so diffraction already started. I didn't calculate, but as a rough rule of thumb, this is an effective f/stop of at least f/26. However, the image looks sharp. -
-
