LensofNature

34 minutes ago, PapaTango said:

Your registration approval is complete.  Please read the accompanying PM, and sorry about the inconvenience.  Our emails are being refused by your Bell Canada email server,

This also sometimes occurs with Microsoft related accounts such as Outlook.com, MSN.com, and hotmail.com.   

 

Thanks so much!

I tried registering with the FotoFora but could not receive a verification email.  Now everything is stuck in limbo.

Cardinals were frequent visitors to the magnolia tree outside the kitchen window of my last apartment.

On 11/10/2023 at 5:30 PM, Sanford said:

Time we did away with this tradition.

They are looking at that option in some Canadian provinces; there are a couple that never did have Daylight Savings Time.

On 12/7/2023 at 7:13 PM, Tony Parsons said:

If it's any help, when I resize images for PN, I try to make them 1200 px wide (for landscape shots) or 1100 px high (for portrait), using FastStone. Usually seems to work for me. Resizing is the last operation in PP.

Thanks so much, that's very helpful. 

I am susceptible to ocular migraines as well, and find the light on white design or, conversely the super black designs of websites, Microsoft and other software very hard on my eyes.  I have the brightness/contrast turned down significantly which, as you say, makes it hard to gauge colour in photo editing.  I've tried calibrating my monitor but there is an error message saying there is no additional monitor to select, or something like that.  At any rate, it would probably mess with the brightness/contrast for word processing and other routine computer tasks.  I also developed floaters while shooting a sunset a couple of years ago, so that doesn't help.  I've had to resign myself to the fact that between sunglasses in the field and reduced brightness/contrast of the screen, there will always be a discrepancy between actual and perceived intensity of colour.  I find myself sometimes re-editing photos that look garish at different times of the day/night, lol.

This was taken on the Welland Canal trail in St. Catharine's.  I had to resize it and didn't know what dimensions to select or how it affected image quality. 

7 minutes ago, Edwin Barkdoll said:

Do you intend to post images online? Print them and if so, how large? With a mirrorless or DSLR with interchangeable lenses, one can go from the truly tiny to not-really-macro and spend a lot of time and money.

@Edwin Barkdoll Good question.  Most images are on my computer, sharing with friends/family and online photography groups.  However, I am wanting to get comfortable with learning how to set them up for printing by commercial camera shops (e.g. Black's, in Canada).  That brings up the question of size of prints.  I was told by one photo shop that it would be better to go with larger sizes for closeups.  I have recently bought a 5x7 photo album and had some prints made of a photography outing, which entailed close-up shots of owls/hawks.  My camera is a DSLR Canon Rebel T7 (after a number of years learning the ins/outs and manual mode for Rebel T6).  As I am a hobbyist, my main goal is capturing the beauty and developing my skills to the best of my ability in light of visual perceptual/spatial/motor learning challenges.  I have a 50 mm (the standard one, I understand they come with larger apertures as well); a wide angle 10-18 mm which I'm trying to get used to in terms of the distortion it creates (e.g. fisheye/converging objects); a 55-250 mm lens; the "kit" lens (is it 18 to 55?); 85 mm (which I find is good for close-up shots of nature); I think that's it.  You bring up a good point about the degrees of macro and the associated cost.  I don't have a lot of money to spend, and there is a higher risk for me that I would invest in these fancy lenses and not be able to use them properly. 

What a very nice camera, even if it is rough around the edges!  I can so relate to you wanting bring it to life, so to speak; a way of connecting with your father with every shutter release.  I wish I could answer your question, but I was in a similar position without a happy ending.  My deceased father's camera - I think it was a Brownie - dated back to the early 1900's when he lived in Newfoundland.  I can't remember him using it when I was growing up, but it was always stored away.  Quite an artifact to me, although no doubt there were older models.  Anyway, I was downsizing for a move one time and debating whether to recycle it, give it to a collector/museum/what have you, or keep it as an heirloom of sorts.  After a number of inquiries, the general response was it wasn't old enough to be a museum piece and generally not worth anything, so I recycled it.  I wish I hadn't now, because nothing can replace the inestimable sentimental value of that camera.

On 9/12/2023 at 9:38 AM, Sanford said:

Maybe a place on the shelf as an object d'art might be the best place for this classic.

I wish I had done that with my father's camera, a Brownie, I believe.  Since I didn't have the aptitude required to use it, I inquired into possible interest by museums/camera shops/collectors, etc. and the general response I got was it wasn't worth anything, so I just recycled it.  However, I'm coming to realize that I cannot put a price on the sentimental value. 

My apologies if this has been covered before.  Some aspects have, but not all. 

For many years, my photos were shared digitally with friends, family and online groups.  Then, a couple of years ago, I was looking through some old photo albums of mine, and I missed having hard copies of the photos.  So I had a few printed at a retail camera store and was disappointed at how underexposed they turned out.  The smaller size and cropping that was necessary because of differences in print size and digital size further reduced the appeal of the photograph.  So I switched from 4x6 to 5x7, then couldn't find photo albums for that dimension, although was finally able to find some online.

I understand, somewhat, that I have to change the settings in my photo editing software (I currently use ON1 Photo RAW).  What is confusing, is that when I order prints, such as from Black's (a popular camera company in Canada which closed its brick and mortar stores and sells all their products/services online, there is a section you can check off for them to make adjustments needed; however, I'm not sure to what extent. 

So, the questions I have are:

1. If I submit my photos for printing based on the default settings in the photo editing software that is tailored to the computer, will they be able to make the necessary adjustments on their end?

2. If not, what settings should I use to most closely match a 5x7 print?  There appears to be two factors - the ratio and pixel size, is that right?  What are the equivalent dimensions (e.g. 1000 x 5000) and ratio?

3. Should extra sharpening be added?

4.  Should I increase brightness/exposure?

5. How will changing these settings for print change how these photos will look on screen?

6.  Can anyone recommend any tutorial on this?

Thanks very much.

I think the elements that attract me the most are the size/dominance/shape of the trunk and warm colours (brown, red, green, yellow).   When I looked at the photo from this perspective (without clicking on the image), I could see what other posters were saying about the busyness/lack of focus/focal point.  However, when I clicked on the image, it zoomed out so that I could make more sense of the overall image, particularly the the large stump with it's obscure nature-carved features wedged between the trunk and outer stump, and the sky doesn't look as prominent.  So maybe in this case, less zoom is better.  I have a tendency to zoom in too much so that it obscures the overall picture.

2 hours ago, John Seaman said:

I still think you can achieve much of what you want with the kit lens. Here's a hand held shot I just did in my garden with a simple +4 close up lens screwed on to my 18-55. I could go in quite a bit closer, preferably on a tripod for best results of course.

Wow!! Gorgeous!  Yes, tripod is a must.  I remember it took me many years to overcome my self-consciousness about carrying one - and difficulty operating one; my manual dexterity/mechanical aptitude is the pits.  However, once I got used to it, it was actually amusing.  Quite a conversation starter - people thought I was a professional photographer, lol. 

2 hours ago, Tony Parsons said:

I don't do much macro work myself, although the lens is usually with me - I use a Sigma 105mm lens on a Pentax K3 body, if that is any help, often on a tripod with the 2 second delay, which on my camera turns off image stabilisation. This lens covers infinity to 1:1 reproduction, with very good results at all focal lengths. Major issue at very close focus, with this lens or others I have used, is subject movement, I have found.

And 'Geriatric' ? Shame on you - it just means the others haven't caught up yet 😄 

 

Re: Geriatric - Lol, that's a good way of putting it.

Re: macro lenses:  Yes, I always use a tripod, unless the subject is a bird in flight (which usually turns out to be a blur anyway) or other fast moving object.  That's why I tend to choose stationary subjects.  I have my remote shutter release and usually have Image Stabilization turned off, unless I forgot to do so while attempting hand-held shots  Before I bought my shutter release remote, I used the timer as well.  I'll check out the Sigma 105 lens.  Thanks!

7 hours ago, paddler4 said:

First, regular image stablization isn't much use for macro. It controls for angular movement, which isn't the primary problem in macro work. the more important problem is linear displacement of the sensor. To control that, you need either Canon's hybrid lens IS or the 5-axis in-body stabilization in many mirrorless cameras. However, depending on the sort of macro you do, it doesn't much matter. Flowers you can do with a tripod. 

There are fewer macro lenses available for EF or EF-S mount Canons than there used to be. 

You can get the old EF-S 60mm macro used in Ex+ condition for about $350 from KEH.com, less for more worn copies. This is a very sharp lens and is small and light. the only drawback is that because it's only 60mm, the working distance is short, so it's not great for bugs (although I've used it for that).

A common focal length for macro is 100mm, plus or minus. The Canon 100mm EF L is superb and reasonably light (625g, 1.4 pounds). It also has hybrid IS. However, it's very expensive and has gone up in price recently. 

Canon used to make a 100mm non-L macro that was just about as sharp, but much cheaper and without the hybrid IS. You could probably find one used. I don't know the weight, however. If you do look at used, be careful which of the two you are buying. The L has a red ring by the front end.

Thank you so much for this information.  What is linear displacement?  I noticed on a couple of student online groups I was in that focusing with a macro lens can be a bit challenging and require a bit of a learning curve.   The EF-S 60 mm sounds interesting to me.  I saw the lens you mentioned on KEH; it will be a bit more with the exchange rate and shipping because I live in Canada, but the prices are ridiculous and the HST makes it worse.  So, can you give a concrete example of the 60 mm working distance for a spatially challenged hobbyist like me, lol, such as almost on top of the flower, across the street, on the path.  I keep getting mixed up between the focusing distance and the focal length, but discovered the former on the Exif data on my photo editing software.  I'm also going to check out the 100 mm, although wouldn't I be able to use the 55-250 mm for that or is it a special macro lens? 

I am initially drawn to the water and sky that is framed by the railing and window frame.  I would prefer the colour rather than black and white version, which I feel would bring the scene more to life.  What strikes me most is the juxtaposition between the dilapidation of what appears to me to be an abandoned building, which evokes a feeling of desolation/depression, and the beach/ocean scene, which symbolizes, for me, life, oxygen, nature and sense of order.  From a technical point of view, I like the frame within a frame.  On the other hand, the scene appears to be very busy and lacking in focus/contrast (be it light, clarity, colour or what have you), so that my eye wanders to various elements of the photo and it is hard to pick out the central theme/story/subject(s).  Still, there is something compelling and melancholic about the scene for me. 

5 hours ago, John Seaman said:

Do you have the 18-55mm kit lens? They focus pretty close, and if it's image stabilised, so much the better. Adding a simple  close up lens gets you closer still, without noticeable loss in image quality in my experience.

Thank you, yes I do have the kit lens - I recently "upgraded" from a T6 to the T7 recently.  I wanted something without a steep learning curve and the ability to use the lenses I already have.  The Rebel T7's kit lens has Image Stabilization.  It sounds like the close-up lens would be more manageable to handle - and cheaper.  I'll check it out.

I'm new to this forum and have enjoyed close-ups of flowers and other forms of nature.  While my photos may not be technically considered macro or micro yet in terms of the magnification ratio, I hope to get a true macro lens once I learn more about the techniques involved in this type of photography - and how heavy the lens is.  Any recommendations for relatively lightweight entry level macro lens would be greatly appreciated.  The lenses I use for close up at this time are the 55-250 mm and the 85 mm ( I have a Canon Rebel T7 crop sensor camera, so photos are that much more enlarged on these lenses).