Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Macro with Nikon 50 mm
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2007 2:02 pm    Post subject: Macro with Nikon 50 mm Reply with quote

Its a gardening (In between the showers) today, and to make it more interesting it's camera at the ready to capture a few pictures.

Nikon f1.8 50mm E series Reversed.
Hand held and plenty of wind so I had to go to 1600asa to get some DOF and decent shutter speed. Selective Noise reduction of 10-20% applied in Raw. Sharpening in Raw reduced to 20%



The Nikon lens and Pentax K mount reversing ring. This little lens also fits on my Pentax quite securely (The right way round) and focuses to infinity as normal. Its a nice little lens.
The background is a sheet of my Coffee stained Printing pape



PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2007 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm getting no comment so will try a Varition of the image.



PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2007 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob Leslie wrote:
I'm getting no comment


I don't know, perhaps too much contrast for my personal liking.

Edited to add: the second version looks less contrasty. But I still see a harshness of tones, in part due to the particular colour association of the flower and bright green leaves. Also partly I think this is due to the high ISO, unfortunately raising the ISO sometimes raises the contrast especially in strongly lit scenes.


PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2007 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

re-converterted RAw file with -15 contrast, +30 Luminance smoothing and +30 colour noise reduction and 0 sharpening. IMO its thrown all the sharpness and quality of the lens out but at least there is no sign of any noise from using 1600asa!



PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2007 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob Leslie wrote:
re-converterted RAw file with -15 contrast, +30 Luminance smoothing and +30 colour noise reduction and 0 sharpening. IMO its thrown all the sharpness and quality of the lens out but at least there is no sign of any noise from using 1600asa! It wasn't high contrast lighting. The sun had just gone in which is why I had to move up to 1600asa



PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2007 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob, I like this last version much better than the others, but it's just my personal preference, it's obvious that you and I like quite different types of photographs.

Edited to add: I was refering to the third picture (which now is not the last anymore)


PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2007 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Orio. I am genuinely interested in what people perceive as quality or just a preference about sharpness, colour tones and contrast.


PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2007 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
Rob, I like this last version much better than the others, but it's just my personal preference, it's obvious that you and I like quite different types of photographs.


I happen to like the less contrasty version too Rob, the colours in the first version are a little too vivid for my taste. I'm not sure how much PP you did, but it looks possibly a little over-done. The sharpness of the revised versions looks fine.

I admire your skill though. I hadn't tried photographing flowers really close up until recently and I'm suprised how difficult it is to get much of the subject in focus. I realise at very close focus the DOF reduces dramatically, but using small apertures doesn't improve this as much as I expected. I am beginning to wonder if it might be better to use a slightly longer lens, or maybe focus from a little further distance and crop.

Orio, I don't think it's a case of liking quite different types of photographs. I would say it's more about how we each perceive things differently. We can never understand how colours appear to other people, and discussion about it is pointless (and often leads to disagreement). I learnt this years ago when I was choosing colours for interior decorating in pubs and hotels. Many people didn't agree with my choices - they just saw things differently to me. It was their call, I didn't question it.


PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2007 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

peterqd wrote:

Orio, I don't think it's a case of liking quite different types of photographs.


In part it is. For instance, in the closeup photos, of flowers especially, I am more interested in the pictorial effects than in the reproduction of details. This explains why Rob prefers the first version, where the higher contrast enhances the perception of the micro detail, while I prefer the third version, where the lower contrast makes the tones closer and enhances colour harmony.


PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2007 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have that E-series 50mm too, it's a very nice lens idd Smile


PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2007 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
peterqd wrote:

Orio, I don't think it's a case of liking quite different types of photographs.


In part it is. For instance, in the closeup photos, of flowers especially, I am more interested in the pictorial effects than in the reproduction of details. This explains why Rob prefers the first version, where the higher contrast enhances the perception of the micro detail, while I prefer the third version, where the lower contrast makes the tones closer and enhances colour harmony.


I believe Orio is spot on there and I do like to plenty of detail in virtually all pictures unless I am deliberately aiming for a surrealistic effect. In the real world we do all see things differently. I can sometimes look at a scene and picture in my minds eye a blurring and blending of details, tones and colours and at other times see stark contrasty detail. I like both but believe we have to be careful about a certain basic level of quality. This were I have to disagree as I find my final version to not be of any degree of acceptable quality. I can live with toning down the contrast of the first but not throwing away the sharpness and degrading the image. I like 'Micro detail' one of the reasons I dislike cameras that apply noise reduction to their RAW files. If I want to smooth out an image I can do it myself through choice and not have the camera or lens do it because it can't render fine detail. This could be a level of personal taste and it is one of the reasons I am a great believer in submitting images for honest opinion at a site like PhotoSig and being a member of a good photo society to see other photographers work and exhibit your own prints.

Edit Just re-examined the images posted here and even popped outside to look at the subject. I still prefer the first image. I'ts pin sharp, it shows the fading blues and highlights the actually flower has and it jumps out from the screen


PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2007 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It seems to me whenever I make an honest comment on someone's photograph I end up getting out of my depth in terms of describing what I see. I don't understand the term "pictorial effects".

I also don't understand the differences between pictures 1 & 2 and between 3 & 4. Comparing Picture 1 with Picture 3, I like No. 3 best because the colours seem more natural - the colours in No. 1 are too vivid for my taste. I also like to see sharp details, but digital sharpening fakes something that isn't in the original image and therefore has to be used frugally, unless you deliberately intend to create an unnatural, artistic effect.


PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2007 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

peterqd wrote:
I don't understand the term "pictorial effects".


hi Peter, I use the word expanding on the original concept of pictorialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism

More than as plain imitation of painting styles and techniques (like manipulation of prints), I use the word to express the concept that I use merely photographic means (like depth of field, exposure, blur) to create a composition that is more a conceptual (or abstract, if you prefer) representation of the subject, than a realistic one.

I hope it's clear, if not, I can only refer to my recent oleander photographs

http://img469.imageshack.us/img469/1829/ole0rh4.jpg
http://img469.imageshack.us/img469/236/ole1ty3.jpg

which are an example of what I mean.


PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2007 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
peterqd wrote:
I don't understand the term "pictorial effects".


hi Peter, I use the word expanding on the original concept of pictorialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism


Many thanks Orio, I understand that now. My comment was made out of frustration with my limited knowledge of photographic art forms, not your phrase.

To be honest, I'm feeling a bit of a phoney here. I love the mechanical and mathematical side of photography, I'm even interested in the chemistry, but I'm finding it extremely difficult to appreciate the artistic merits of rusty fence posts, over-vivid colours or unfocussed flowers. I think this will be last time I try to give a helpful opinion about something I realise I don't understand.


PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2007 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

peterqd wrote:

To be honest, I'm feeling a bit of a phoney here. I love the mechanical and mathematical side of photography, I'm even interested in the chemistry, but I'm finding it extremely difficult to appreciate the artistic merits of rusty fence posts, over-vivid colours or unfocussed flowers. I think this will be last time I try to give a helpful opinion about something I realise I don't understand.


Aesthetics is a totally subjective matter. Each opinion is equally valid. Of course everyone has his opinion on what he likes to see in a photograph. Speaking for myself, I like to be surprised. I would be bored to death if everybody shoot my same photographs and looked at the things the same way I look.

When I comment on a photograph, I give my own opinion, which is influenced by my education and history, it is unavoidable. The author of the photograph may or may not find my comment useful. If he does, he will appreciate. If he does not, he will ignore.

Therefore I think it's always useful to comment on an image, as long as it is done with an open mind. That is, as long as one does comment on the picture, and not to defend or or reinforce his own personal vision of the things.
This is what makes the difference in the comments in my opinion. The first kind tries to be helpful, the second kind is selfish, because it ultimately diverts the focus from the actual picture and moves the discussion somewhere else, where the commenter wants the discussion to move.

I try to always comment on the actual picture, without making generalisations or raising theorical issues. I try to concentrate on the specific picture I am commenting. I consider this a form of respect to the picture that I comment. Then, I can of course also talk about what I perceive as problems with the pictures. Else the comment would not be useful. I try to comment equally on positive and negative aspects (if there are any). Of course what I write is always my vision, so it's always a personal opinion, not a fact.

I dont' think you should refrain from commenting. People may find your opinions useful. I have learned very good things from negative comments that I have received. And sometimes, I also read negative comments on my pictures, that I do not agree with. Ultimately, it always depends on the author of the photograph, to choose which comments seem useful and which seem not. But unbiased comments are always a service and a favour that a viewer gives to the author.

So I think that they are important and I think that you should comment with your opinion, regardless if you think it matches or not the aesthetical vision of the author.


PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2007 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

peterqd wrote:
It seems to me whenever I make an honest comment on someone's photograph I end up getting out of my depth in terms of describing what I see. I don't understand the term "pictorial effects".

I also don't understand the differences between pictures 1 & 2 and between 3 & 4. Comparing Picture 1 with Picture 3, I like No. 3 best because the colours seem more natural - the colours in No. 1 are too vivid for my taste. I also like to see sharp details, but digital sharpening fakes something that isn't in the original image and therefore has to be used frugally, unless you deliberately intend to create an unnatural, artistic effect.


Pictures 3 and 4 are the same picture. Something happened when I added an edit and it came up again. 1 and 2 are very different. 2 has the edge taken off the sharpness and a slight reduction of contrast. 1 has no Over working but I have the benefit of the full size original to see that. I can agree it is very sharp that is what happens when you reverse the right lens for close ups. In version 3 the colour tones are closer but it isnt like the original subject which was just past its best and beginning to fade and discolour.
I agree with Orios idea of the term Pictorial as applied to photography. It is just a nice word to say A representation of the subject I find it easy to define what wouldnt be termed pictorial, like an abstract with no life figure representations but even then its gets complicated as you would describe most of Picassos work as having a Pictorial outlook as a starting point, but then again most of his work is portrayal of life subjects and not really abstract. It is just a very broad term that sounds good. So my picture number 3 is a more 'Pictorial' one as it is a representation rather than a faithfull reproduction of the subject. (Or not a good photo. Technically or artistically )


Last edited by Rob Leslie on Sun May 20, 2007 6:34 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2007 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is a Faithful reproduction straight from the camera ( Technical term Snap) of the offending flower. Taken this morning when I went out to check the colours etc.