Good lens for up close shots

No bother at all. Since I'm a Nikon man and not totally familiar with that lens you might go to the site (I think is) KenRockwell.com. Ken reviews Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses and I'm sure he's done that one. Check it out, good site for such things.

Max

Max, Steve, I figured we'd already covered the process, as per below, Max summed it up concisely (why cant' I EVER do that???)

Hodakamax

I should have mentioned focus stacking which is shooting several shots at different focus settings and digitally assembling them for a sharp overall pictures.

The folk I know who are serious about macro and focus stacking all seem to use Zerene (focus stacking software) for whatever reason. I am neither serious nor a macro/micro shooter (except for my occasional model 'close-ups', and sometimes even a real macro), and just use the assembler included in Photoshop. I think Lightroom does it too now, doesn't it, Max?

A bit of useless information, I have focus stacked at least over half of every pic I've ever posted here, most of those being overall, not close-in shots.

Max, that fancy kit you mention that assembles and finishes stacking in camera, if we hold our breath, by the time we let it out, phones will probably be doing this.

 Hey Greg, I have to admit I've not tried the process. It does sound interesting. The phone thing is scary for a photographer! They actually do shoot picures that work quite well for the internets resolution. Not only that they have extreme depth of field due to their teeny focal lengths. Ah, good to be semi-retired from photography, it really will be done with phones soon!

My wife is a Graphic artist and is the Photoshop Guru in the house. I'll put her on the focus stacking thing.  

Thanks for the info.

Max

Max, please excuse my short reply, then.

I'd figured you and Steve both knew plenty about focus stacking.

Compared to the macro guru's I know, I'm a neophite. But it's just about taking a series of pics focused on various focus planes. Trying to follow the front 2/3's in focus guideline, I  often start at the front of a shot of a model, and focus slightly further back each time. Then it's just putting it in the software and letting it figure things out.

I'm surprised at how well Photoshop usually does it, I can only imagine a dedicated program like Zyrene Stacker.

I you've never done it, you might be surprised at how easy it is. I was.

BTW, I hear you re the phones. I've pretty much lost my interest in picture-taking because nobody looks at anything any bigger resolution than a phone screen anymore. Even at PC resolution as you mention, most folks don't even view up to 800 pixels wide anymore. Creating a nice TIFF ready to print big just seems a waste of time to me these days. My prosumer printer probably has cobwebs inside.

Sorry, I'm way but it's a bit of a talking point with me.

"In the good ole days", is how us old people always start a conversation. Having been a professional photographer for over 50 years I've seen great changes in the way photography is done. The change to the digital sensor was a biggie in my career. Years of messing with film and chemistry were gone. All good. Auto exposure and autofocus, really good. ISOs going from 50 to off the scale. Another problem solved. And then came photoshop, the excuse not to get a good picture in the first place. We'll fix it later.

Photoshop is quite the tool for getting the final product and necessary for advertising standards. Early on if you wanted a blue sky, you waited on one. Perspective control was done with adjustable cameras and lenses. Resolution was paramount. You did have to know about optics, chemistry, mechanical issues, lighting and such. Then there's a big one called composition. The photographer had a strange profession requiring mechanics/physics/chemistry combined with artistic talent.

Today it's a lost profession, everyone's a photographer or claims to be. Advancements in technology has made photography availiable to everyone. Certainly not a bad thing.

I have no complaints and it was a wonderful career. I still love photography and have all the cool digital cameras, computers and yes, Photoshop. I'm semi-retired from photography and it's still a great hobby.

OK, my point being, I'll always try my darndest to to solve things like depth of field, lighting and other challenges with equipment and problem solving rather than reverting to post fixes. It makes us better photographers. THEN, if all else fails I too "fix it later." One more thing to think about is; photography has been done and can be done without electricity!

Just raving on, do I sound old? 

Max

Hodakamax

 

Just raving on, do I sound old? 

Max

 

Probably not as old as I do.  Got my first camera in about 1947 or '48.  Never been a pro, unless considering shots I do for my magazine articles.

Just got back from Duluth from the Tall Ships 2016.  My good Tamron wide-range zoom lens got sent back to Tamron for repairs, and I had to use my wife's old backup Tamron.  Unfortunately, that model will not autofocus with My Nikon 3200, so I had to do all manual focus.  Now, focusing was the last camera function that I started using auto function for, so I thought I would have no problem.  Wrong.  I had low light during much of the time, and using long focal lengths a lot.  I quickly realized how much I have come to rely on autofocus, for everything except closeup model photography in bright sunlight.

I toured a reconstruction of a Galleon ship, and the lighting conditions were extreme, but the auto exposure did a great job!  The modern technology is great, though I am glad I have a camera that allows me the choice of manual or auto control, so I can choose which is best for the situation.

I hear you and pretty much agree with all of that, Max.

I'm just curious, do you consider focus-stacking a post-processing fix, then?

Hey Greg, Focus stacking is just another great "tool" is the word, for fixing problems that can't be solved photographically. All legal LOL. I was just commenting on the real definition of photography which philosophically is the stopping of time. When judging what I consider real photography (time related), It's hard for me to give points for an assembled picture from different times and places.

I too am not ''pure" and use all the tools needed to provide the client the picture they need. Just part of the business today. Professional and pure photography are two different things for sure. I just like to give photographers (I use that term lightly!) of the day a bad time all in the name of fun. Hard to keep Max serious in his old age. LOL!!

Max

PS--I must add that in the past, we used cropping, burning, masking, multiple exposures, dodging, manipulating negs and prints with chemicals, and other tools to enhance or work much like Photoshop today. All just tools!

Interesting to hear your take on that, Max. Thanks.

I had actually typed a bit about folks who bash post-processing in any form, and who forget that in our own fume-rooms or our labs, post processing occurred. Ansel was a grand master of all of the techiques you mention, as you already know.

I erased it all in fear I'd offend somebody, but since you beat me to the punch, yep, I sure get it.

I like your take "fixing problems that can't be solved photographically". Well put.

Hey Greg, now that I'm semi-retired I don't take anything too seriously. Times change and I try to go with the flow. This focus stacking thing is very interesting and even though I personally don't have a use for it at the moment, I can see this being very useful. Extreme close-ups have always been a problem in that depth of field becomes almost non-existent after 1:1 or life size at the sensor. Getting the job done with new technology is not a bad thing. It opens up new opportunities in photography. One doesn't want to get stuck in the past only on principle. Time to move on (or someone else will!) I do enjoy discussing photography with you and others, it keeps me thinking. Thanks for your input!

Max

Gentleman,

I ment to post this sooner, but, I bought a portable lighting studio, and a point and shoot Nikon camera. here are the results:

I think they turned out well, considering I paid a quarter the cost of a new macro lens for both items. Granted with more practice I'll have some better pictures. Thanks for looking!

After shooting the 1/48 B-17G "Chow hound" for a post recently, I was somewhat amazed by the depth of field of the Nikon Coolpix P330 Point and shoot. It's ability to stop down manually to the smallest aperature along with the small sensor and corresponding wider angle lens really helps the depth of field problem. Greg's focus stacking will still be needed on extreme close-ups but the smaller sensor and wider angles are still out performing the larger sensored DSLRs in model close-up photography. At bigger scales it's no contest for the bigger DSLRs with their big and hi-megapixel sensors and superior lenses. Just a report to keep this thread open!  

Max

I've been saying for quite awhile that the new generation of super-zoom point-and-shoot cameras are excellent for model photography.

Provided that (a) you can use a tripod, and (b) shutter lag isn't a problem.

About a year ago I got a thorough lesson in my little Nikon's limitations. It was the day of my stepdaughter's wedding. As I was leaving the house I spotted a big, beautiful spider web on a stair rail. The Nikon was over my shoulder, so I decided to snap a few pictures. No good. I couldn't use the tripod (my wife was in the car and anxious to get to the wedding), and the auto focus refused to focus on the spider web. I got some nice pictures of the background, but the spider web was virtually invisible. And manual focus wouldn't work, because the electronic viewfinder and the screen on the back were too coarse to show the spider web.

Later that day I tried to get some candid shots of the wedding reception. No dice. The camera has a shutter delay of about a second. I got a few decent shots, but considerably more that were wrecked by people walking (or gyrating, as the case may be) in front of me a second after I squeezed the shutter.

That camera is a wonderful thing. But. I'm hanging onto the good old SLR.

Hey JT, I looked at several of these point and shoots before investing.. To really get the benefit of that small sensor and short focus length you need a manual setting or at least some way to stop it down to a smaller f stop for even more depth of field. I suppose you could fool some models by turning up the ISO and using lots of light to get it to stop down to minumum aperature for maximum depth of field. Something to consider and look for when buying a point and shoot for model photography. Also the $ law says the more you pay the more you get usually is valid. Anyway, I hope this helps anyone shopping for one of these! 

Max

The other problem is that some subjects (like a strand of a spider web) are just too small to see on an electronic viewfinder or the screen of a little point-and-shoot. At least for my post-middle-aged eyes. So even manual focus doesn't help much in situations like that.

I have a Pentax K-10 and a Nikon Coolpix P-520 superzoom (with 42X lens). I don't intend to get rid of either of them anytime soon.

Hey JT, I've not played with the  Nikon Coolpix P-520, How about a brief report. Curious!

Max

jtilley

The other problem is that some subjects (like a strand of a spider web) are just too small to see on an electronic viewfinder or the screen of a little point-and-shoot. At least for my post-middle-aged eyes. So even manual focus doesn't help much in situations like that.

....

 

The true optical viewfinder is a real aid to model photography.  You need to have the depth of field encompass the model, but a slight softness of the background lends realism.  I sometimes use a compact automatic camera for WIP photos on the workbench.  But I have one camera set aside for my shots of finished models.  It has a really great macro lens on it.  I specialize in what I call the realistic model shot vs the so-called ebay photo.  I only shoot in sunlight to maximize contrast on model.  For work like that a direct optical view of focus is essential.

I'm not the best person to comment on the Nikon P-520. One of my problems is that I don't take pictures very often, and I frequently forget just which buttons to push and which menus to open. But I can offer the following, for what little it's worth.

It's an amazing piece of equipment. The list of features is way too long to list. You can set it so you can point it at your dog, and the shutter will fire when the dog looks toward the camera. (Useful for zoo animals, too.) You can set it so that, in portrait mode, it will fire when the subject smiles. (My wife and I tried that. It really does work.) You can set it so it will take several shots in quick succession - and pick the best of them.

My biggest complaints are the ones I've already mentioned: the EVF and screen just aren't as good as an optical viewfinder, and the shutter lag just about rules out taking pictures of moving objects. I suspect the manufacturers will solve the latter problem pretty soon.

I've got one other beef, which a lot of folks make about a lot of cameras these days: the owner's manual stinks. In the box you get a printed booklet that shows you the most basic operations (how to turn it on, how to put the battery in, etc.) in English, French, and Spanish. You also get a CD that contains the full manual - in your choice of language. If you think to yourself "oh, I'll just print out a hardcopy," you're in for a shock: your printer will spit out a stack of paper about an inch and a half thick, and twice as heavy as the camera is.

The solution: look the manual up on line. I figured "Great! Anywhere I have my cell phone, I'll have my camera manual." This is indeed an acceptable solution. But looking something up in the manual isn't as easy as it sounds. The thing is divided into two parts - each with its own sequence of page numbers. Looking up something usually takes me about five minutes. Too long.

I found a firm online that prints copies of camera manuals, and I got one for the P-520. It's ok, but the thing is still awfully cumbersome. And the index is pretty weak.

That being said, the Nikon Coolpix P'520 is a wonderful camera otherwise. If you use it a lot, the manual probably won't bother you.

I paid a visit to our local photo store yesterday and picked up a valuable tidbit of information. I have a four-year-old Canon superzoom point-and-shoot sitting around, and I asked how much I could get for it if I traded it in. His answer was, "about $45.00." It cost about $250.00. He explained that bridge camera models get updated so often that they start depreciating almost immediately. Moral: if you have access to a reputable used equipment dealer, this is a great time to get a bargain on a used bridge camera.