|
|
| Author |
Message |
denise
|
|
Favorite photos?
|
May 27 00:44 UTC 1996 |
What are some of your favorite photos of? What makes it so special?
Please do share--and give us some ideas...
And generally speaking, what KINDS of things do you like to shoot?
|
| 40 responses total. |
mcpoz
|
|
response 1 of 40:
|
May 27 01:44 UTC 1996 |
About 50% of my photos are nature scenes, and perhaps 40% of buildings, doors,
windows, roofs, etc. The balance is reserved for old cars, with very few of
people. I am absolutely nuts about old cars, and I think these are my
favorites. At one of my last jobs, I had a complete wall full of 3-1/2x5"
photos of old cars.
I did a lot of B&W of old barns, too.
How about you?
|
denise
|
|
response 2 of 40:
|
May 28 01:19 UTC 1996 |
I, too, enjoy nature scenes, though I have a lot of 'people' phots, too.
Lately, I've been trying to look and SEE differently, trying for
different perspective.
I think my favorite picture from my last batch is one that I actually
DIDN'T like at first. One afternoon last fall I was out at a lake and
I took some nature pictures. But I also was noticing the long shadows
as the sun going down. So I have a picture of me near a 'street'light
[that was in the parking lot]--so the picture is of the shadows of
me and the lamppost... I'm thinking about doing something with it, maybe
calling it something to the effect of "A study in Contrasts" since the
lamppost is so tall/long and thin and me so short and definitely NOT
even close to thin!
I guess I'm going to have to look through some photos to see which ARE
my favorites...
|
omni
|
|
response 3 of 40:
|
May 28 18:36 UTC 1996 |
One of my favorite shots is one I took in West Virginia. It's a shot looking
across Bluestone Dam, where there are some perfectly placed mountains that
seem to add depth to the shot. You'd really have to see it to appreciate it.
I hope to get a series of shots of the New River Gorge Bridge at sunrise.
It seems that that is the best time to take pictures there.
I'd also like to get some shots of the bridge from the floor of the gorge.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 4 of 40:
|
May 28 21:57 UTC 1996 |
How about from half-way down, on a bungee cord?
|
mcpoz
|
|
response 5 of 40:
|
May 29 00:42 UTC 1996 |
Does anyone here manipulate depth of field to enhance the photo?
|
omni
|
|
response 6 of 40:
|
May 29 05:10 UTC 1996 |
Re 4- Maybe if I was crazy. ;) Still, that would be a cool shot.
I never took formal photography classes, so I only know the basics, and
depth of field is something that I don't know anything about, but I would like
to learn.
I certainly would be interested in learning, Marc.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 7 of 40:
|
May 29 06:48 UTC 1996 |
I've been pleased with the effect of short depth of field, especially
when photographing flowers, but I can't say I've intentionally manipulated
it. One reason might be that I don't experiment much with the same "shot" -
taking several photos of the same object while manipulating speed and stop.
Omni, depth of field is the distance range over which a scene is in
focus. If you stop way down - like f22 in normal light - the depth of
field is large, and everything is in focus beyond a certain distance.
However if you increase the speed and open the lens - to f2.2 say -
things are in focus over only a short range of (close) distances. So,
by narrowing the depth of focus, my shot of a flower has the flower in
focus, but the background very out of focus. The effect is to concentrate
the attention of the photograph on the flower.
|
omni
|
|
response 8 of 40:
|
May 29 19:12 UTC 1996 |
I see. My camera doesn't do that. But I still get good pictures.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 9 of 40:
|
May 29 20:12 UTC 1996 |
But you might be able to get *better* pictures..... :)
|
rickyb
|
|
response 10 of 40:
|
May 31 13:51 UTC 1996 |
when I was learning about DOF I used this common sense logic to remember how
to control it:
when you 'stop down' to a smaller aperature (higher number) you use
more of the center of the lens, and less of the periphery.
when you 'stop up' to a larger aperature (smaller number) you use
more of the entire lens area.
during manufacture, the center point of the lens is the most
accurately ground, with slight imperfections (optical distortions)
increasing as you grind further away from the center.
therefore, using the center of the lens (smallest aperature, highest
F#) you get the best optical effect from the lens, and more of your
subject is in focus = greater _depth_ of focus. conversely, if you
use the entire lens area (largest aperature, lowest F#) you get the
worst optical performance from the lens = narrow _depth_ of focus.
DOF is also a function of focal length, with wide angle lenses providing a
greater depth of focus and telephoto lenses providing a more narrow depth.
that is why a lens in the range of 75mm-125mm (on a 35mm SLR) is best for
portrait shooting. You can soften the background and isolate the subject.
Using larger telephotos will make your subject "jump off the image" at you,
and wider angle lengths will let the subject drop into the background too much
to highlight it.
IMO, manipulation of depth-of-focus _and_ creative lighting are the 2 most
valuable technical aspects to fine photographs...composition notwithstanding.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 11 of 40:
|
May 31 21:34 UTC 1996 |
DOF has nothing to do with lens imperfection. A perfect lens will exhibit
DOF depending upon the stop. At focus, a perfect lens brings an object to
a perfect focus for light entering at all radii. If you are not quite in
focus, the defocusing is more severe for light at greater radii. It is
this different *sensitivity* to defocusing at different radii that
determines how DOF responds to the f stop.
|
mcpoz
|
|
response 12 of 40:
|
Jun 1 11:24 UTC 1996 |
This brings up a couple of useful "rules of thumb".
1) Generally lenses are sharpest at or near the center of their F-stop range.
Most lenses have significant fall-off at the extremes of their F-stop
range.
2) If you are shooting a picture and a certain field of focus is desired,
(ie, you are shooting a group of people randomly spaced at a party), be
sure to focus 1/3 of the way into the group rather than at the closest
member of the group. The field of "near focus" is 1/3 in front of the
plane of focus and 2/3 behind. This method maximizes the liklihood that
all of your subject will be pleasingly focused.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 13 of 40:
|
Jun 1 20:45 UTC 1996 |
Do you have an explanation for lenses being sharpest near the center of
their F-stop range? The sharpest lens is a pinhole (with no glass!), and
its DOF is "infinite". I would have thought the same would apply when
you put glass in.
|
mcpoz
|
|
response 14 of 40:
|
Jun 1 23:25 UTC 1996 |
Rane, I think a pinhole is not sharp, but does have an infinite depth of
field. I have made several pinhole photos and have seen some in books and
they all look very soft to me. If sharpness is the ability to see a high
number of lines/mm, I doubt if the pinhole would be as good as a moderately
priced lens.
Regarding why are they the sharpest at the center, I don't know but I tested
my own lenses at one time and the extremes were indeed very soft. I don't
know of any technical reason that this should be true, but I believe I have
read it several times in the popular photo magazines. Come to think of it,
I think most of the lens performance reports (resolving power vs f-stop) show
a curve high in the center area.
I think I have a book on optical performance - if I find it i'll be back.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 15 of 40:
|
Jun 2 06:12 UTC 1996 |
Your pinhole has to be much smaller than the resolution you want (but
much larger than the wave length of light). Yes, lenses are better.
|
scott
|
|
response 16 of 40:
|
Jun 2 16:47 UTC 1996 |
My favorite is one I took in High School with my dad's Leica. It's a night
shot, a few seconds exposure, of the street with street lights, etc. Looks
like a slightly warped daytime shot, and I have to tell people it is at night.
|
rickyb
|
|
response 17 of 40:
|
Jun 2 20:59 UTC 1996 |
#11: Agreed, a _perfect_ lens can bring light into focus from all radii,
and therefore, exhibit infinite depth of focus.
Do you know of any such lens ever created by the (imperfect) hand of a human,
or machine created by a human? How much might such a lens cost?
I take no opposition with your theory, but my 'common sense' analogy continues
to serve well, as you point out.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 18 of 40:
|
Jun 3 04:43 UTC 1996 |
No, even a *perfect* lens will still exhibit a finite depth of focus. A
perfect lens will produce a perfect focus for all images at a single
distance, but anything in front of or behind that distance will be out
of focus, and it can be shown it will be out of focus more for light
entering the lens at greater radii. Stopping the lens down removes
that more out of focus light and leaves the better focused light. The
latter is still there, of course, at a lower stop, but swamped by the
out of focus peripheral light. [I tried to make this point in #11, but
see that I did not make it clearly. Have I now?]
|
mcpoz
|
|
response 19 of 40:
|
Jun 4 00:48 UTC 1996 |
Don't different wavelengths focus in different planes, also?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 20 of 40:
|
Jun 4 03:34 UTC 1996 |
Yup, in general. It takes a lot of engineering to get around that one.
Lenses compensated for color are called achromats (meaning, not (responsive
to) color), and consist of compound lenses made from different glasses.
|
rickyb
|
|
response 21 of 40:
|
Jun 4 13:36 UTC 1996 |
I appreciate the physics of the problem, just never had need to remember the
deep details. As i said, my common sense analogy, while not _technically_
accurate serves very well to explain the DOF phenom...much as Newtonian
physics does an excellent job of explaining forces which most likely are
operating at a much more intricate (relative/quantum) level.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 22 of 40:
|
Jun 4 21:37 UTC 1996 |
Maybe a better analogy is not having to know how a television works in order
to watch one. However, in photography, once one gets past "just taking
pictures", one is working very close to the real physics and chemistry.
|
rickyb
|
|
response 23 of 40:
|
Jun 5 16:22 UTC 1996 |
Hmmm... does one have to understand how to "push electrons" (reaction
thermodynamics/catalysis, etc) in order to know that mixing baking soda and
vinegar will cause a predictable reaction? You can be rather creative in how
you do that, and make some really cool "volcanos" and stuff.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 24 of 40:
|
Jun 5 22:21 UTC 1996 |
Every added knowledge expands your capabilities.
|