Re: Macros

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by dadiOH, Mar 16, 2013.

  1. dadiOH

    dadiOH Guest

    dadiOH, Mar 16, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. dadiOH

    Nige Danton Guest

    "dadiOH" <> wrote:
    > Alan Browne wrote:
    >> http://memolition.com/2013/03/15/the-very-best-of-macro-photography-27-pictures/

    >
    > Those are nothing short of EXCELLENT!!


    They are brilliant aren't they. Can anyone offer recommendations for a
    guide (online or a book) as an introduction to the techniques and kit for
    this type of photography? Currently have a D7000 and an 18-105 lens.

    --
    Nige Danton - Replace the obvious with g.m.a.i.l
    Nige Danton, Mar 24, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. dadiOH

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 05:45:20 +0000 (UTC), Nige Danton
    <> wrote:

    >"dadiOH" <> wrote:
    >> Alan Browne wrote:
    >>> http://memolition.com/2013/03/15/the-very-best-of-macro-photography-27-pictures/

    >>
    >> Those are nothing short of EXCELLENT!!

    >
    >They are brilliant aren't they. Can anyone offer recommendations for a
    >guide (online or a book) as an introduction to the techniques and kit for
    >this type of photography? Currently have a D7000 and an 18-105 lens.


    I suggest you go to Digital Grin (www.dgrin.com) and follow the forum
    on Macros. You'll see the good and the bad, and a lot of tips and
    information. Check for new posting frequently.

    Pay special attention to the contributions by "Lord Vetinari" and
    follow the links to his website. There's no better macro shooting and
    teacher around than Brian.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, Mar 24, 2013
    #3
  4. dadiOH

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/24/2013 1:45 AM, Nige Danton wrote:
    > "dadiOH" <> wrote:
    >> Alan Browne wrote:
    >>> http://memolition.com/2013/03/15/the-very-best-of-macro-photography-27-pictures/

    >>
    >> Those are nothing short of EXCELLENT!!

    >
    > They are brilliant aren't they. Can anyone offer recommendations for a
    > guide (online or a book) as an introduction to the techniques and kit for
    > this type of photography? Currently have a D7000 and an 18-105 lens.
    >


    In addition to Tony Cooper's comments, If you put an extension tube on
    your lens, you will be able to move closer to the subject. The tradeoff
    is that you will have a smaller depth of field, which you can use to
    your advantage.


    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Mar 24, 2013
    #4
  5. dadiOH

    Nige Danton Guest

    PeterN <> wrote:

    > In addition to Tony Cooper's comments, If you put an extension tube on
    > your lens, you will be able to move closer to the subject. The tradeoff
    > is that you will have a smaller depth of field, which you can use to your advantage.


    Great, thanks for the suggestion. I'll have a look and see what's
    available. I'll probably be back with more queries.

    --
    Nige Danton - Replace the obvious with g.m.a.i.l
    Nige Danton, Mar 25, 2013
    #5
  6. dadiOH

    Nige Danton Guest

    Tony Cooper <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 05:45:20 +0000 (UTC), Nige Danton
    > <> wrote:


    >> They are brilliant aren't they. Can anyone offer recommendations for a
    >> guide (online or a book) as an introduction to the techniques and kit for
    >> this type of photography? Currently have a D7000 and an 18-105 lens.

    >
    > I suggest you go to Digital Grin (www.dgrin.com) and follow the forum
    > on Macros. You'll see the good and the bad, and a lot of tips and
    > information. Check for new posting frequently.
    >
    > Pay special attention to the contributions by "Lord Vetinari" and
    > follow the links to his website. There's no better macro shooting and
    > teacher around than Brian.


    Thanks very much i'll go and register.

    --
    Nige Danton - Replace the obvious with g.m.a.i.l
    Nige Danton, Mar 25, 2013
    #6
  7. dadiOH

    Trevor Guest

    "ruben safir" <> wrote in message
    news:kk3dj4$sds$...
    > On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 11:46:26 +0100, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
    >
    >> A short piece of tube that goes between the lens and the body and means
    >> that the lens will focus on nearer objects.

    >
    > How does that geometry work? The longer the tube the greater the
    > magnification? no...


    A tube doesn't magnify anything. It does allow you to focus closer however,
    which will give you a bigger image at the sensor *if* you move the lens
    closer to the object.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Apr 12, 2013
    #7
  8. Alan Browne <> wrote:
    > On 2013.04.10 06:06 , ruben safir wrote:


    >> How does that geometry work? The longer the tube the greater the
    >> magnification? no...


    > You're moving the focal plane further away so the image is "spread out"
    > resulting in a smaller area of the scene on the film or sensor. Of
    > course there is a penalty in the amount of light received (1/r^2) that
    > follows the increased focal length so exp. times are longer.


    > eg: 50mm pushed out 50mm (ext. tube length) becomes 100mm


    > A 50mm f/1.8 lens has an aperture of 27.8mm


    > So at 100 mm it becomes: 100/27.8 = f/3.6.


    Actually, it's worse. That calculation of yours is only 100%
    true for infinite distances (and close at longer distances).

    An extension tube means you're getting really close ... as
    otherwise you can't focus. Then the effective aperture is
    smaller (depending on the magnification).

    Similar with the crop factor: it's only true for long distances;
    at close distances the crop factor fades away.

    At least that's how I understand it.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 12, 2013
    #8
  9. dadiOH

    Trevor Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:57:07 +0000 (UTC), ruben safir <>
    >>On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:21:31 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>>parrellel rays is not focused on infinity
    >>>
    >>> Correct.
    >>>
    >>> Parallel rays are generated by an object at infinity. When you focus a
    >>> lens at an object at infinity the rays from that object to the lens are
    >>> parallel (until they hit the lens).

    >>
    >>How is that possible? An object 6 feet wide focused at inifinity can not
    >>produce parallel light on the lens, otherwise the light would be too wide
    >>to fit on the lens (and a pinhole camera would never work).

    >
    > It would if the 6 feet wide object was an infinite distance away.


    Actually no, the light would be warped by the gravitational field of every
    star system between the object and the lens! :)

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Apr 22, 2013
    #9
  10. dadiOH

    Wally Guest

    On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:57:07 +0000 (UTC), ruben safir <>
    wrote:

    >On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:21:31 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >
    >>>parrellel rays is not focused on infinity

    >>
    >> Correct.
    >>
    >> Parallel rays are generated by an object at infinity. When you focus a
    >> lens at an object at infinity the rays from that object to the lens are
    >> parallel (until they hit the lens).

    >
    >
    >
    >How is that possible? An object 6 feet wide focused at inifinity can not
    >produce parallel light on the lens, otherwise the light would be too wide
    >to fit on the lens (and a pinhole camera would never work).


    The rays are not parallel, but are nearly so... and behave effectively
    like parallel rays when they hit the lens.

    Here is a little math exercise for you: calculate the difference in
    angle for the rays hitting the top and bottom of the lens. (Make
    assumptions as necessary.)

    W
    Wally, Apr 23, 2013
    #10
  11. dadiOH

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/22/2013 1:46 AM, Trevor wrote:
    > "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:57:07 +0000 (UTC), ruben safir <>
    >>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:21:31 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>>> parrellel rays is not focused on infinity
    >>>>
    >>>> Correct.
    >>>>
    >>>> Parallel rays are generated by an object at infinity. When you focus a
    >>>> lens at an object at infinity the rays from that object to the lens are
    >>>> parallel (until they hit the lens).
    >>>
    >>> How is that possible? An object 6 feet wide focused at inifinity can not
    >>> produce parallel light on the lens, otherwise the light would be too wide
    >>> to fit on the lens (and a pinhole camera would never work).

    >>
    >> It would if the 6 feet wide object was an infinite distance away.

    >
    > Actually no, the light would be warped by the gravitational field of every
    > star system between the object and the lens! :)
    >
    > Trevor.
    >
    >


    If you want to get theoretical, the gravitational influence of randomly
    distributed objects might very well equalize each other. Therefore the
    rays would remain parallel.
    But, I think the notion of absolutely parallel lines wound run counter
    the the theory of relativity.



    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Apr 24, 2013
    #11
  12. ruben safir <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:19:10 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:


    >> This is a an invariant characteristic of the lens and does not change
    >> (unless its a zoom).


    > How does a zoom do this?


    By moving the center element of a Cooke triplet.

    Of course that's only the first tiny step. You need to
    replace the 3 lenses with other lens groups, but the basic
    idea remains ...

    http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/09/lens-genealogy-part-2

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 29, 2013
    #12
  13. PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 4/22/2013 1:46 AM, Trevor wrote:


    >> Actually no, the light would be warped by the gravitational field of every
    >> star system between the object and the lens! :)


    > If you want to get theoretical, the gravitational influence of randomly
    > distributed objects might very well equalize each other. Therefore the
    > rays would remain parallel.


    Actually, nope. It's the same as adding multiple random noise to
    a signal or a random walk from a point.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 29, 2013
    #13
  14. ruben safir <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:21:31 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:


    >>>parrellel rays is not focused on infinity


    >> Correct.


    >> Parallel rays are generated by an object at infinity. When you focus a
    >> lens at an object at infinity the rays from that object to the lens are
    >> parallel (until they hit the lens).


    > How is that possible? An object 6 feet wide focused at inifinity can not
    > produce parallel light on the lens,


    Of course it can. Since the view angle of the lens is greater
    than zero, the object will record only at a single location.

    Hint: Stars are much, much larger than our planet Earth, yet
    they come as single dots. And they're not even infinitely
    far away. But their rays are *very* *very* *very* close to
    perfectly parallel when recorded by your lens.

    > otherwise the light would be too wide
    > to fit on the lens (and a pinhole camera would never work).


    You only need an object-space telecentric lens. Which camera
    lenses aren't.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 29, 2013
    #14
  15. dadiOH

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/29/2013 8:57 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > PeterN <> wrote:
    >> On 4/22/2013 1:46 AM, Trevor wrote:

    >
    >>> Actually no, the light would be warped by the gravitational field of every
    >>> star system between the object and the lens! :)

    >
    >> If you want to get theoretical, the gravitational influence of randomly
    >> distributed objects might very well equalize each other. Therefore the
    >> rays would remain parallel.

    >
    > Actually, nope. It's the same as adding multiple random noise to
    > a signal or a random walk from a point.
    >
    > -Wolfgang
    >


    vielleicht etwas zu tun <> etwas tun

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Apr 30, 2013
    #15
  16. PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 4/29/2013 8:57 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >> PeterN <> wrote:
    >>> On 4/22/2013 1:46 AM, Trevor wrote:


    >>>> Actually no, the light would be warped by the gravitational field of every
    >>>> star system between the object and the lens! :)


    >>> If you want to get theoretical, the gravitational influence of randomly
    >>> distributed objects might very well equalize each other. Therefore the
    >>> rays would remain parallel.


    >> Actually, nope. It's the same as adding multiple random noise to
    >> a signal or a random walk from a point.


    > vielleicht etwas zu tun <> etwas tun


    True but irrelevant.

    Getting theoretical: The theory how random influences add is
    well established. That they equalize each other is about as
    likely as that they completely add to each other, i.e. both
    bowing the light in the identical direction. That's both not
    "might very well", unless you "might very well" win a million
    dollars in the lottery ten times in a row. So I bow to your
    immense luck and admit I was wrong.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 2, 2013
    #16
  17. dadiOH

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/2/2013 4:27 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > PeterN <> wrote:
    >> On 4/29/2013 8:57 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >>> PeterN <> wrote:
    >>>> On 4/22/2013 1:46 AM, Trevor wrote:

    >
    >>>>> Actually no, the light would be warped by the gravitational field of every
    >>>>> star system between the object and the lens! :)

    >
    >>>> If you want to get theoretical, the gravitational influence of randomly
    >>>> distributed objects might very well equalize each other. Therefore the
    >>>> rays would remain parallel.

    >
    >>> Actually, nope. It's the same as adding multiple random noise to
    >>> a signal or a random walk from a point.

    >
    >> vielleicht etwas zu tun <> etwas tun

    >
    > True but irrelevant.
    >
    > Getting theoretical: The theory how random influences add is
    > well established. That they equalize each other is about as
    > likely as that they completely add to each other, i.e. both
    > bowing the light in the identical direction. That's both not
    > "might very well", unless you "might very well" win a million
    > dollars in the lottery ten times in a row. So I bow to your
    > immense luck and admit I was wrong.
    >


    Ah! but are the gravitational fields random. According to Einstein, they
    are not.


    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, May 3, 2013
    #17
  18. dadiOH

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Friday, May 3, 2013 1:51:04 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
    > On 5/2/2013 4:27 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >
    > > PeterN <> wrote:

    >
    > >> On 4/29/2013 8:57 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

    >
    > >>> PeterN <> wrote:

    >
    > >>>> On 4/22/2013 1:46 AM, Trevor wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > >>>>> Actually no, the light would be warped by the gravitational field of every

    >
    > >>>>> star system between the object and the lens! :)

    >
    > >

    >
    > >>>> If you want to get theoretical, the gravitational influence of randomly

    >
    > >>>> distributed objects might very well equalize each other. Therefore the

    >
    > >>>> rays would remain parallel.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >>> Actually, nope. It's the same as adding multiple random noise to

    >
    > >>> a signal or a random walk from a point.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >> vielleicht etwas zu tun <> etwas tun

    >
    > >

    >
    > > True but irrelevant.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Getting theoretical: The theory how random influences add is

    >
    > > well established. That they equalize each other is about as

    >
    > > likely as that they completely add to each other, i.e. both

    >
    > > bowing the light in the identical direction. That's both not

    >
    > > "might very well", unless you "might very well" win a million

    >
    > > dollars in the lottery ten times in a row. So I bow to your

    >
    > > immense luck and admit I was wrong.

    >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > Ah! but are the gravitational fields random. According to Einstein, they
    >
    > are not.


    And how would one measure the DOF of them :-D
    Whisky-dave, May 3, 2013
    #18
  19. PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 5/2/2013 4:27 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >> PeterN <> wrote:
    >>> On 4/29/2013 8:57 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >>>> PeterN <> wrote:
    >>>>> On 4/22/2013 1:46 AM, Trevor wrote:


    >>>>>> Actually no, the light would be warped by the gravitational field of every
    >>>>>> star system between the object and the lens! :)


    >>>>> If you want to get theoretical, the gravitational influence of randomly
    >>>>> distributed objects might very well equalize each other. Therefore the
    >>>>> rays would remain parallel.


    >>>> Actually, nope. It's the same as adding multiple random noise to
    >>>> a signal or a random walk from a point.


    >>> vielleicht etwas zu tun <> etwas tun


    >> True but irrelevant.


    >> Getting theoretical: The theory how random influences add is
    >> well established. That they equalize each other is about as
    >> likely as that they completely add to each other, i.e. both
    >> bowing the light in the identical direction. That's both not
    >> "might very well", unless you "might very well" win a million
    >> dollars in the lottery ten times in a row. So I bow to your
    >> immense luck and admit I was wrong.


    > Ah! but are the gravitational fields random. According to Einstein, they
    > are not.


    So you're basically saying that the gravitational fields are
    ordered in such a way that photons from any random source stay
    parallel, at least in a sizeable number of cases.

    I'd like a single geometry designed by you where a bundle
    of parallel light rays from a single direction are bend by
    gravity sources in such a way that they remain exactly parallel.
    You can freely place the gravity sources.

    Kindly remember that any single gravity source will affect such
    a bundle of exactly parallel rays differently, depending on the
    mass of the gravity source and the (different!) distance from
    the individual ray to the gravity source. In other words:
    a bunch of parallel rays *will* be spread when it passes a
    gravity source ...

    Too hard?

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 6, 2013
    #19
  20. dadiOH

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/6/2013 2:40 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > PeterN <> wrote:
    >> On 5/2/2013 4:27 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >>> PeterN <> wrote:
    >>>> On 4/29/2013 8:57 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >>>>> PeterN <> wrote:
    >>>>>> On 4/22/2013 1:46 AM, Trevor wrote:

    >
    >>>>>>> Actually no, the light would be warped by the gravitational field of every
    >>>>>>> star system between the object and the lens! :)

    >
    >>>>>> If you want to get theoretical, the gravitational influence of randomly
    >>>>>> distributed objects might very well equalize each other. Therefore the
    >>>>>> rays would remain parallel.

    >
    >>>>> Actually, nope. It's the same as adding multiple random noise to
    >>>>> a signal or a random walk from a point.

    >
    >>>> vielleicht etwas zu tun <> etwas tun

    >
    >>> True but irrelevant.

    >
    >>> Getting theoretical: The theory how random influences add is
    >>> well established. That they equalize each other is about as
    >>> likely as that they completely add to each other, i.e. both
    >>> bowing the light in the identical direction. That's both not
    >>> "might very well", unless you "might very well" win a million
    >>> dollars in the lottery ten times in a row. So I bow to your
    >>> immense luck and admit I was wrong.

    >
    >> Ah! but are the gravitational fields random. According to Einstein, they
    >> are not.

    >
    > So you're basically saying that the gravitational fields are
    > ordered in such a way that photons from any random source stay
    > parallel, at least in a sizeable number of cases.
    >
    > I'd like a single geometry designed by you where a bundle
    > of parallel light rays from a single direction are bend by
    > gravity sources in such a way that they remain exactly parallel.
    > You can freely place the gravity sources.
    >
    > Kindly remember that any single gravity source will affect such
    > a bundle of exactly parallel rays differently, depending on the
    > mass of the gravity source and the (different!) distance from
    > the individual ray to the gravity source. In other words:
    > a bunch of parallel rays *will* be spread when it passes a
    > gravity source ...
    >
    > Too hard?
    >
    > -Wolfgang
    >


    I I precisely understood how gravitational forces interact, I doubt I
    would waste time responding to you.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, May 8, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bernie McAlister

    Macros disabled

    Bernie McAlister, Aug 23, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    501
    ┬░Mike┬░
    Aug 23, 2003
  2. ]v[etaphoid

    Site that teachs how to write Excel macros?

    ]v[etaphoid, Nov 28, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    603
  3. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,038
  4. Macros in IE

    , Apr 2, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    10,467
    Liebschen
    Jun 28, 2009
  5. Saqib Ali

    Macros of Hungarian Wax Peppers - Take 2

    Saqib Ali, Jul 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    353
    Saqib Ali
    Jul 30, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page