Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Macro lens catblogging More

Macro lens catblogging

Comments Filter:
  • Going for a lolcats theme soon? I'm joking, but if your cat pictures are on the net, they may end up as part of something like this soon: http://chir.ag/phernalia/lolcalendar/ [chir.ag]

    Those mostly make me laugh.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by BWJones ( 18351 ) *
      Dude, LOLCats make me laugh so hard. I have a couple of others from years ago that might be LOL appropriate.

      How about Oh Hai! Brrrrzzzzzzzrrrrrrker! [utah.edu]

      or I bought you beerz, but I drinked them [utah.edu]?

      • I love LOLcats. That first picture is great. How did you get your cat to bite the picture frame, or was it photoshopped in at a later date? I may just post some links on my friends forum and "suggest" that someone make LOLcats out of them.

        Is there a website that will take cat pictures and automatically generate LOLcats out of them? Should be an easy thing to script with a little Perl and some gd libraries.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by BWJones ( 18351 ) *
          How did you get your cat to bite the picture frame, or was it photoshopped in at a later date?

          We were playing and he bit the frame all by himself. No Photoshopping.

          I may just post some links on my friends forum and "suggest" that someone make LOLcats out of them.

          Go for it.

          Is there a website that will take cat pictures and automatically generate LOLcats out of them? Should be an easy thing to script with a little Perl and some gd libraries.

          I don't know, but if you find one or make one of your own, I'll let
  • I, too, like the 100mm f/2.8 macro (mine's a Pentax for a K10D) as a great focal length for intimate portraiture and true macro work. I can understand Scott's frustration with macro -- lighting, depth-of-field, and composition are bit different at close working distances. Yet it's all worth the trouble when you get a great shot that reviews the hidden details of some little microworld.

    The only thing I miss from my old film camera days is a Vivitar macro-focusing teleconvertor. It provided about 50mm wort

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by BWJones ( 18351 ) *
      Yeah, I've found that the biggest problem I have with macro photography is the lighting. A ring flash helps, but it is still not enough at times and I am thinking of picking up or making a small studio (2ft X 2ft or so). As for the dust, yeah... but they are also more sensitive to dust *in* the lens than are typical lenses. I had a couple minor dust spots in my lens that were always showing up on the image. They would not have even showed up on a standard lens, but a macro lens...

      Thanks for the Nagoya c
      • Actually, I was talking about dust on the sensor (or more technically on the glass sheet that protects the sensor). The smaller the effective aperture, the tighter the shadow of the dust spot. For a macro lens at f/32 and 1:1, the effective aperture is f/64. So far, I've managed to keep my sensor relatively clean with a strong squeeze blower, but I suspect that I'm going to need to buy one of those sensor-cleaning kits sooner, rather than later.

        When I was doing serious macro-work in the lab and rain fore
  • I was going to forward the link on to a friend who likes cats, but I may have to write up a bit of a disclaimer on what you do for a living first as a sentence that starts out with "I finished some training materials for harvesting of human eyes..." might come across as a tad disturbing for the unaware. :)
     

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by BWJones ( 18351 ) *
      Ah, yes.... Well, I do vision research. Explore how the retina is constructed, how it works and where things go wrong in disease, particularly the blinding diseases of the retina.

      • Ah, yes.... Well, I do vision research. Explore how the retina is constructed, how it works and where things go wrong in disease, particularly the blinding diseases of the retina.
        And, during the evenings, you harvest human eyes. Got it! :)
         
  • Good shots Bryan; I really like the first one, and the focus is right on (but unfortunately not enough depth of field to cover both eyes). The framing of the second one seems off somehow (I guess it's right according to Rule of Thirds, but it seems unnatural somehow), but the depth of field is exactly right for this shot.

    I'd like to see a head-to-head with my Nikon 105mm f/2.8 macro (or "micro" as Nikon calls them). I have a hard time doing portraits with this lens though because of the focal length. To

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by BWJones ( 18351 ) *
      I really like the first one, and the focus is right on (but unfortunately not enough depth of field to cover both eyes).

      Hard to do with the lens wide open as the depth of field is pretty narrow. If I stepped it down just a bit, I am sure I could have gotten the eye in better, but on the small preview screen of my 20d it looked OK. More reasons for me to upgrade the camera to something with a larger screen (like the 1D mk III). :-)

      I'd like to see a head-to-head with my Nikon 105mm f/2.8 macro (or "micro" a
      • If I stepped it down just a bit, I am sure I could have gotten the eye in better, but on the small preview screen of my 20d it looked OK.

        Yeah, I have the same problem. Hope I didn't sound critical! I don't think the "rear" eye really detracts, I think your focus is spot on given the depth of field. I have a Nikon D300 on order (should be arriving soon, release date is Friday!), and one of the things I'm most pumped about is the 0.9 megapixel LCD on the back (I think 2x the resolution of any other camera

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by BWJones ( 18351 ) *
          Yeah, I actually got to hold a D300 and take a couple of shots with it. That LCD is the new benchmark for any SLR on the market including the new Canons.

          As for the Live-View, I am most excited about it as it will be a huge advantage to macro photography. Supposedly the 40d has it as well, but since I've just been lined up with a paying gig to photograph an event in February, I think that a 1D mk III is in the offing.

          I can't wait to hear what you think about the D300 as that would be the camera I'd get if
          • I'll let you know how it goes when it arrives. I'm a little trepidatious because I haven't been able to get my hands on a sample of it to try it out, but I also wanted to beat the rush of people who wanted it at release (like happened with my wonderful 18-200 VR lens, which took me almost 8 months to get one of). I figure as a worst case scenario though, I can probably resell it on eBay for nearly the full purchase price should it turn out to have some major defect which the reviewers missed.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by BWJones ( 18351 ) *
              Oooooh, the fabled 18-200 VR. A good friend of mine has one and it is absolutely the best travel lens there is. I am jealous that Canon does not make an equivalent.
              • I think Sigma just introduced a very similar lens which is Canon compatible.

                Part of what makes the 18-200 VR so good is its compact size, and part of what makes it so compact is that it's not a full-frame lens, it only casts an image large enough for the partial frames in most modern DSLR's. Instead of getting the D300, I was seriously thinking about getting a D3, which among its other features is a full-frame lens. What it does with "DX" series lenses (small frame format) is only allow you to shoot in 6.

Slashdot Top Deals

One good suit is worth a thousand resumes.

Close