Archive for category Macro
January 21, 2011 – Spider
Posted by Dave in - Best of Dave's POTD -, Animals, Macro, Picture of the Day on January 21, 2011
Spider
Friday, January 21, 2011
http://davefry.net/rate/index.php?viewimage=2021
Welcome to Friday! That means the week is over, which is probably a good thing. I had a really hard time picking an image for today, as it turns out. Not because I just wasn’t finding anything good to toss up here, but because I had no idea what kind of picture I should go with. I had my buddy Roy help me pick one, and the choices I gave him ranged from stuff like this, to flowers, to snowy mountains, to some east-coast fall-color stuff. But out of the eight choices I sent him, he picked this one. Sorry that it’s a bit, ahh, disgusting.
As you probably know, I spent a fair bit of time this summer running around after bugs. As it turns out, there really aren’t very many interesting ones here in Seattle. I mean, if you were to head out into the actual, you know, woods, you’d probably find a few, but if you’re just looking at what’s running around my neighborhood, there’s really not much. There are a couple different kinds of flies, and a couple different kinds of bees. And then there was predominantly one kind of spider, which you’re looking at right now. Almost all of them that I saw were probably around an inch across, so not really exceptionally large in any way (although not too small either, for sure), although I saw some slightly larger ones as the summer came to a close. As it happens, it can be pretty difficult to get a decent shot of these guys, because they tend to hang out right in the middle of their web. But, webs move. So, while I’m trying to focus on the spider, the web can move several inches in either direction with even the slightest breeze. And there are almost no times at which there is no movement. If you’re not using a flash, it’s not as big of a deal, because then you can just let the shutter rip (although since you’re not using a flash, you’re probably using a longer shutter speed, which can cause problems due to the movement itself.) But if you’re using a flash (particularly a really cheap one like I was, that takes forever to recharge), it can be a real pain in the butt.
But, it’s not impossible, and then you get stuff like this. I’m not saying stuff like this is particularly great, I’m just saying that this is the kind of stuff you get, you can be the judge for whether it’s worth it or not.
Anyway, have a great weekend!
Notes: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, Tamron 90mm macro lens, Phoenix macro ring flash. 1/160s, f/20.0, ISO 100. Focal length: 90mm.
Subscribe to the Picture of the Day via: Popularity: 13%
January 20, 2011 – Pine Needles
Posted by Dave in Macro, Picture of the Day on January 20, 2011
Pine Needles
Thursday, January 20, 2011
http://davefry.net/rate/index.php?viewimage=1519
I’ve been sitting here for awhile now trying to figure out what to, you know, say about this picture, but nothing’s really coming to mind. It’s a shot of some pine needles, taken with a reverse-mounted kit lens. Uhhmm… Yup, that’s what it is.
Notes: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, reverse-mounted 18-55mm kit lens. 1/250s, ISO 400.
Popularity: 13%
January 7, 2011 – Bee and Flower
Posted by Dave in Animals, Flowers, Macro, Picture of the Day on January 7, 2011
Bee and Daisy
Friday, January 7, 2011
http://davefry.net/rate/index.php?viewimage=1718
Wait, what?? This blog is still getting posted to? Man, I thought it was dead there for awhile. But then, BAM, just like that, a new post.
That’s right, folks, I’m getting back on the horse! The horse meaning, of course, the habit of occasionally posting pictures, maybe a few times a week if you’re lucky. I spent some time out of town over the holidays and all that, but I’m back now. Perhaps eventually I’ll even toss up a couple photos from that trip. But, not today. I haven’t even downloaded them from the camera yet, honestly. Hopefully soon, we’ll see.
In the meantime, here’s another insect and a flower. It’s true, this one is very similar to a photo I posted a long time ago. But, while it was taken at the same location (the Rose Garden in Woodland Park), it was taken about a year later, using different equipment. So it’s totally fair game. Because, you know, it’s all a game, with rules and stuff. And I hate breaking the rules.
Have a great weekend everyone! I’ll try and put up at least two posts next week, but I totally want to ease everyone back into this, so I’ll definitely take it slow.
Notes: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, Tamron 90mm macro lens, Phoenix macro ring flash. 1/160s, f/20.0, ISO 100.
Popularity: 19%
December 9, 2010 – Bug
Posted by Dave in Animals, Macro, Picture of the Day on December 9, 2010
Bug
Thursday, December 9, 2010
http://davefry.net/rate/index.php?viewimage=1994
Bug!
Notes: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, Tamron 90mm macro lens, cheap macro ring flash. 1/160s, f/18.0, ISO 100.
Popularity: 14%
December 2, 2010 – Roses
Posted by Dave in Flowers, Macro, Picture of the Day on December 2, 2010
Roses
Thursday, December 2, 2010
http://davefry.net/rate/index.php?viewimage=1593
Welcome to December! Hope you didn’t have any trouble getting here. I’m kind of breaking one of my sort-of quasi rules today, in that I’m already posting another picture of some roses from across the street, when I already just posted one a couple weeks ago.
But!! There’s a reason for it. Somebody asked me recently about mounting non-Canon lenses on a modern Canon dSLR. It’s true that I talked about it the last time I posted a shot from this particular camera/lens combination (as well as a couple other times over the years), but it never hurts to cover it again. To recap: this was taken with an old Kiron 105mm macro lens that was built with an old Minolta mount. When I say “old”, I mean really old, back when they used actual physical actuators to control the aperture, none of this electronic craziness. I mean GOSH.
I won’t bore you with the full description of why that’s interesting again, especially when I already linked to a whole post talking about it. BUT, I whipped up a little illustration of some of the points I was talking about when I was talking to the reader that was asking, so I figured that was of general enough interest that I should share it here as well. I was talking about how lenses that are built for different camera mounts are expecting to have different distances between the rear end of the lens and the sensor or film. But that’s the kind of thing that is much easier to visualize if you’re looking at a picture of it. So, I made a picture of it. The first section shows the normal situation, using a lens designed for the mount that your camera uses. The next section shows what happens when you use a lens that expects a LONGER lens-to-sensor distance (ie, Nikon lens on Canon mount), and when you attach a mount adapter to it. And, the last section shows a lens that wants a SHORTER distance (ie, Minolta lens on Canon mount), using an adaptor either with or without glass. When I shrunk the image down to a reasonable size, some of the text became too small to read, but the labels for the adapters say “Adapter (no glass)” and “Adapter (cheap glass)”.
Nikon and Minolta lenses on Canon mount
So, there you go. Now you all get it, right? Yay!
Notes: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, Kiron 105mm macro lens. 1/250s, ISO 200. Aperture unknown.
Popularity: 11%
November 17, 2010 – Rose
Posted by Dave in Flowers, Macro, Picture of the Day on November 17, 2010
Rose, Woodland Park Rose Garden
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
http://davefry.net/rate/index.php?viewimage=1595
Hey, look at that, you all got lucky today! Just when you had given up on your dreams of seeing a new post on this lovely Wednesday, a picture of a rose appears. I of course took this one across the street, in the Woodland Park Rose Garden, earlier this summer. I took it using the old 105mm Kiron macro lens (with a Minolta mount!) that I picked up (very) used on Ebay earlier this year. It’s a tough lens to use, for a number of reasons (which I’ll detail out here in a bit), but every time I come across a picture I took with it, it just takes my breath away. I keep trying to justify not using it, and instead using a lens that’s easier (again, see the list below), but man, this lens takes nice shots.
So, what’s so tough about using this guy? Well, mostly stuff that I’ve mentioned several times before. First of all, it’s manual focus. Which I know, is a lame thing to complain about. But, seriously, it’s really easy to get wrong. Especially when you factor in part 2, which is that the aperture control is totally manual. Meaning, it has a physical actuator that can be used to automatically control the aperture (so that it’s wide open while you’re focusing, but then it steps down when you hit the shutter button), but new, modern, electronically controlled cameras don’t know what to do with a little spring-loaded knob that you need to push aside to open the aperture. So, you have to deal with trying to focus with the aperture stepped down, which (obviously) greatly reduces the amount of light you have to, you know, focus with. Also, (somewhat less obviously), stepping down the aperture has the expected effect of lengthening your depth of field, so whereas it’s really easy to see exactly where the point of focus is when the aperture is wide open, it can be really tough when just about everything LOOKS in focus through the view finder, especially when everything is also very very dark.
Then, to top it all off, the range of stuff you can even focus on with this lens is pretty limited. Meaning, you can’t focus to infinity. Why that is has to do with the difference between the lens that uses an old Minolta mount, and the camera that uses a Canon EF-S mount. So, you see, the lens expects there to be a very specific distance between the rear of the lens and the sensor. If you have a lens that has the same mount as your camera, this isn’t an issue, since the mount points are designed to put the lens at exactly the right distance. But, different mounts require different distances. Some longer, some shorter. Canon’s EF mount is generally pretty convenient, because it requires a shorter distance than most others. Meaning, the mount points on the camera will put the lens CLOSER to the sensor than most non-Canon-mount lenses want. Why is this convenient? Well, because you can’t just attach a non-Canon-mount lens to a Canon. You need an adapter. So if the lens wants to be further away than the camera wants the lens to be, then you just make the adapter the correct width to make everybody happy. The camera doesn’t actually care about how far away the lens is, it just has it’s mount points at a certain location. But the lens DOES care, so you can make the adapter the right width. But, as I mentioned, that only works if the lens wants to be FURTHER than the camera’s mount wants it to be. If the distance is the same, or the lens’s ideal distance is shorter… well then it doesn’t quite work. And the way that the “not quite working” is manifested is that the range of stuff you can focus on moves closer. To completely make up numbers, let’s say a lens would normally be able to focus on anything between 10 feet away and infinity. If you mount it (using an adapter) on a camera who’s mount needs a shorter distance, you’ll instead be able to focus on things that are (again using made up numbers) 5 feet away to 20 feet away. It moves the window closer, and makes it smaller. It’s exactly the same thing that happens when you use macro extension tubes. In fact, that’s the whole idea behind macro extension tubes – you move the nearest focus distance much closer to the camera at the expense of being able to focus on things that are more than a couple inches away. So, the old Minolta mount is one of those few exceptions to the “Canon EF is a convenient mount” rule. It actually wants a shorter distance than the Canon EF/EF-S mount. So, if you’re using it as a macro lens (and you’re thinking about tossing an extension tube on anyway) it’s not really an issue. But if you want to use it as a general-purpose lens, well, then you’re out of luck.
Phew, that was a lot more words than I was intending to use today. That wiped me out.
On a completely unrelated note, I’ve started reading more and more the blog of a guy named Bill Hess who lives in Wasilla, Alaska. He’s been a professional photographer for quite awhile, and his blog is regularly updated and is a joy to read. Today’s post in particular was about being invited onto the set of a film they’re filming up in Alaska, so if you haven’t visited his blog before, it’s a great time to start. Click here to visit.
Notes: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, Kiron 105mm macro lens. 1/200s, aperture unknown. ISO: 400.
Popularity: 16%
November 4, 2010 – Bee and Flowers – 300th Post!
Posted by Dave in - Best of Dave's POTD -, Animals, Flowers, Macro, Picture of the Day on November 4, 2010
Bee and Flowers
Thursday, November 4, 2010
http://davefry.net/rate/index.php?viewimage=1960
Hey! Guess what! Here’s a hint: it says in the title. Yeah, this is the 300th Picture of the Day! (Or is it the Picture of the 300th Day?) Woooooooo!!! Crazy, right?? This blog has been going for just under 18 months now. I honestly didn’t think I’d still be sticking with it for this long. But, here we are, for whatever that’s worth.
Since you all stuck with me this far, I’ll go ahead and make a promise to continue posting the most awesome pictures you’ve ever seen paired with hilarious commentary at least until we get to post number 600. Those will be on my other blog, but I’ll keep posting stuff here too, just so you guys don’t feel left out.
Notes: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, Tamron 90mm f/2.8 lens. 1/200s, f/5.0, ISO 400. Focal length: 90mm.
Popularity: 15%
October 19, 2010 – Ant
Posted by Dave in - Best of Dave's POTD -, Animals, Macro, Picture of the Day on October 19, 2010
Ant
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
http://davefry.net/rate/index.php?viewimage=1965
What were you expecting, more fall colors?? Nah, not today. Instead, we’re going to go with an insect picture, just because I know how much my friend-in-law likes them. (That’s what you call somebody who is your friend by marriage, right?)
This one wasn’t taken with my normal macro setup. So I think that’s worth talking about. I took this one while out hiking, whereas most of my insect pictures are taken around my neighborhood. The macro stuff I usually use (macro lens, extension tubes, macro flash, sometimes a tripod or a monopod) can be kind of bulky. It’s fine if I know I’m going to be looking for bugs, but on a hike, bugs aren’t really the goal. So, that led to the question of what I should bring along. Ideally, if I did see a cool bug worth taking a picture of, I’d want to be able to do so. But, all the stuff I’m already bringing on hikes (camera, 3 lenses, plus filters, extra batteries, etc) is kind of annoying, so bringing even more stuff, like a lens specifically for macro and a flash, is not really desirable. So, as a compromise, I’ve started just bringing a couple extension tubes. They’re pretty lightweight and small, and they’re pretty rugged, so you don’t have to take as good of care of them as you do lenses. After doing some experimenting, I decided I could get “close enough” by using the tubes with my telephoto lens. (That worked better than with my wide angle or my standard range lens, for what it’s worth.)
The day I took this picture was really the first time I really tried it out in actual use, and I was glad to see that the hacked-up setup did indeed work “well enough”. It definitely wasn’t as pleasant to use as my regular setup, but it got the job done. Good thing, too, since I was on a hike that was supposed to have really great views (but didn’t, they were only mediocre) on a day that was supposed to have really nice weather (but didn’t, it was that bland featureless overcast that just kills me. And then it started raining), so it was nice to have other things to take pictures of. Although the fact that I didn’t have a flash meant that I had to crank up the ISO, but the results were still passable.
So, to summarize, here’s the setup I bring with me on hikes these days, for those who are curious. Camera (Canon EOS Rebel T1i), with Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens attached. I usually have that in my hand the entire hike. Then, I have a small camera bag attached to the side of my backpack. In there, I have two lenses (Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and Canon 55-250mm IS), two extension tubes, two filters (circular polarizers for the 11-16 and 17-50 – need to get one for the 55-250, but haven’t bothered yet), 3-4 spare batteries (they’re super cheap on eBay), a couple spare memory cards (that I haven’t needed to use in years), and a lens cleaning cloth. That’s all the important stuff anyway. Then, I sometimes also (when I remember) bring along a gorilla pod, but I basically never get around to actually using it. I really should use a tripod more often, for those times when I want to slow down a river or get some depth of field. But… whatever.
Notes: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, Canon 55-250mm IS lens with Opteka extension tubes. 1/250s, f/7.1, ISO 800. Focal length: 55mm (Well, that’s what the lens was set at..)
Popularity: 17%
October 6, 2010 – Hibiscus Flowers
Posted by Dave in Flowers, Macro, Picture of the Day, Tropical/Beaches on October 6, 2010
Hibiscus Flowers
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
http://www.davefry.net/rate/index.php?viewimage=1726
So there’s been a decent-sized increase in interest in the pictures I took in Jamaica recently. (The increase in interest is recent, the pictures from Jamaica are.. well, they’re also recent. But.. less recent. I was talking about the interest.) Not among, you know, “real people” per se, but among people that I work with. And my mother in law. On the one hand, it’s a little bit frustrating, because most of the pictures I take are NOT from Jamaica, and nobody cares as much about those. But, on the other hand, it’s making me realize that I should really sit down and go through those pictures. So far, I’ve only grabbed one here or there, but I haven’t yet dug through the whole pile to grab anything that’s interesting. Don’t get your hopes up or anything, I feel like I’ve already posted the best ones, so what’s left will just fill out the middle of the pack a bit. But, they’re still worth posting here.
In the meantime, here’s another one I happened to have lying around. It’s another shot of the hibiscus flowers that were so prevalent around the area(s) of Negril where we stayed. Hibiscus flowers are weird. They’re pretty, and have a lot of character, but they’re kind of hard to take interesting pictures of. That middle part can be really… droopy.. And it’s pretty long too, which can make it hard to get both the tip and the body both in focus, if that’s your thing. (And yes, I’m really going out of my way here to keep it clean. ) But the color is really fantastic, and there’s a lot of nice detail in there, so if you get one to turn out, it can be pretty cool.
Speaking of interest, by the way, I should mention that I can make prints of just about any of the pictures you see me post. And they’re cheap, since I get them printed at Costco. A 12×18 print is only 3 bucks, and a 20×30 is only about 10. Recently, I got one of my pictures printed on canvas, at 20×30, and it looked FANTASTIC. It was mounted on a wooden frame, so it was ready to hang. That came out to about 100 dollars, shipped. So, a few folks that I know are asking for prints here or there. If you want to get in on that action, definitely let me know.
Notes: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, Tamron 17-50mm lens, and I think I used a little screw-on “macro lens” attachment for this guy. 1/250s, f/5.6, ISO 800. Focal length: 33mm.
Popularity: 25%
September 29, 2010 – Bee and Orange Daisy
Posted by Dave in Animals, Flowers, Macro, Picture of the Day on September 29, 2010
Bee and Orange Daisy
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
http://davefry.net/rate/index.php?viewimage=2002
Hey everyone! Happy Tuesday! Except that, umm, it’s Wednesday. Yesterday sort of didn’t really happen, at least as far as this blog is concerned. Whatever, get over it. It’s Wednesday! That’s awesome! And you get a bug picture today! Yesss!
There’s not many bugs up here in Seattle. At least, not in my neighborhood. There’s one kind of spider, and there are bees. So, that’s what I get pictures of when I go out to get bug pictures. Really, I should take some field trips to the woods specifically for bug pictures. Maybe I’ll do that at some point, and actually see some different bugs. Actually, that’s really not a bad idea. But it hasn’t happened yet. Well, it happened once, I went to Carkeek Park and actualy found some different bugs. But I mean I should do it again. As far as the flower, I keep calling these things orange daisies, but I actually don’t know if that’s what they actually are. They have a whole bunch of them planted right at the entrance to the south parking lot at the zoo here in Seattle, so I take a lot of pictures of them. Because they’re pretty. And I like to take pictures of pretty things. That’s the way this blog works.
Also, it seems like having a claw sticking out from right next to your eyeball could be useful. I’m not sure for what, but I’m sure you could figure out something to do with it. It’d be a bit creepy, sure, but man, that’d be handy for reading the newspaper and stuff. Or if you had a pair of broken sunglasses, you could totally still use them.
In other news… It’s been awhile since I’ve talked about it, so I’m going to go ahead and give another plug for Flattr.com. Flattr is based on a really cool idea: you pay a couple bucks every month, and then when you see a website or article or something you enjoy or find useful, you click the Flattr button (that looks like the one below). Basically, it’s like a Facebook Like button, except that, at the end of the month, everybody you Flattred that month gets an equal cut of your couple bucks. (Or, it all goes to charity if you don’t find anything you like in a given month..) It’s nice because it’s only a couple bucks, and it makes a big difference to small- and mid-size blogs and such that aren’t big enough to make any money from advertising (or, alternatively, don’t want to bother their readers with advertising. Hi! I’m Dave!) I’ve been doing it for a couple months now, and it’s very cool. The biggest problem I’ve found so far is that the number of websites that have Flattr buttons is still pretty small, so it can be difficult to find things to Flattr. So, if you have a site or a blog, you should absolutely sign up, and let me know! Okay, plug over, that’s the last you’ll hear about it for awhile (other than the boilerplate stuff at the bottom of every post and on the sidebar, but, whatever.)
Notes: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, Tamron 90mm Macro lens, Phoenix macro ring flash. 1/160s, f/18.0, ISO 100. I think I may have also used an extension tube or two.
Popularity: 14%
September 20, 2010 – Some Weird Plant
Posted by Dave in Flowers, Macro, Picture of the Day on September 20, 2010
Some Weird Plant
Monday, September 20, 2010
http://www.davefry.net/rate/index.php?viewimage=1059
Anyone have any idea what the heck this thing is? I found it earlier this summer in the Rose Garden. I’m going to call it a “flower”, but I don’t even know if that’s true. I like the texture though. That’s it for today, short post, eh?
UPDATE: Somebody identified the plant as an “Astilbe”. Now I (and you) know!
Notes: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, Quantaray 70-300mm lens. 1/100s, f/6.3, ISO 800. Focal length: 183mm.
Popularity: 10%
September 13, 2010 – Gnat
Posted by Dave in Animals, Macro, Picture of the Day on September 13, 2010
Gnat - Reverse-mounted lens
Monday, September 13, 2010
http://davefry.net/rate/index.php?viewimage=1037
Welcome back from the weekend, everyone! This picture was taken almost exactly a year ago, immediately after I had originally gotten my reverse-mount lens adapter. (End of August, to be a little bit more specific.) I chose it today because it’s particularly illustrative of some of the cool parts and some of the not-as-cool parts about using a reverse-mount for macro shots.
First, the good parts. This was taken with a 13 dollar attachment and the 18-55mm kit lens. So, “very minimal financial investment” would be appropriate to say. This bug was freaking tiny. I mean, it’s a gnat. You know how big gnats are. They’re little dots. So to be able to see all of this detail is (I think) really cool. I could go on and on about that, but, that’s the basic idea.
Now, the bad parts. This list is longer than the “good parts” list, but that’s not intended to say that the negatives outweigh the positives, it’s just that I can speak more specifically to the drawbacks. The first is the extremely limited depth of field. One thing I really love about this picture is how well it illustrates that. I mean, you can SEE how narrow of a band you’re working with. That’s a gnat, for god’s sake, and only 2 of his six legs are even discernible. So, forget about using autofocus, you just need to pick a focus point, then move forward and back until your subject is crisp. Then, hopefully your shutter finger is fast enough to get the shot before you sway backwards or forwards by a fraction of a millimeter. (Did I mention that taking these shots is ridiculously aggravating??) This will sound familiar if you read this blog with any frequency, but: a big part of the limited depth of field is just due to macro photography in general. But it’s exacerbated by the fact that you’re using a reverse-mounted lens (as opposed to one that’s macro-specific.) This is because, since the electrical connections for your lens are now at the *front* of the lens, your camera can’t control the aperture, and thus you’re taking pictures with it set wide open. Because of this, using the kit lens (or other less-expensive lens with a usually-undesirable small maximum aperture size) is actually helpful. If you were using a lens that was stuck at f/2.8 or wider, it would be even worse.
My other favorite frustrating thing about using a reverse-mount is that you end up working with an extremely small amount of light. This picture was taken with very-late-afternoon light (probably an hour before sunset) shining directly on the subject. But yet, I still had to resort to using ISO 1600 and a 1/80s shutter speed to even get it to expose. (It was “hand-held”, but I had the camera wedged up against the tree. It was an image-stabilized lens, but your electrical connections aren’t connected, remember?) Full-on mid-day sunshine is better, but still, you’re stuck with higher ISOs and slower shutter speeds, unless you’re using a macro flash. So, I apologize for the ugly graininess, it was really unavoidable. I believe this issue is really unavoidable with extreme macro photography. It may not be quite as bad with a regular-mounted macro-specific lens, I’m not totally sure if different optical setups are able to help with this sort of thing or not, to be honest. But, it’s a true fact that macro photography is a different beast.
Notes: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, Reverse-mounted 18-55mm kit lens. 1/80s, ISO 1600.
Popularity: 15%