Friday, March 11, 2011
Wow, busy week, what can I say? Here’s a shot of a rose, in just under the wire on Friday.
Notes: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, Kiron 105mm Macro lens. 1/250s, aperture unknown, ISO 200.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
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)”.
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.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
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.
Monday, September 20, 2010
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.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
I realize that a lot of you reading this blog don’t get quite as jazzed up about pictures of flowers as I do, but the reality of the situation is that I have a whole crap-ton of them. Because, quite frankly, it’s a lot easier to go across the street to the rose garden or to take a walk around the neighborhood than it is to go on some crazy hike. I try to space them out at least a little bit so I don’t scare you all away, but if I keep burning through the non-flower shots, I’ll eventually be left with nothing but a huge pile of crazy flowers and bugs to inundate you with. But, it’s been more than a week since I tossed one out there, so it’s well overdue.
Based on the results of my normal flower-identification routine (which is to say, spending 5 minutes looking for flowers on Google), I’m fairly sure these flowers are called “stars of Persia”, so that’s what I went with. (Are there any Persians out there? Do these look like your stars??) These were, not surprisingly, in the rose garden. Taking pictures of flowers like these is somewhat counter intuitive to me. Normally, overcast Seattle days tend to make for uninteresting pictures (clouds aren’t bad in and of themselves, but around here we get these completely featureless grey skies that can make just about any picture into a real snoozer.) So generally I look for sunny days (or, even better, “mostly sunny” days with nice fluffy clouds), and stay inside when it’s featureless-ly overcast. But, I’ve found that I like my flower pictures better (in general) on overcast days. It feels like it allows the true colors of the flower to take center stage, and it means there aren’t any harsh shadows to worry about (since the light kind of comes from everywhere). You of course have less total light to work with, so you have to jack up the ISO and open up the aperture, but other than that you can get some nice results. At least that’s how I’m feeling today, anyway. Basically, I’m just trying to say that just because the weather’s not what you were hoping for, you should still get out there and take some pics. I always have to remind myself of that, because I’m HORRIBLE about getting lazy and blaming it on the weather. Somebody should totally send me a link to this post so I can read that.
Notes: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, Kiron 105mm f/2.8 macro lens. 1/160s, aperture unknown, ISO 200. Focal length: 105mm (duh!).