[John Bennett]

Sorry for the double reply.

Check Jodys galleries. The guy is wonderfully gifted and taught me alot of what I know. Im sure he wont mind the plug 🙂
http://jmelanson.smugmug.com/

All or most of his macro shots are with a 150 + 66mm tubes + 50 1.4 reversed.

[John Bennett]

No cropping. Your maths about right though.

You start at 1:1 with just the bare lens.
Tubes. Essentially extension / focal length. So with a 100mm macro and 50mm in tubes youd get about 1:1.5. The down side is working distance. A 100mm macro already needs to be alot closer to the subject vs a 150mm and a 180mm macro gains you just that more at the cost of a little less magnification. Butyour alot less likekly to spook the bug or cast a shadow. I dont mind sacrificing the extra magnification as I find Mayflys already fill the frame and exceed my available DoF to begin with at F25.

90% sure no tubes at F32

I think we talked a bit about this on FTF and the difficulties of finding a nice balance. Maybe not. But that why I havent gone that route. For what I do, I dont need it and I prefer the extra working distance and less odds of spooking te bugs.

Either way most, actually almost all the serious bug shooters I know use a 150mm macro + 66mm in tubes + a reversed 50mm 1.4…Its largly the reversed 50 1.4 that adds serious magnification.

They shoot aphids and mites with that. Some do add more tubes but thats just crazy.I forget how he does it but Jody (check his post on PS) gets close to 5:1 sometimes

Anyways, if your lookingfor more magnification it might be worth trying a reversed 50 f1.4. At the worst you end up with a relatiely cheap fantastic portrait lens

J

[John Bennett]

Focus stacking works reasonably well Will, but your constantly shifting it fowards/backwards. Changes in light can occur as can movement.

As you know I use Tubes instead of bellows. Same principle, similiar results. Im pretty sure this is a#20.

and this

Macro for me thus far is a sometimes sidebar. Have alot of fun with i but fining consistant hatches is a chore, this year in particular. Anyways the guys I know that really do alot use Tubes + 150 or 180 macros ad then they reverse a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4…Universally thats the prime they use for it. I forget the actual ratio they acheive but results are wicked. Im talking counting all the eyes on a jumping spider. One guy took pics of his 1 and 2mm Kidney stones and youd swear your were lookin at Crystalin boulders.

If you want to go the extra step for more magnification thats what you might want to look at.

[John Bennett]

Tim.
We generally dont display pictures images we dont like. They get deleted like anyone elses.

If I had the images I was taking my first year and change….oh wait I do 🙂

As I said I started with pbase. This is my old pbase account
http://www.pbase.com/jben/root

quite a difference eh? I think its safe to say Ive come along way in a few years. Its takes time. I still have a long ways to go.

Time to learn the characteristics of light
Time to lean the technicals ( expsosure values etc)
Time to learn the artistic side (composition etc)
Time to learn editing ( Photoshop)

its not unlike flyfishing and fly tieing. Theres a mountain of things to learn, especially if your self taught.

Start with frontlight, morning and evening. Your best pictures initially will almost always come here. As you get comfortable start exploring sidelight, then backlight and flash. Learn to recognise flat, difussed, sweet, harsh light etc. Others things will come.

As Ben said. Shoot and have fun

[John Bennett]

Tim all I can say is don’t get discouraged.
I like to think that anyone who has a love for the outdoors has everything they need to take great pictures.

Do I have “an eye”…I honestly dont think so..Atleast not one thats any different than anyones elses that loves the outdoors.

Sometimes I *see* something as its presented to me and I know I just have to photograph it. Usually, that has alot todo with the ‘light’, rather than the subject. Although its probably a matter of both.

I also have a ton of foggy images in my mind. This subject…say a white tail…in that enviroment…in some kind of light. Then one day I’ll be walking along looking for whitetails and what I have in my head, is largely there in front of me. Meter, compose, release the shutter. Alot of my personal favorites are a result of this…Maybe they end up being my favorites, not so much due to image quality or that its particularily dynamic…but because Ive accomplished a goal…this kind of image..just so.

I could rhyme off a bunch of images Ive posted here that came about this way.

You can also end up trying to force stuff..God knows Im very guilty of this. This is often a result of the above. preconceived images not presented before me, but me trying to force them.

Composition and stuff. I dont know or think Im strong in that and its something I try to work on. But to me the most important factor in good photos is

light.

Work on recognising good light, dramtic lighting, and any number of other forms. Bad light theres just not alot you can do with.

[John Bennett]

Neal.
The most popular (but certianly not the only ones) that I know of are.

Pbase
Smug mug
Zenfolio.

Both Pbase and Smugmug allow visitors to leave comments…( ooh, ahhh, etc). Zenfolio may add that in the future.

I started with pbase, started having problems on a recomendation i switched to Zenfolio over a year ago.

In a word I love it. Slick interface, good uploading, fantastic resising.
I upload 1024 x 750ish sized photos and can display everything from that size right down to wee tiny postage stamp images with no distortion what so ever. If I wasnt afraid of copy right infringment I could upload full 8meg files and do the same.

And about every size in between.
******

Cost for a basic account is 25 bucks per year for a gig of storage.Each year you renew they up your storage limit at no extra charge (talk about Customer service).

I have 684 photos there, all roughly 1000 x 600. Of the near 2 gig I have in limit I still have 1.6 gig free.
Lots of customisable options including password protected galleries
http://jben.zenfolio.com/

Until I decide to design and create my own site/domain I’ll stick with them.

Check them out, for what you get its dirt cheap.theres a free trial available. Any of us can “recomend” you. Bascially give you a code and it saves us each 5 bucks.
http://www.zenfolio.com/

[John Bennett]

I’ll let others more versed in this provide what will likely be a better answer but want to mention two things.

sRGB is from my understanding primarily for web use, I dont know that its necccessary to actually use it. I shoot in RGB and do every there. Simply because thats what the publishers want. I can’t be bothered changing the colour space for the photos I upload. Maybe ou could try using RGB and see if the same problem persist.

Photobucket.
While alot of years have gone by, I tried them as my first host and really ( read really) disliked what it did to my photos. Especially with regards to resising. Yes its free (or was) and theres alot to be said for that, but if your trying to display your photos in the best possible light they arent the host Id choose. Your problem could be there.

J

[John Bennett]

Was looking at that earlier.
Like the 50D Im going to be sorely tempted. Still months I think before I need to decide so thankfully have time to digest it and see images from guinea pigs.

Both though have appealing features.
the 5D for FF or the 50D for 1.6 crop (wildlife). Either when paired with my 1D will give me options for mounting a second lens and provide different types of pics as well as serve as a backup.

[John Bennett]

Thanks guys.
Very nice images Eric, and yeah it does make sense.

I was on a shoot yesterday with the assoc. editor and the Art Director for the magazine I’m doing stuff for. We actually discussed the problem of accurately rendering hunter orange. His advice as not to try and correct it. Aside from aforementioned difficulties ( desaturating leading towards yellows, etc,etc) apparently theres another common problem getting it print accurately. Most of that I didn’t understand, something about technical terms like “line something or other”, doodads and gizmos 🙂

What I took from it and how I interpreted it was. Even if I corrected it to be spot on in my files, it still ,ay not tansfer to print as well. Best to leave it as shot and let them deal with it.
************

Very astute eyes Ben.
I cant recall specifics but in my first batch, one step I “tried” was “cooling a couple images”.  How much I can’t recal, maybe 100 or 150 points. Most images had Kelvin values of between 5600 and 5800 out of the box. So I would have cooled a couple down to around 5400. It is the same hunter and same Vizsla(sp?) and now that you’ve pointed it out, there is an obvious difference in its coat that goes beyond the difference in exposures.

Im 90% sure that first image was one such attempt. You can see it in the sky actually. Its not the grey of an overcast day ( theres a very subtle, light touch of Grad ND in it as well).

Thanks and love your work to. I think I still have a long ways to go before I can control/master light the way you guys can. I’m still larning this stuff.

[John Bennett]

Nice Jay.
Im not a big fan of HDRs, migth have preferred to see the 2nd as is. Like the composition and placement of the isle in the last.

[John Bennett]

Hi Bill, thanks for the honesty. Sorry to hear Ike displaced you, hope everything ok and your back soon.

The first image by far had the most corrective work done, possibly because its underexposed. The 2nd batch hardly any, especially with regards to colour correction. I sort of went with Erics advice and didnt pay much attention to how the Oranges came out, it is supposed to be bright and gaudy. Concenrated on everything else .

The thing possibly to keep in mind is as I said. In most images the vest are clipped ( the Red channel in the RGB). The only way I know of too correct that “in camera” is too underexpose every image by 1/3 to 2/3rds. Great for the Orange vest, not so great for the rest for the image. I’ve never really came across this type of exposure/colour problem before. The exception might be male northern cardinals. The solution for them is to desaturate a bit. I tried that in the 1st batch but found it started pushing them towards yellow. I think if I want to “correct” the Orange Johns suggestion might be the one, but as with Erics maybe I shouldnt try.

With regards to calibration. How do other colours/skin tones look? They (whites, skin tones, grass and trees) look pretty much dead on to me but now Im curious.

Also keep in mind different guys vest were of different material or age, (fade). Look at this guys, back and front, hat, his dogs collar and the other persons sleeve. There 4 distinct shades of Orange. This image is almost right out of the box other than a contrast adjustment.

So Im wondering if its a differnce in our monitors, or as above that few vest were that deeper orange, or if its a result of the clipping in te RGBs

[John Bennett]

Thanks guys. Did more, I’m happier with these.
Heres a few of my favorites.

[imghttp://jben.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p607894387-3.jpg][/img]

Look closely…do you see it?

It’s about to catch a load.

Possibly my fav from the day

If your curious the gallery is here
http://jben.zenfolio.com/p468487807

[John Bennett]

Thanks John.

Mostly the saturation, but in a few when the sun did peek through the tones as well. The best I can equate it to is if you’ve ever shot Male Northern Cardinals you almost always end up desaturating the reds a bit.

If I leave them as is, they are clipped and over saturated (atleast to my eyes). So I triedd desaturating a bit but then it looks washed and approaching yellow (to my eyes anyways).

I tried cooling a couple images but didnt like what that was doing globally, so left most where they were shot which was between 5,600 and 5,800.

You could always use your wand tool, select the blaze only, and then use image>adjustments>selective color to get the tones you’re looking for

Thanks ! that might be the ticket

[John Bennett]

For myself Will the scientific aspect of entomology and Fly fishing can be at times information overload. Which for lack of better words leads to a disconnect.

Its not that I don’t appreciate or admire those who can and do. It’s just not for me. So to anwer your question and with regards to what kind of images I like…It’s artistic ones of the flies and bugs I use. Images that show them off and images that show them in their elements.

Don’t know if you want to take this step but maybe you can contact or look at some works by Dr. Ian Martin. He’s an Entomologist that lives on the Grand and has written alot about it, including a successful book. Fly fishing the Gradn River. Maybe he’d be willing to share some insight.
http://www.flyfisherman.com/westerncanada/grandriver/index.html
http://www.grandrivertroutfitters.com/Riverinfo/mainrivermapsbooks.htm

He is a very big part of the conservation group
“Friends of the Grand River”http://www.friendsofthegrandriver.com/
you might be able to contact him through them for some insight.
J

[John Bennett]

imo only.

Your better off building your collection of lenses first anyways. In the process you’ll learn more about photography and how to get the most out of the xsi. Then when the xsi starts to hold you back from growing you can upgrade to another body. If you upgrade now, thats money spent on a body and your still wanting/needing/lusting after lenses you dont have yet.

Upgading bodies is inevitable.
Glass if you take care of it will last a lifetime.

[John Bennett]

Uploaded the raw file from few of these images. Nothings been done to the raw other than resize and if I remembered a little output sharpening. The post adjustments were mentioend above but are predominantly grad nd or split nd and in a couple a second filter effect (skylight or polarisation)

RAW

Post

RAW

Post

Raw

Post

RAW

Post

[John Bennett]

Its amazing when you look back and realise it wasnt really all that long ago. Occasionally I look through some old issues of magazines and not what was being then vs whats printed now.

[John Bennett]

Hi John, thanks.
yeah these are all with NIK Softawares filters that are available in “Colour Effects Pro” 3.0.

There are 3 versions. Standard, select and complete. The complete version has 52 filters. Select has 35 and standard has 20 ( i think). Of those I mainly use about 5 and so bought the “select” version. A complete list of filter effects as well as whats available in each is here
http://www.niksoftware.com/colorefexpro/usa/entry.php?view=intro/cep3_filters.shtml

The main thing though, whether its NIK, or Lightroom 2 is that atleast to me, being able to easily apply,

[John Bennett]

Eric.
My “host” is down for maintenance for part of today, not sure when images will be available again, so samples I can’t provide atm..can do so later and I might be able to work on a couple shots tonight or tomorrow night when I get home so I can show a couple before/after images.

I can say that I really like NIKs software. You can accomplish the same in PS but its laborious envolvong selections, layers, mask..basically PS status quo. Nik does that for you.

I bought the “standard” edition for USD 160.00. Thats less than the cost of a Sing Ray Grad ND. For that I get 35 “filters”.  In truth I really only use 3 or 5 of them.
Graduated filters
Graduated ND filters
Skylight ( a warming filter)
Contrast

Occasionally I play with some other “artistist” type ones like classic vignetting, vignette blur, midnight etc.

As mentioned..for me anyways, there are lots of occassions where employing a mechanical filter (the real thing) just isn’t very pratical.
The ability to produce an extremely similiar effect in post is invaluable.
theres just no way I could use a real Grad ND or split filter to control backgorund sky (hold it back) *and* be capturing motion..swinging the camera as in the case with the boats zipping by at 70mph and me in a boat that was rocking in 2 foot wake. If your horizon line changes at all during the process of recording the images, your RAW file is fooked, not to mention blending or vertical shift.

In reality I beleive that doing it right at source (using the proper filter) is the better way to go, but there are times when doing it in post is better as well. As always my personal preference with regards to “PP” is that “less is more”. Both literally and figuretively. Meaning; “subtle” adjustments or “restraint” in the strength of the adjustment can have a dramatic impact on the final output without overpowering it.

By all accounts LR 2 is now offering some GRAD ND filter effects. If your a Lightroom fan or were considering it for its data management power then I might be all over it now just for those. They don’t have to be the best Grad filters, just the fact that they are available (and I would expect them to be similiar to Niks)  is very valuable.

Consider the cost of Lightroom
Consider the cost of a Conkin holder + a 2 stop ND + a GRAD ND + a Split Tone Filter.

I’ll post some samples when my host is back online and see about doing a couple before/after

[John Bennett]

Gladly Zach, although I’m using NIK softwares “Colour effects Pro” for them, but I imagine the process is very similiar.

http://www.niksoftware.com/colorefexpro/usa/entry.php?

[Author]

Posts