[schnee]

Extension tubes look unappealingly expensive, do they do anything other that just hold the lens out further?

They are what they purport to be: “tubes”. No lens or anything else in the optical path. The expense comes from the mount and the electronics to pass autofocus info. And the precision manufacturing – for tubes, 25mm is a bit different than 26mm. You could try to make one from a toilet paper role.

Some people claim tubes give a better image than a closeup lens. Me, I’m not so sure, but I’ve never done a direct comparison. The tube modifies the focal plane which the lens is optimized to use. A well-made closeup lens (two or more elements, multicoated, &c) also modifies the focal plane. Tomato, tomato, I expect.

[schnee]

Three words: practice, practice, practice. And when you are bored with those three (you’re never really “done”), then here’s three more: exposure, exposure, exposure. Journal both – why did make a particular photograph (what caught your eye, why that composition) and what exposure did you set? As mentioned, a little note pad is perfect for this, and likely fits into your camera bag.

I also hooked up with a local educational group headed by a topnotch photographer. It is a neat bunch of people and really helped me improve. Everyone there does something better than anyone else (except this one guy – he’s just really really good at everything). Its nice to have constant reminders that I still have a bunch to learn and people I can learn it from.

Farktography helps with that constant reminder aspect as well.

(oh, and that one guy? he shoots DSLRs. did a little booklet with maybe 25 images in it and when he was asked how many photos he took to assemble the book, he replied, rather humbly, “about 40,000”)

[schnee]

I had forgotten about the cropping to make the picture you want, sort of thing, but I have done it to get rid of bystanders, objects not needed in the shot, that was in the way. That sort of thing.

I have been a professional photographer, so I put my pictures together with as much precision as possible. I have been taking pictures for 25 years. When I found photoshop a few years ago, I was thrilled because of the time it saved, plus new and neat features. So, that is all I was saying about that and creativity. I understand that we want it to be a photography deal. I would agree with that as well and am well able to produce a nice picture. I have tons to share. =)

monkeypants, what you said about if I could do it with film, it would be ok? Well, I have some neat filters from the 80s (Cokin filters), one of which is cut glass, that make a multiple subject effect, and I have one where you can put people or other subjects in the picture several times, in different places in the picture, by holding down the winder button, and advancing the film. Now it can be done with photoshop. But here, would that be acceptable for submission? Film effects vs. photoshop.

Just wondering, because I like to be respectful of people’s site rules. =)

Hi Tibbs! Pleased to meet you. I look forward to you sharing your experience with the group; one of our “missions” is to learn from each other.

Regarding what can be done in camera and in PhotoShop, Farktography is a photography contest, not a photo manipulation contest. As you point out, PhotoShop allows people to more easily do many things that could be done with multiple exposures and fancy filters. And it allows folks to take an image much farther (or, at least, much farther much easier) than in a wet darkroom. It is a bit of a fuzzy line, the distinction between “in camera” and “in computer”, but Farktography is much more forgiving of “in camera” techniques than digital ones, even if they amount to the same end.

So, to answer your question, if you did all you suggest in camera, I’d say that is within the rules, but if you did it in PhotoShop, well, that would violate the rules. I want to see what sort of a photographer you are, not what sort of a digital artist you are. And yes, these days, that’s getting to be a fuzzy distinction.

[schnee]

batteries (and film) in pockets until needed. Let lenses acclimate (if you take a lens from the warmth of a truck into the cold outside, it will fog).

gloves with a finger cut out, but save that finger and use it as a removable sleeve. Protect yourself – hat, dress in layers, don’t forget good socks and boots.

/ah, what do I know, I’m in Texas…

[schnee]

I had an idea, but I couldn’t get it past Mrs. Schnee (the voice of sanity and decency in my household).

Awesome job everyone. And by “everyone” I mean “all you sicko freaks”.

/would-be inspiration

[schnee]

On the Internet, everyone is famous to 15 people

I met ten of my peeps through Farktography.net! Thanks Farktography.net!

[schnee]

Finally, a legitimate use for the ethnic Barbie my wife brought home from India. Now if I can just figure out how to recreate a tsunami in my bathtub.

My definition of “legitimate” does not include taking a bath with Barbie… but whatever floats your…well…boat.

[schnee]

Day’s about 1/2 done and operationally, we’re doing pretty well. 97 Farktographers entered 219 photos and we’ve gotten over 1800 votes. Too early to tell if we’ve reversed a trend, but at least we bucked it.

Yea! for Sam_I_Am. Tomorrow, green eggs and ham for everyone!

[schnee]

Only mgbeach‘s showed up in the Scarlet R.

Ouch? Ain’t perfect yet, and honestly, I’ve sort of lost my muse when it comes to the FSM. It’ll come back, but right now, development is on hiatus.

[schnee]

Thanks. But you know what? The photos that Lord Ezekiel took – those are the ones I really wanted to take but was inspired too late to make’em.

[schnee]

Wow, I think that was the slowest loading contest page I’ve seen. And that’s a good thing.

I don’t know if both mine were stock. The river was recent stock, but the gauze…I was initially inspired by something else, but didn’t get around to making the photograph it until after I thought “hey, this will work for H2O”.

[schnee]

I should be in this week. I’m not sure when I’ll get a chance to post, but I should be in.

[schnee]

My body is the EOS 7e (film).

I have the 24-85 f3.5-f4.5 that mikemikeb mentioned and the 70-200mm F4 L lens and I’m quite happy with both (although the 24-85 just showed some vignetting that I’d never noticed before (b/c it didn’t seem to be there)).

The L lens is my magic lens – those optics really are nice, but I find that the 24-85 is on the body more. The range is more usable for the type of photography I find myself doing these days. 200mm is probably a little short for animal photography but with the 1.6 factor, it becomes a 320 which is better.

The thing about both of these lenses is that they have the same filter diameter (67mm). That means I can use the same filters on both of them if I want.

[schnee]

Curious – ’69 to ’78? must have been a very different place. My house was built in ’68 (I live a mile south of Zilker Park). If you’re ever back, let me know and we’ll get a beer or something.

[schnee]

thanks, brings back fond memories of wandering the hill country and then time in the darkroom.

When were you in the Hill Country? I’m there right now.

[Author]

Posts