Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Camera Gear

  • Camera List
  • Lens List
    100-400, 55mm micro nikkor, 18-55 kit lens

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. morpheme


    I'm quite impressed with today's teens. Lots more photos from today's march on my Flickr stream - https://flic.kr/s/aHsmhAAMap
  2. Lol - it's the amazing levitating helicopter... you are a magician
  3. Shaking things up a bit and stitching images one on top of the other rather than making a panorama , but seriously I kept framing and reframing and not getting exactly what I wanted and it took some time for it to occur to me that it's just as easy to stitch two images into a squarish image as it is to make a pano.
  4. I think I still have a roll film holder for a Graflex somewhere (or maybe it's for the Bush Pressman that I'm pretty sure I still have somewhere)... My Graflex was a Speed Graphic though - it was actually made to be handheld and used for news/sports and the like - think Weegee. The camera in the story looked even older and bigger. I was thinking the photos might be polaroid negatives - I remember them sometimes having all sorts of interesting artifacts, but taking a look around they still don't look as funky and grainy as some of the photos in the story. Smeary - blurry at the edges you might expect with such an old camera, but grainy - not really. The negatives are so big. All I can think it that VeeJay must be right and he's pushing the crap out of the film - and probably cropping a lot too.
  5. Lol - the first thing I thought was that he must have a crap lens and/or be using super fast film and cropping a great deal, because a Graflex should be capable of much better.... that looks only a little better than the quality I was getting when I replaced the lens on my old Graflex with a pinhole (and at that it had a warped focusing rail - and I eventually parted it out on Ebay for a relatively good profit... )
  6. morpheme

    Deer cabbage

    my go to macro a manual focus, vintage 55mm micro nikkor - it's got some nice smooth blur
  7. why just Canon? - manual adapters are cheap.. I think my FujiX to Nikon one was less than $3... It basically lives on the lens I bought it for (an 80's vintage 55 micro nikkor that is tack sharp and only cost me $50). Find some excellent old glass and get the adapter you need for it.
  8. Yeah - this would never work with a quick or busy insect - ants, bees, darkling beetles, jumping spiders - things that just never quit moving aren't viable subjects, even working with a hand held camera
  9. morpheme


    Very nice - it's a Tiger Swallowtail though - monarch butterflies are orange
  10. They were all taken with my 1980's vintage Nikon 55mm macro. Aperture... since I have a dumb (non-electronic) nikon to X adapter, I'm afraid that information doesn't get recorded.. they all say F0.. and I've never been in the habit of writing down my exposure details. I'm sure it varies with the lighting conditions - as much depth as I could get for the light. I've never worried much about losing clarity by using the "wrong" f-stop with this lens as it is described as "...hellaciously sharp at every aperture and distance", though I will admit I do try to avoid f32 just out of practice as usually the far end of a lens does lose some definition - though it's not like I need to worry too much - lighting conditions that would even allow me to shoot at an f stop that high are rare.. f 8-11 or so is usually as high as I can get in the full sun and wider open is certainly more common, when hand holding and using a shutter speed no lower than 1/125th - unless I can really brace well, I can't hand hold a macro shot without obvious camera shake under that and often enough I'm so contorted or stretched to get to where the critter is that I need 1/250th. I've never tried using burst mode - truth be told it makes me startle and jerk the camera... I might be better off getting used to it and using it with birds and the like though. For these tiny things, I don't know, but can't imagine that it would work all that great - I'm usually visually fine tuning the focus as I go to be sure I get all of the features I really want sharp in good focus in at least one frame- legs, antenna, eyes. The DOF is generally very, very shallow in each individual image. If you left it to chance by just moving the camera a bit during a burst, I can't see that it would much more than very lucky to get the right "slices". One reason I don't use a rail system - most of my images are made on long hikes 10-16 miles in a day, often with a good amount of elevation gain and usually in pretty remote areas - I don't necessarily go out looking for anything in particular. I go out to walk and I record what I find. I chose an X camera in the first place to keep my gear weight down.. (being about 1/3rd of the weight of my Nikon gear..) My backpack and gear without water weighs in at 18lbs, my lightweight tripod that I don't always carry (I always have a Joby Gorilla pod - but it's only a foot tall and so limited to low subjects) adds 3 more, and water around 3 more, until I've drunk it at least.. so I'm already up to 24lbs.. which may not sound extreme, but I'm only 5' tall and weigh not much over 100 lbs... so I'm about at my gear carrying tolerance limit - usually the longer and more strenuous the hike the less camera gear (and more survival gear...) goes in the pack too. I don't know that not using a tripod (for me at least) means more adjustments in post - usually the things that I find I am fine tuning are not because of my movement, but because the subject has shifted a leg or a antenna or perhaps a bit of stem or grass has moved in the breeze - this would all happen regardless of having the camera in a fixed position. I does mean that in the end I get less depth than I would with 10's or 100's of images, but I doubt most of the subjects that I've used this technique on would have stayed put long enough to do that anyway...
  11. Since my little weevil has generated some interest I thought I'd start a topic and show some other examples of handheld stacking. My tips - your subject does have to be relatively cooperative - at least enough to stay pretty still for 5 or 6 to a dozen shots. You don't have to use every image you shoot in your stack and it's always better to have more than less, so over shoot rather than undershoot. The technique you use will vary with the equipment you are using - but your stacking software shouldn't care. If you use a tripod you'll have to readjust your focus to create your images. Handheld - move the camera. Tripod with a rail - move the camera. If you hand hold try to be as steady has possible it will work out best if you only move in one plane- tiny variations up/down side/side won't hurt you too badly, but changes in perspective (tilting the camera) will make for some strange artifacts. Post processing - I've only used Photoshop for this, so can't comment on other software packages. Put your images into layers in a single file - choose the layers you want to blend. In the "edit" menu use the "auto-align layers" function then "auto-blend layers" (choosing stacking in the options) Be prepared to go in and do some hand adjustments to the masking - and save your stack file as invariably (as you'll see below) you'll find some little glitch you missed the first time through. I'll try to answer any other questions that you might have. This crane fly was one of the first stacks that I tried. There are some spots on the legs on the that I definitely could have adjusted better.. The other two are fairly old - so I'd have to go onto my backup hard drive to dig up the info on how many shots I took to make the stack, but this one is pretty recent. There are 5 shots in the final stack and 3 I didn't use. I can recall taking a bit of time to correct the antenna though looking at it now, I can totally see a few glitchy bits in the grass I could use to fix.
  12. Lol- it's amazing how forgiving digital can be... but that does sound haphazard. Perhaps he meant collage and not composite? I will say - while you *can* do this without mounting the camera on a tripod, you do need a steady hand and an idea of the concept... just snapping away won't yield good results unless you are really lucky...
  • Create New...