An invitation to dust off your precious (or not so precious) glass and head out to make some photographs: the real reason for the existence of all our lenses.
Here are the guidelines:
Images with a removable adapter between lens and camera
Images with the lens mount permanently modified to fit a different camera
Images with the lens held by hand without an adapter (freelensing)
Including metadata (camera, lens, aperture, shutter speed) is encouraged but not required.
Comments are encouraged, but please keep them friendly and constructive.
I was chatting to another birder, when he slowly pointed behind me. I turned around to see this Bewick’s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii) busy making a nest in this hollow post.
Canon M50 Mark II with Canon EF to EF-M adaptor, Kenko TELEPLUS-HD 1.4x DGX extender, and Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM at 350 mm (cropped to 480 mm), f/8, 1/500 second, and ISO 4000.
I wasn't aware of the fact that Tamron was formerly named Taisei Kogaku before I got this lens. So it seems to be from 1970 or earlier... That being said, my lens isn't even labeled, so I'm just assuming it's one of those Micro-Tamrons... It works quite well. Here are two additional shots:
This image highlights a downside to a feature on my adapters. There is a ring that turns to open or close the aperture and it's very easy to bump it and accidentally open the diaphragm. This image should have been at f/4 but I hit the ring with my fingers and at f/1.4 it is too soft and glowy.
Very beautiful shots! 👍 Love the colors and light. I don‘t have any adapters like that, however there are many other weak spots to my adaptions… need to take care of that finally.
Thank you. I have to say though that it is hard to imagine there are any flaws in your imaging chain. Your compositions and execution are simply spectacular and I'm always inspired by the images you make. In fact, reading this thread just before heading out for our walk today inspired me to only take the Canon 50 1.4 and try to work on simplicity in presentation. These types of images are far from my usual and a bit of a challenge. But it's good to put some pressure on the boundaries of our comfort zone I guess.
Thank you very much - that's really kind! There are many flaws though (not speaking of the ideas, which regularly don't quite turn out how I've imagined them). I've already posted it a couple of times, but here's one adapter combination I've actually used once:
Don't worry, it's easy to use manual lenses! by simple.joy, on Flickr
While the results were okay, you can be sure there are downsides to such an approach! 😅
This is very beautiful! Great use of your Canon FD 50 mm f/1.4. The only one I've got is the 50 mm f/3.5 Macro. Someone I know on flickr takes excellent shots with that one though. There really seem to be quite a few gems among that line of Canon lenses...
Out portrait location scouting yesterday, looking for a natural setting with some depth to it. Sadly had to use myself for working out composition. 50mm was a really good focal length for this composition so I had a chance to use my Canon again. I see a lot of posts about how people really don't like the 50mm focal length but I find it to be exactly correct when the composition calls for the angle of view of a 50mm.
Looks great! I really like the composition - seems to work very well. I'm curious why you would shoot portraits like that at f/4 though - my gut feeling (I'm not a portrait photographer, mind you!) would tell me to go for f/2 or f/2.8, if the lens is capable of delivering nice looking results at that... Your Canon FD 50 mm f/1.4 would probably do fine at that. Is including the environment in some detail important to you or is f/4 necessary to get a full body in focus? Would really appreciate your thoughts on that.
Thank you.
This image is just a study. I'll shoot the final stitched with my 135mm at f4 which would be about the equivalent of f2.0 with a 50. The canon is much sharper at f4 and I wasn't really concerned about controlling DOF at this time. Really just trying to get a good capture so I could be sure not to miss anything.
I've also never shot a portrait composition like this so not sure if I want less DOF or not. I'll probably have to shoot it a few different ways to see what works best. Also, all of my portraits are done in B&W so this is another departure.
Many thanks for the explanation. That sounds like a good plan (with the 135 mm). I've recently shot a couple of portraits with an adapted projection lens and while it certainly has its limits with 90 mm and a fixed aperture of f/2.4 it worked okay. A 135 mm lens might have been preferable though as there was enough space. I'm really into the idea of trying to shoot some tilted portraits once, but it seems like a big challenge for someone who very rarely shoots any portraits anyway...
Interesting that you prefer B&W - portraits are about the only thing where I regularly prefer B&W as well.
If you are interested, you can view my B&W Stitched Portraits here to add some context. All these portraits were taken as a series of 9 frames (3 rows x 3 columns) and stitched in post. Why they were taken that way is simply because I like to work that way. I get the benefit of more controlled DOF with a longer lens coupled with more perceived sharpness from downsizing the images from large captures.
There is an interesting side effect of photographing people this way. It's such a slow process that people relax and start to forget they are being photographed. I usually just tell them I'm setting up and configuring and they stop thinking about posing and then I tell them it's all done.
Now it's your turn. There are two things about your macro images that are really striking. The first is your indisputable technical command. It would be so rewarding to have you walk us through your methods and processes. The second is your compositions. Always so striking and unique. The two combined make for truly remarkable photographs. We can all learn more techinical skills but composition and artistic vision are much more difficult.
Wow - excellent shots on your website! I feel like I've once heard about a technique like that, but never seen it in action. You certainly use it very well with your portraits. For my feeling you've absolutely mastered showing people + the important aspects of their environment in an effective and artistic way and without distracting from the person by showing too much detail around them. Wonderful - I'm sure the ones you photograph are happy with that!
Thank you very much! I often call myself a photographic experimenter first and foremost, because I have little in terms of definitive lighting setups or pre-made styles in terms of background, props etc! So I'm not sure how much "technical command" I really have... 😅 However when I see something I like, I'm pretty sure about it, which helps a lot in getting some order into my chaotic approach. I move the lights around a little bit, move something here and there, often exchange the lens (unless I'm trying to test a particular one) and when I see something I find okay, I'll just go with that.
So, while I can't give a lot of insights into my general approach, if you have any questions about a particular image, feel free to ask - I'm always happy to explain what I did, as far as I can recall it!
Very fine portraits! Beautiful lighting. Beautiful compositions.
I'm interested in how do you shoot and stitch those photos.
I'm doing stitched landscapes, most often one row, 3 shots, but sometimes two or three rows of 3 shots.
I take the photos with Cambo Actus shifting the rear standard between shots and stitch them in Gimp "manually".
Because I use smaller apertures than you ( f/8 - f/16 usually), I have so much sharp or almost sharp moving leaves and branches in picture that stitching 9 shots together becomes too hard work.
No questions about any specific image because they all share something special. I can't expect you to share or explain your aesthetic sense because that is something we all just have to develop on our own. But I can ask about the technical bits. For example, you showed a picture of one set up with lots of adapters and a bellows. Are you focus stacking? And if you are, are you moving the focus point manually? Camera, lens or the whole thing? I'm really quite enamored with your compositions and the seemingly effortless transitions from sharp to soft. I just don't feel like I've seen anything like them.
I don't want to suggest that your images are simply the result of applying technical procedures. They are so much more and its doubtful I'll ever attempt anything like them. I'm just always thirsty for knowledge and the technical bits are all I can easily absorb.
