Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

Last year I bought a macro tube for my Oly and never used it for one
reason or another. Being bored today, I went out and took some shots
with it.

All the images are as shot - the only "edit" was a conversion to .jpg
so it could be viewed by others. All were shot in ORF (raw). If
anybody wants the RAW files to play around with, let me know and I'll
up load the RAW file for download.

This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the meter, ISO,
shutter speed and what ever else. It would have been a good one.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

This was just an experiment to get used to the macro tube.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...7_edited-1.jpg

I was quite surprized at the detail you can get.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

This is one of those "baffling" images with some interesting side
effects from the ice that I didn't anticipate. It's a very different
image.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...9_edited-1.jpg

There is a considerable amount of noise in this image which I can't
explain - it should not have happened given how I set it up.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...4_edited-1.jpg

This is the same image (taken as a bracket) and not retouched. Go
figure.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

Just messing around.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...6_edited-1.jpg

I have to get used to a whole different approach to depth of field
with the macro tube. This is a good image, the idea was good, but the
execution leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...3_edited-1.jpg

Serendipity - I really like this image - anybody guess why?

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

The macro tube tends to work differently even with the same settings,
distance and subject. Weird.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...1_edited-1.jpg

I'm slowly getting used to the tube. I have to do a little more
reading on the subject tonight and head out tomorrow for more images.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...1_edited-1.jpg

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...


Serendipity - I really like this image - anybody guess why?

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

I can, but no way would I post it here.

Eisboch

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:09:35 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .


Serendipity - I really like this image - anybody guess why?

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

I can, but no way would I post it here.

~~snerk~~

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Dec 11, 4:50 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
Last year I bought a macro tube for my Oly and never used it for one
reason or another. Being bored today, I went out and took some shots
with it.

All the images are as shot - the only "edit" was a conversion to .jpg
so it could be viewed by others. All were shot in ORF (raw). If
anybody wants the RAW files to play around with, let me know and I'll
up load the RAW file for download.

This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the meter, ISO,
shutter speed and what ever else. It would have been a good one.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

This was just an experiment to get used to the macro tube.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...7_edited-1.jpg

I was quite surprized at the detail you can get.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

This is one of those "baffling" images with some interesting side
effects from the ice that I didn't anticipate. It's a very different
image.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...9_edited-1.jpg

There is a considerable amount of noise in this image which I can't
explain - it should not have happened given how I set it up.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...4_edited-1.jpg

This is the same image (taken as a bracket) and not retouched. Go
figure.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

Just messing around.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...6_edited-1.jpg

I have to get used to a whole different approach to depth of field
with the macro tube. This is a good image, the idea was good, but the
execution leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...3_edited-1.jpg

Serendipity - I really like this image - anybody guess why?

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

The macro tube tends to work differently even with the same settings,
distance and subject. Weird.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...1_edited-1.jpg

I'm slowly getting used to the tube. I have to do a little more
reading on the subject tonight and head out tomorrow for more images.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...1_edited-1.jpg

Tripod, whisker??

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
Last year I bought a macro tube for my Oly and never used it for one
reason or another. Being bored today, I went out and took some shots
with it.


If you ever buy a macro lens, we'll never see you here again. Very addictive
toy.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in article
...
Last year I bought a macro tube for my Oly and never used it for one
reason or another. Being bored today, I went out and took some shots
with it.

All the images are as shot - the only "edit" was a conversion to .jpg
so it could be viewed by others. All were shot in ORF (raw). If
anybody wants the RAW files to play around with, let me know and I'll
up load the RAW file for download.

This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the meter, ISO,
shutter speed and what ever else. It would have been a good one.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

This was just an experiment to get used to the macro tube.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...7_edited-1.jpg

I was quite surprized at the detail you can get.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

This is one of those "baffling" images with some interesting side
effects from the ice that I didn't anticipate. It's a very different
image.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...9_edited-1.jpg

There is a considerable amount of noise in this image which I can't
explain - it should not have happened given how I set it up.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...4_edited-1.jpg

This is the same image (taken as a bracket) and not retouched. Go
figure.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

Just messing around.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...6_edited-1.jpg

I have to get used to a whole different approach to depth of field
with the macro tube. This is a good image, the idea was good, but the
execution leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...3_edited-1.jpg

Serendipity - I really like this image - anybody guess why?

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

The macro tube tends to work differently even with the same settings,
distance and subject. Weird.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...1_edited-1.jpg

I'm slowly getting used to the tube. I have to do a little more
reading on the subject tonight and head out tomorrow for more images.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...1_edited-1.jpg


Bandwidth..Bandwidth !!! tooooooooooooooo large! Can't see...........;-(

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Last year I bought a macro tube for my Oly and never used it for one
reason or another. Being bored today, I went out and took some shots
with it.

All the images are as shot - the only "edit" was a conversion to .jpg
so it could be viewed by others. All were shot in ORF (raw). If
anybody wants the RAW files to play around with, let me know and I'll
up load the RAW file for download.

This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the meter, ISO,
shutter speed and what ever else. It would have been a good one.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

This was just an experiment to get used to the macro tube.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...7_edited-1.jpg

I was quite surprized at the detail you can get.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

This is one of those "baffling" images with some interesting side
effects from the ice that I didn't anticipate. It's a very different
image.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...9_edited-1.jpg

There is a considerable amount of noise in this image which I can't
explain - it should not have happened given how I set it up.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...4_edited-1.jpg

This is the same image (taken as a bracket) and not retouched. Go
figure.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

Just messing around.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...6_edited-1.jpg

I have to get used to a whole different approach to depth of field
with the macro tube. This is a good image, the idea was good, but the
execution leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...3_edited-1.jpg

Serendipity - I really like this image - anybody guess why?

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

The macro tube tends to work differently even with the same settings,
distance and subject. Weird.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...1_edited-1.jpg

I'm slowly getting used to the tube. I have to do a little more
reading on the subject tonight and head out tomorrow for more images.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...1_edited-1.jpg

Very nice. I had no idea a macro tube would look this nice. I am not
sure how it is with a macro tube, but what I have found with a Macro
lens is to get the sharpest image, you really need to manually focus and
use a tripod. The DOF is so shallow that the body moving the smallest
amount will blur your image.

What Oly do you own?

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Last year I bought a macro tube for my Oly and never used it for one
reason or another. Being bored today, I went out and took some shots
with it.

All the images are as shot - the only "edit" was a conversion to .jpg
so it could be viewed by others. All were shot in ORF (raw). If
anybody wants the RAW files to play around with, let me know and I'll
up load the RAW file for download.

This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the meter, ISO,
shutter speed and what ever else. It would have been a good one.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

This was just an experiment to get used to the macro tube.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...7_edited-1.jpg

I was quite surprized at the detail you can get.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

This is one of those "baffling" images with some interesting side
effects from the ice that I didn't anticipate. It's a very different
image.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...9_edited-1.jpg

There is a considerable amount of noise in this image which I can't
explain - it should not have happened given how I set it up.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...4_edited-1.jpg

This is the same image (taken as a bracket) and not retouched. Go
figure.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

Just messing around.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...6_edited-1.jpg

I have to get used to a whole different approach to depth of field
with the macro tube. This is a good image, the idea was good, but the
execution leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...3_edited-1.jpg

Serendipity - I really like this image - anybody guess why?

Of course, you like cherries.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
Last year I bought a macro tube for my Oly and never used it for one
reason or another. Being bored today, I went out and took some shots
with it.


Add something like this to your list of stuff to weigh down the house with:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/9...Flashes.htm l

Hey...it's not my money. :-)

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:18:33 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Last year I bought a macro tube for my Oly and never used it for one
reason or another. Being bored today, I went out and took some shots
with it.

All the images are as shot - the only "edit" was a conversion to .jpg
so it could be viewed by others. All were shot in ORF (raw). If
anybody wants the RAW files to play around with, let me know and I'll
up load the RAW file for download.

This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the meter, ISO,
shutter speed and what ever else. It would have been a good one.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

This was just an experiment to get used to the macro tube.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...7_edited-1.jpg

I was quite surprized at the detail you can get.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

This is one of those "baffling" images with some interesting side
effects from the ice that I didn't anticipate. It's a very different
image.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...9_edited-1.jpg

There is a considerable amount of noise in this image which I can't
explain - it should not have happened given how I set it up.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...4_edited-1.jpg

This is the same image (taken as a bracket) and not retouched. Go
figure.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

Just messing around.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...6_edited-1.jpg

I have to get used to a whole different approach to depth of field
with the macro tube. This is a good image, the idea was good, but the
execution leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...3_edited-1.jpg

Serendipity - I really like this image - anybody guess why?

Of course, you like cherries.


Reggie, today I took the Nikon 18-200 VR back to the store. They're going
to send it to Nikon to get checked out. They also think there may be
something wrong with the autofocusing. I'll let you know what they say.
--
John H

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:18:33 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Last year I bought a macro tube for my Oly and never used it for one
reason or another. Being bored today, I went out and took some shots
with it.

All the images are as shot - the only "edit" was a conversion to .jpg
so it could be viewed by others. All were shot in ORF (raw). If
anybody wants the RAW files to play around with, let me know and I'll
up load the RAW file for download.

This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the meter, ISO,
shutter speed and what ever else. It would have been a good one.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

This was just an experiment to get used to the macro tube.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...7_edited-1.jpg

I was quite surprized at the detail you can get.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

This is one of those "baffling" images with some interesting side
effects from the ice that I didn't anticipate. It's a very different
image.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...9_edited-1.jpg

There is a considerable amount of noise in this image which I can't
explain - it should not have happened given how I set it up.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...4_edited-1.jpg

This is the same image (taken as a bracket) and not retouched. Go
figure.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

Just messing around.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...6_edited-1.jpg

I have to get used to a whole different approach to depth of field
with the macro tube. This is a good image, the idea was good, but the
execution leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...3_edited-1.jpg

Serendipity - I really like this image - anybody guess why?

Of course, you like cherries.


Reggie, today I took the Nikon 18-200 VR back to the store. They're going
to send it to Nikon to get checked out. They also think there may be
something wrong with the autofocusing. I'll let you know what they say.
--
John H


It's a zoom lens. That's what's wrong with it. Cut loose with some more cash
and buy 2-3 lenses suited to their proper purposes, you piker.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:18:33 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Last year I bought a macro tube for my Oly and never used it for one
reason or another. Being bored today, I went out and took some shots
with it.

All the images are as shot - the only "edit" was a conversion to .jpg
so it could be viewed by others. All were shot in ORF (raw). If
anybody wants the RAW files to play around with, let me know and I'll
up load the RAW file for download.

This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the meter, ISO,
shutter speed and what ever else. It would have been a good one.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

This was just an experiment to get used to the macro tube.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...7_edited-1.jpg

I was quite surprized at the detail you can get.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

This is one of those "baffling" images with some interesting side
effects from the ice that I didn't anticipate. It's a very different
image.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...9_edited-1.jpg

There is a considerable amount of noise in this image which I can't
explain - it should not have happened given how I set it up.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...4_edited-1.jpg

This is the same image (taken as a bracket) and not retouched. Go
figure.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

Just messing around.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...6_edited-1.jpg

I have to get used to a whole different approach to depth of field
with the macro tube. This is a good image, the idea was good, but the
execution leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...3_edited-1.jpg

Serendipity - I really like this image - anybody guess why?
Of course, you like cherries.


Reggie, today I took the Nikon 18-200 VR back to the store. They're going
to send it to Nikon to get checked out. They also think there may be
something wrong with the autofocusing. I'll let you know what they say.

I sent me back while it was in warrenty and had them set it to specs. I
am very pleased with it.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:31:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:18:33 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Last year I bought a macro tube for my Oly and never used it for one
reason or another. Being bored today, I went out and took some shots
with it.

All the images are as shot - the only "edit" was a conversion to .jpg
so it could be viewed by others. All were shot in ORF (raw). If
anybody wants the RAW files to play around with, let me know and I'll
up load the RAW file for download.

This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the meter, ISO,
shutter speed and what ever else. It would have been a good one.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

This was just an experiment to get used to the macro tube.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...7_edited-1.jpg

I was quite surprized at the detail you can get.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

This is one of those "baffling" images with some interesting side
effects from the ice that I didn't anticipate. It's a very different
image.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...9_edited-1.jpg

There is a considerable amount of noise in this image which I can't
explain - it should not have happened given how I set it up.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...4_edited-1.jpg

This is the same image (taken as a bracket) and not retouched. Go
figure.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

Just messing around.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...6_edited-1.jpg

I have to get used to a whole different approach to depth of field
with the macro tube. This is a good image, the idea was good, but the
execution leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...3_edited-1.jpg

Serendipity - I really like this image - anybody guess why?

Of course, you like cherries.


Reggie, today I took the Nikon 18-200 VR back to the store. They're going
to send it to Nikon to get checked out. They also think there may be
something wrong with the autofocusing. I'll let you know what they say.
--
John H


It's a zoom lens. That's what's wrong with it. Cut loose with some more cash
and buy 2-3 lenses suited to their proper purposes, you piker.


This damn thing cost enough to focus properly!

Piker my ass!
--
John H

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:47:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:18:33 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Last year I bought a macro tube for my Oly and never used it for one
reason or another. Being bored today, I went out and took some shots
with it.

All the images are as shot - the only "edit" was a conversion to .jpg
so it could be viewed by others. All were shot in ORF (raw). If
anybody wants the RAW files to play around with, let me know and I'll
up load the RAW file for download.

This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the meter, ISO,
shutter speed and what ever else. It would have been a good one.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

This was just an experiment to get used to the macro tube.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...7_edited-1.jpg

I was quite surprized at the detail you can get.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

This is one of those "baffling" images with some interesting side
effects from the ice that I didn't anticipate. It's a very different
image.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...9_edited-1.jpg

There is a considerable amount of noise in this image which I can't
explain - it should not have happened given how I set it up.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...4_edited-1.jpg

This is the same image (taken as a bracket) and not retouched. Go
figure.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

Just messing around.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...6_edited-1.jpg

I have to get used to a whole different approach to depth of field
with the macro tube. This is a good image, the idea was good, but the
execution leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...3_edited-1.jpg

Serendipity - I really like this image - anybody guess why?
Of course, you like cherries.


Reggie, today I took the Nikon 18-200 VR back to the store. They're going
to send it to Nikon to get checked out. They also think there may be
something wrong with the autofocusing. I'll let you know what they say.

I sent me back while it was in warrenty and had them set it to specs. I
am very pleased with it.

Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's not the
latter!
--
John H

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:31:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:18:33 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Last year I bought a macro tube for my Oly and never used it for one
reason or another. Being bored today, I went out and took some shots
with it.

All the images are as shot - the only "edit" was a conversion to .jpg
so it could be viewed by others. All were shot in ORF (raw). If
anybody wants the RAW files to play around with, let me know and I'll
up load the RAW file for download.

This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the meter, ISO,
shutter speed and what ever else. It would have been a good one.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

This was just an experiment to get used to the macro tube.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...7_edited-1.jpg

I was quite surprized at the detail you can get.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

This is one of those "baffling" images with some interesting side
effects from the ice that I didn't anticipate. It's a very different
image.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...9_edited-1.jpg

There is a considerable amount of noise in this image which I can't
explain - it should not have happened given how I set it up.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...4_edited-1.jpg

This is the same image (taken as a bracket) and not retouched. Go
figure.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

Just messing around.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...6_edited-1.jpg

I have to get used to a whole different approach to depth of field
with the macro tube. This is a good image, the idea was good, but the
execution leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...3_edited-1.jpg

Serendipity - I really like this image - anybody guess why?

Of course, you like cherries.


Reggie, today I took the Nikon 18-200 VR back to the store. They're
going
to send it to Nikon to get checked out. They also think there may be
something wrong with the autofocusing. I'll let you know what they say.
--
John H


It's a zoom lens. That's what's wrong with it. Cut loose with some more
cash
and buy 2-3 lenses suited to their proper purposes, you piker.


This damn thing cost enough to focus properly!

Piker my ass!
--
John H


All zoom lenses are a compromise. That doesn't excuse defects, but still, a
compromise.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...


I sent me back while it was in warrenty and had them set it to specs. I
am very pleased with it.

Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's not the
latter!
--
John H


You could always sell the boat and replace everything with Leica.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:31:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:18:33 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Last year I bought a macro tube for my Oly and never used it for one
reason or another. Being bored today, I went out and took some shots
with it.

All the images are as shot - the only "edit" was a conversion to .jpg
so it could be viewed by others. All were shot in ORF (raw). If
anybody wants the RAW files to play around with, let me know and I'll
up load the RAW file for download.

This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the meter, ISO,
shutter speed and what ever else. It would have been a good one.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

This was just an experiment to get used to the macro tube.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...7_edited-1.jpg

I was quite surprized at the detail you can get.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

This is one of those "baffling" images with some interesting side
effects from the ice that I didn't anticipate. It's a very different
image.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...9_edited-1.jpg

There is a considerable amount of noise in this image which I can't
explain - it should not have happened given how I set it up.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...4_edited-1.jpg

This is the same image (taken as a bracket) and not retouched. Go
figure.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

Just messing around.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...6_edited-1.jpg

I have to get used to a whole different approach to depth of field
with the macro tube. This is a good image, the idea was good, but the
execution leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...3_edited-1.jpg

Serendipity - I really like this image - anybody guess why?
Of course, you like cherries.

Reggie, today I took the Nikon 18-200 VR back to the store. They're
going
to send it to Nikon to get checked out. They also think there may be
something wrong with the autofocusing. I'll let you know what they say.
--
John H

It's a zoom lens. That's what's wrong with it. Cut loose with some more
cash
and buy 2-3 lenses suited to their proper purposes, you piker.

This damn thing cost enough to focus properly!

Piker my ass!
--
John H


All zoom lenses are a compromise. That doesn't excuse defects, but still, a
compromise.



yes it is, but the lens makes a great walk around lens.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...


I sent me back while it was in warrenty and had them set it to specs. I
am very pleased with it.
Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's not the
latter!
--
John H


You could always sell the boat and replae everything with Leica.



My only remaining film camera is a Leica, which I like to take on trips,
because it is relatively small, quiet, and I have three really sharp
lenses for it.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...


I sent me back while it was in warrenty and had them set it to specs.
I
am very pleased with it.
Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about
taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's not the
latter!
--
John H


You could always sell the boat and replae everything with Leica.

My only remaining film camera is a Leica, which I like to take on trips,
because it is relatively small, quiet, and I have three really sharp
lenses for it.

Is there such a thing as a Leica lens that's NOT sharp?

I had an M5 (?? current rangefinder model around 1971). Women hated it. It
revealed every pore on their face, every imperfection.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...


I sent me back while it was in warrenty and had them set it to specs.
I
am very pleased with it.
Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about
taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's not the
latter!
--
John H

You could always sell the boat and replae everything with Leica.
My only remaining film camera is a Leica, which I like to take on trips,
because it is relatively small, quiet, and I have three really sharp
lenses for it.

Is there such a thing as a Leica lens that's NOT sharp?

I had an M5 (?? current rangefinder model around 1971). Women hated it. It
revealed every pore on their face, every imperfection.




Mine is older, with a pop down lever on the bottom for "rapid film
advance."

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:54:27 -0500, John H.
wrote:


Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's not the
latter!

Did you happen to check the diopter setting on the camera?

Your lens may be focusing properly, but you're not seeing it because
the diopter may be off.

Ask me how I know that. :)

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:08:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...


I sent me back while it was in warrenty and had them set it to specs.
I
am very pleased with it.
Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about
taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's not the
latter!
--
John H


You could always sell the boat and replae everything with Leica.

My only remaining film camera is a Leica, which I like to take on trips,
because it is relatively small, quiet, and I have three really sharp
lenses for it.

Is there such a thing as a Leica lens that's NOT sharp?

Yes. Had one years ago. Couldn't figure it out.

Turns out that the focusing ring was warping the glass ever so
slightly - like in the micro meter scale.

I had an M5 (?? current rangefinder model around 1971). Women hated it. It
revealed every pore on their face, every imperfection.

I had a Yashica that was like that - beautiful, crisp images. You
could pick out details that you never would be able to see otherwise.

What ever happened to Yashica anyway?

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:08:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...


I sent me back while it was in warrenty and had them set it to specs.
I
am very pleased with it.
Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about
taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's not
the
latter!
--
John H


You could always sell the boat and replae everything with Leica.

My only remaining film camera is a Leica, which I like to take on trips,
because it is relatively small, quiet, and I have three really sharp
lenses for it.

Is there such a thing as a Leica lens that's NOT sharp?

Yes. Had one years ago. Couldn't figure it out.

Turns out that the focusing ring was warping the glass ever so
slightly - like in the micro meter scale.

I had an M5 (?? current rangefinder model around 1971). Women hated it.
It
revealed every pore on their face, every imperfection.

I had a Yashica that was like that - beautiful, crisp images. You
could pick out details that you never would be able to see otherwise.

What ever happened to Yashica anyway?


I dunno. I still see accessories for Yachica/Contax cameras, so there must
still be some cameras out there.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...


I sent me back while it was in warrenty and had them set it to
specs. I
am very pleased with it.
Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about
taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's
not the
latter!
--
John H

You could always sell the boat and replae everything with Leica.
My only remaining film camera is a Leica, which I like to take on
trips, because it is relatively small, quiet, and I have three really
sharp lenses for it.

Is there such a thing as a Leica lens that's NOT sharp?

I had an M5 (?? current rangefinder model around 1971). Women hated
it. It revealed every pore on their face, every imperfection.



Mine is older, with a pop down lever on the bottom for "rapid film
advance."

You really should scan some of your photos and share them with us.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...


I sent me back while it was in warrenty and had them set it to
specs. I
am very pleased with it.
Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about
taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's
not the
latter!
--
John H

You could always sell the boat and replae everything with Leica.
My only remaining film camera is a Leica, which I like to take on
trips, because it is relatively small, quiet, and I have three
really sharp lenses for it.

Is there such a thing as a Leica lens that's NOT sharp?

I had an M5 (?? current rangefinder model around 1971). Women hated
it. It revealed every pore on their face, every imperfection.



Mine is older, with a pop down lever on the bottom for "rapid film
advance."

You really should scan some of your photos and share them with us.


Why?

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

I had a Yashica that was like that - beautiful, crisp images. You
could pick out details that you never would be able to see otherwise.

What ever happened to Yashica anyway?

I should buy some 120 film and run it through my old Yashica D.... just to
keep it from seizing up.
http://www.butkus.org/chinon/yashica.../yashica_d.htm

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...


I sent me back while it was in warrenty and had them set it to
specs. I
am very pleased with it.
Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better
about taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's
not the
latter!
--
John H

You could always sell the boat and replae everything with Leica.
My only remaining film camera is a Leica, which I like to take on
trips, because it is relatively small, quiet, and I have three
really sharp lenses for it.

Is there such a thing as a Leica lens that's NOT sharp?

I had an M5 (?? current rangefinder model around 1971). Women hated
it. It revealed every pore on their face, every imperfection.



Mine is older, with a pop down lever on the bottom for "rapid film
advance."

You really should scan some of your photos and share them with us.


Why?
Ok, nevermind.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:56:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .


I sent me back while it was in warrenty and had them set it to specs. I
am very pleased with it.

Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's not the
latter!
--
John H


You could always sell the boat and replace everything with Leica.


Unless the Leica is about a hundred years old, I wouldn't have it. If I
did, I'd sell it as an antique.
--
John H

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:34:24 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...


I sent me back while it was in warrenty and had them set it to
specs. I
am very pleased with it.
Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about
taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's
not the
latter!
--
John H

You could always sell the boat and replae everything with Leica.
My only remaining film camera is a Leica, which I like to take on
trips, because it is relatively small, quiet, and I have three really
sharp lenses for it.

Is there such a thing as a Leica lens that's NOT sharp?

I had an M5 (?? current rangefinder model around 1971). Women hated
it. It revealed every pore on their face, every imperfection.



Mine is older, with a pop down lever on the bottom for "rapid film
advance."

You really should scan some of your photos and share them with us.

Have you forgotten the owls down by the creek, or river, or waterway?
--
John H

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:34:24 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...


I sent me back while it was in warrenty and had them set it to
specs. I
am very pleased with it.
Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about
taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's
not the
latter!
--
John H
You could always sell the boat and replae everything with Leica.
My only remaining film camera is a Leica, which I like to take on
trips, because it is relatively small, quiet, and I have three really
sharp lenses for it.
Is there such a thing as a Leica lens that's NOT sharp?

I had an M5 (?? current rangefinder model around 1971). Women hated
it. It revealed every pore on their face, every imperfection.


Mine is older, with a pop down lever on the bottom for "rapid film
advance."
You really should scan some of your photos and share them with us.

Have you forgotten the owls down by the creek, or river, or waterway?

I thought the owl was a really nice photo. It looked like it was taken
with a 400mm 2.8, a really nice lens.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:36:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:54:27 -0500, John H.
wrote:


Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's not the
latter!

Did you happen to check the diopter setting on the camera?

Your lens may be focusing properly, but you're not seeing it because
the diopter may be off.

Ask me how I know that. :)

I've set the diopter for my atrocious vision. The problem isn't noticeable
in the camera, thru the lens or on the monitor. It becomes obvious when I
crop the picture and then blow up the cropped image in my computer. Of
course, by then it's a little late to go back and retake the picture.

Thanks for the response though.

BTW, How do you know that?
--
John H

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:54:46 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:31:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:18:33 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Last year I bought a macro tube for my Oly and never used it for one
reason or another. Being bored today, I went out and took some shots
with it.

All the images are as shot - the only "edit" was a conversion to .jpg
so it could be viewed by others. All were shot in ORF (raw). If
anybody wants the RAW files to play around with, let me know and I'll
up load the RAW file for download.

This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the meter, ISO,
shutter speed and what ever else. It would have been a good one.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

This was just an experiment to get used to the macro tube.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...7_edited-1.jpg

I was quite surprized at the detail you can get.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

This is one of those "baffling" images with some interesting side
effects from the ice that I didn't anticipate. It's a very different
image.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...9_edited-1.jpg

There is a considerable amount of noise in this image which I can't
explain - it should not have happened given how I set it up.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...4_edited-1.jpg

This is the same image (taken as a bracket) and not retouched. Go
figure.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

Just messing around.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...6_edited-1.jpg

I have to get used to a whole different approach to depth of field
with the macro tube. This is a good image, the idea was good, but the
execution leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...3_edited-1.jpg

Serendipity - I really like this image - anybody guess why?

Of course, you like cherries.


Reggie, today I took the Nikon 18-200 VR back to the store. They're
going
to send it to Nikon to get checked out. They also think there may be
something wrong with the autofocusing. I'll let you know what they say.
--
John H


It's a zoom lens. That's what's wrong with it. Cut loose with some more
cash
and buy 2-3 lenses suited to their proper purposes, you piker.


This damn thing cost enough to focus properly!

Piker my ass!
--
John H


All zoom lenses are a compromise. That doesn't excuse defects, but still, a
compromise.


Without doubt.
--
John H

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:55:27 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:36:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:54:27 -0500, John H.
wrote:


Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's not the
latter!

Did you happen to check the diopter setting on the camera?

Your lens may be focusing properly, but you're not seeing it because
the diopter may be off.

Ask me how I know that. :)

I've set the diopter for my atrocious vision. The problem isn't noticeable
in the camera, thru the lens or on the monitor. It becomes obvious when I
crop the picture and then blow up the cropped image in my computer. Of
course, by then it's a little late to go back and retake the picture.

It's not a lens problem - it's a picture taking problem. It might be
a sensor problem in the camera, but if you are seeing the image
through the lens fine, then it's not the lens - it's the camera or
it's the way you set the variables - like ISO, aperture and/or shutter
speed.

Most problems are with ISO settings for the light conditions - it's
either too slow (100) or too fast (800 +) and aperture setting.

Thanks for the response though.

BTW, How do you know that?

Because I sent my E-300 back for service and it turns out that the
diopter was off - D'OH!!!

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:46:17 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:55:27 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:36:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:54:27 -0500, John H.
wrote:


Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's not the
latter!

Did you happen to check the diopter setting on the camera?

Your lens may be focusing properly, but you're not seeing it because
the diopter may be off.

Ask me how I know that. :)

I've set the diopter for my atrocious vision. The problem isn't noticeable
in the camera, thru the lens or on the monitor. It becomes obvious when I
crop the picture and then blow up the cropped image in my computer. Of
course, by then it's a little late to go back and retake the picture.

It's not a lens problem - it's a picture taking problem. It might be
a sensor problem in the camera, but if you are seeing the image
through the lens fine, then it's not the lens - it's the camera or
it's the way you set the variables - like ISO, aperture and/or shutter
speed.

Most problems are with ISO settings for the light conditions - it's
either too slow (100) or too fast (800 +) and aperture setting.

Thanks for the response though.

BTW, How do you know that?

Because I sent my E-300 back for service and it turns out that the
diopter was off - D'OH!!!

The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm
just stating a fact.

Here's an example:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg

This is cropped, but not much. If you zoom in anywhere, you'll see it's not
in good focus. It's not sharp. At least, it's not sharp enough for me. And,
I think it's due to the auto-focus of the lens.

I didn't even try manual focus. Now I wish I had the lens just to see if I
could focus it better. But, by now it's in Nikon's trusty hands.
--
John H

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

John H. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:46:17 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:55:27 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:36:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:54:27 -0500, John H.
wrote:


Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's not the
latter!
Did you happen to check the diopter setting on the camera?

Your lens may be focusing properly, but you're not seeing it because
the diopter may be off.

Ask me how I know that. :)
I've set the diopter for my atrocious vision. The problem isn't noticeable
in the camera, thru the lens or on the monitor. It becomes obvious when I
crop the picture and then blow up the cropped image in my computer. Of
course, by then it's a little late to go back and retake the picture.
It's not a lens problem - it's a picture taking problem. It might be
a sensor problem in the camera, but if you are seeing the image
through the lens fine, then it's not the lens - it's the camera or
it's the way you set the variables - like ISO, aperture and/or shutter
speed.

Most problems are with ISO settings for the light conditions - it's
either too slow (100) or too fast (800 +) and aperture setting.

Thanks for the response though.

BTW, How do you know that?
Because I sent my E-300 back for service and it turns out that the
diopter was off - D'OH!!!

The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm
just stating a fact.

Here's an example:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg

This is cropped, but not much. If you zoom in anywhere, you'll see it's not
in good focus. It's not sharp. At least, it's not sharp enough for me. And,
I think it's due to the auto-focus of the lens.

I didn't even try manual focus. Now I wish I had the lens just to see if I
could focus it better. But, by now it's in Nikon's trusty hands.

Is this jpg straight out of the camera or did you any PP?

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H.
wrote:

The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm
just stating a fact.

Here's an example:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg

Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see
the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the
cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and
crisp.

It ain't out of focus.

What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of
his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus,
like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way
to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features
intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin
that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put
your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red?

That's what happened here.

The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated
the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way
to put it.

The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which
also contributed to the overall skin tone problem.

Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well
with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up
rather than straight on.

It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem.

No offense.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H.
wrote:

The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm
just stating a fact.

Here's an example:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg

Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see
the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the
cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and
crisp.

It ain't out of focus.

What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of
his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus,
like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way
to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features
intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin
that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put
your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red?

That's what happened here.

The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated
the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way
to put it.

The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which
also contributed to the overall skin tone problem.

Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well
with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up
rather than straight on.

It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem.

No offense.


Kodachrome II, a nice 85 or 105 mm fixed focal length lens, a couple of
modeling lights, a decent meter and voila! a nice slide, properly exposed.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:38:19 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H.
wrote:

The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm
just stating a fact.

Here's an example:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg

Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see
the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the
cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and
crisp.

It ain't out of focus.

What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of
his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus,
like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way
to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features
intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin
that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put
your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red?

That's what happened here.

The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated
the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way
to put it.

The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which
also contributed to the overall skin tone problem.

Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well
with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up
rather than straight on.

It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem.

No offense.

Kodachrome II, a nice 85 or 105 mm fixed focal length lens, a couple of
modeling lights, a decent meter and voila! a nice slide, properly exposed.

Eh - you can do the same thing with a modern digital.

John's problem is that dark background confusing the light sensor. He
needed to back off a tad and bounce the flash to create some back
light so the light sensor had a chance to work properly.

Plus, he was way too tight on the shot with the results as I detailed.
Digital cameras are wonderful machines, but you have to compensate for
their weird and quirky ways.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:32:19 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:46:17 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:55:27 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:36:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:54:27 -0500, John H.
wrote:


Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's not the
latter!
Did you happen to check the diopter setting on the camera?

Your lens may be focusing properly, but you're not seeing it because
the diopter may be off.

Ask me how I know that. :)
I've set the diopter for my atrocious vision. The problem isn't noticeable
in the camera, thru the lens or on the monitor. It becomes obvious when I
crop the picture and then blow up the cropped image in my computer. Of
course, by then it's a little late to go back and retake the picture.
It's not a lens problem - it's a picture taking problem. It might be
a sensor problem in the camera, but if you are seeing the image
through the lens fine, then it's not the lens - it's the camera or
it's the way you set the variables - like ISO, aperture and/or shutter
speed.

Most problems are with ISO settings for the light conditions - it's
either too slow (100) or too fast (800 +) and aperture setting.

Thanks for the response though.

BTW, How do you know that?
Because I sent my E-300 back for service and it turns out that the
diopter was off - D'OH!!!

The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm
just stating a fact.

Here's an example:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg

This is cropped, but not much. If you zoom in anywhere, you'll see it's not
in good focus. It's not sharp. At least, it's not sharp enough for me. And,
I think it's due to the auto-focus of the lens.

I didn't even try manual focus. Now I wish I had the lens just to see if I
could focus it better. But, by now it's in Nikon's trusty hands.

Is this jpg straight out of the camera or did you any PP?

Only cropped the sides. I had taken it in landscape orientation with the
flash bounced off the ceiling.
--
John H

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

John H. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:32:19 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:46:17 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:55:27 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:36:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:54:27 -0500, John H.
wrote:


Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's not the
latter!
Did you happen to check the diopter setting on the camera?

Your lens may be focusing properly, but you're not seeing it because
the diopter may be off.

Ask me how I know that. :)
I've set the diopter for my atrocious vision. The problem isn't noticeable
in the camera, thru the lens or on the monitor. It becomes obvious when I
crop the picture and then blow up the cropped image in my computer. Of
course, by then it's a little late to go back and retake the picture.
It's not a lens problem - it's a picture taking problem. It might be
a sensor problem in the camera, but if you are seeing the image
through the lens fine, then it's not the lens - it's the camera or
it's the way you set the variables - like ISO, aperture and/or shutter
speed.

Most problems are with ISO settings for the light conditions - it's
either too slow (100) or too fast (800 +) and aperture setting.

Thanks for the response though.

BTW, How do you know that?
Because I sent my E-300 back for service and it turns out that the
diopter was off - D'OH!!!
The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm
just stating a fact.

Here's an example:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg

This is cropped, but not much. If you zoom in anywhere, you'll see it's not
in good focus. It's not sharp. At least, it's not sharp enough for me. And,
I think it's due to the auto-focus of the lens.

I didn't even try manual focus. Now I wish I had the lens just to see if I
could focus it better. But, by now it's in Nikon's trusty hands.
Is this jpg straight out of the camera or did you any PP?

Only cropped the sides. I had taken it in landscape orientation with the
flash bounced off the ceiling.


So, turn off the autofocus. Buy yourself a couple of photoflood lamps
and holders. Stop whining.