Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XS
135mm 1/500th F16 ISO400
drew
 | The 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6 I've got on perma-loan from El Jefe at work has a 1:4 @ 135mm. I never knew. Challenging to take pictures, especially in even the slightest of breeze. Should I have opened it up a bit to give it less DOF or... ? hey mods · » Monday June 1st, @09:37PM
| GeekGirl1
 | It still looks a bit soft to me. But, I like all the detail you can get. For a soft, artistic touch, it looks OK.
f/16 is probably the max you could go. There's a way to get better depth of field using software: »[Tech] Increasing Depth of Field with CombineZPhey mods · » Monday June 1st, @09:59PM
| SurfTheSky
 | I don't think it needs any more DOF. As for the softness, Drew says that it was untouched for sharpness. dSLRs, even with sharpness cranked up, often don't output images nearly as sharp as those from a P&S - just the nature of the beast.
This software you're linking to - and have discussed in a recent thread - just seems like a lot of work to get single shots right. Probably best used in a situation where you absolutely cannot get a clean shot without it, like in a controlled setting with a fixed object.
With Drew's permission, I've edited the image and uploaded it to my website at 900x600 with some basic sharpening via CS4's USM filter:
»flyingphotog.com/IMG_2315_1.jpg
Without sharpening:
»flyingphotog.com/IMG_2315.jpg
The detail is right where it needs to be in this photo. The petals are soft, well, because the petals are soft in real life.hey mods · » Tuesday June 2nd, @01:41AM
| 29886823
 | Hi - It seems lately that stamens and pistils are in, and that DOF is an issue requiring special software or lenses. Take a look at »/showp ··· 8990&p=4, taken without anything special and seemingly as detailed as anything here (just f7.1). hey mods · » Tuesday June 2nd, @09:34AM
| GeekGirl1
| I haven't seen those flowers in real life. If they really are like that, then that's very good. My preference is for sharp outlines and contrast (if it's appropriate), so I probably biased my opinion as such. I would prefer mhhack's to drew's because that's what I like.
Agreed that no processing is best. I tend to take close-in macro shots with moving objects and any delay is a missed opportunity.
My f/16 limit is due to lens diffraction. It's been recommended in the forum to use f/16 as the minimum opening. Here's an article from Ken Rockwell's site: »www.kenrockwell.com/tech ··· tion.htm
DOF varies with distance. If you have a large flower, then you can shoot further away and the focus depth across the flower is much greater.
Update: DavisPhotog's pictures look much better to me. Not so much the softness, but that 2 flowers don't seem so dominate the picture as much. Maybe it's because the single flower is nearly one color? I see the difference in the sharpness - not that much. I agree that it's natural without it (now that I see what to look at). hey mods · » Tuesday June 2nd, @05:45PM
|
|
) 
