More experiments with still-life and interior lighting. This was done
with halogen work-lights and processed as "incandescent" white balance
through Bibble software.

I also spent some time trying to find a good depth-of-field setting.
The total depth of the subject was about 9" and it was 3' in front of
the background wall and about 4.5' from the camera. I wanted the
entire subject in focus, but the background as blurred as possible.
This was shot with a Canon f1.4 50mm lens, and I did a whole series in
2/3-stop increments from f1.4 through f18. I ended up with this f5.6
as my preferred shot. The f1.4 just couldn't keep the entire subject
in focus, and of course the smallest lens openings made the background
sharper and more distracting than I wanted.

The thing I found most interesting was that in a couple of cases, a
larger stop produced a better image than a smaller on. For example,
this f5.6 was noticeably clearer than the f7.1 shot. I'm not sure why
that would be.

JD

In article , John - Pa.
wrote:

More experiments with still-life and interior lighting. This was done
with halogen work-lights and processed as "incandescent" white balance
through Bibble software.

I also spent some time trying to find a good depth-of-field setting.
The total depth of the subject was about 9" and it was 3' in front of
the background wall and about 4.5' from the camera. I wanted the
entire subject in focus, but the background as blurred as possible.
This was shot with a Canon f1.4 50mm lens, and I did a whole series in
2/3-stop increments from f1.4 through f18. I ended up with this f5.6
as my preferred shot. The f1.4 just couldn't keep the entire subject
in focus, and of course the smallest lens openings made the background
sharper and more distracting than I wanted.

The thing I found most interesting was that in a couple of cases, a
larger stop produced a better image than a smaller on. For example,
this f5.6 was noticeably clearer than the f7.1 shot. I'm not sure why
that would be.

JD

begin 644 Winter Vase_4857b.jpg

It looks very nice. :-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

John - Pa. wrote:
[...]sharper and more distracting than I wanted.

The thing I found most interesting was that in a couple of cases, a
larger stop produced a better image than a smaller on. For example,
this f5.6 was noticeably clearer than the f7.1 shot. I'm not sure why
that would be.

JD



The smaller stop's larger "depth of field" means there is a larger
region where the light rays _almost_ focus, which shows up as a slight
fuzziness. It's this "almost focus" that produces the illusion of larger
depth of field, BTW.

HTH

John - Pa. wrote:
[...]
The thing I found most interesting was that in a couple of cases, a
larger stop produced a better image than a smaller on. For example,
this f5.6 was noticeably clearer than the f7.1 shot. I'm not sure why
that would be.

JD



PS: forgot to say it's a good picture of a lovely arrangement. Well done!

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:36:17 -0500, John - Pa. wrote:

More experiments with still-life and interior lighting. This was done
with halogen work-lights and processed as "incandescent" white balance
through Bibble software.

I also spent some time trying to find a good depth-of-field setting.
The total depth of the subject was about 9" and it was 3' in front of
the background wall and about 4.5' from the camera. I wanted the
entire subject in focus, but the background as blurred as possible.
This was shot with a Canon f1.4 50mm lens, and I did a whole series in
2/3-stop increments from f1.4 through f18. I ended up with this f5.6
as my preferred shot. The f1.4 just couldn't keep the entire subject
in focus, and of course the smallest lens openings made the background
sharper and more distracting than I wanted.

The thing I found most interesting was that in a couple of cases, a
larger stop produced a better image than a smaller on. For example,
this f5.6 was noticeably clearer than the f7.1 shot. I'm not sure why
that would be.

JD
It is a beautiful shot. Who would think that thistles and things could
be so beautiful.

John, that's a beautiful composition and you have made the most of the
light - browns do very well in warm light. The clearer image @ f/5.6 isn't
surprising, you had '"just enough" depth of field and the actual MTF
(Modulation Transfer Function) in a prime lens is usually best when near
wide open and decreases as the aperture is closed down, when the diffraction
limit is reached. The trick is in adjusting focus so that the depth of
field is "just enough" at the largest possible aperture.
Regards,
David "Routemeister" Thompson
http://picasaweb.google.com/david.routemeister

John - Pa. wrote in message
...
More experiments with still-life and interior lighting. This was done
with halogen work-lights and processed as "incandescent" white balance
through Bibble software.

I also spent some time trying to find a good depth-of-field setting.
The total depth of the subject was about 9" and it was 3' in front of
the background wall and about 4.5' from the camera. I wanted the
entire subject in focus, but the background as blurred as possible.
This was shot with a Canon f1.4 50mm lens, and I did a whole series in
2/3-stop increments from f1.4 through f18. I ended up with this f5.6
as my preferred shot. The f1.4 just couldn't keep the entire subject
in focus, and of course the smallest lens openings made the background
sharper and more distracting than I wanted.

The thing I found most interesting was that in a couple of cases, a
larger stop produced a better image than a smaller on. For example,
this f5.6 was noticeably clearer than the f7.1 shot. I'm not sure why
that would be.

JD



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 8159 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

John, that's a beautiful composition and you have made the most of the
light - browns do very well in warm light. The clearer image @ f/5.6 isn't
surprising, you had '"just enough" depth of field and the actual MTF
(Modulation Transfer Function) in a prime lens is usually best when near
wide open and decreases as the aperture is closed down, when the diffraction
limit is reached. The trick is in adjusting focus so that the depth of
field is "just enough" at the largest possible aperture.
Regards,
David "Routemeister" Thompson
http://picasaweb.google.com/david.routemeister

John - Pa. wrote in message
...
More experiments with still-life and interior lighting. This was done
with halogen work-lights and processed as "incandescent" white balance
through Bibble software.

I also spent some time trying to find a good depth-of-field setting.
The total depth of the subject was about 9" and it was 3' in front of
the background wall and about 4.5' from the camera. I wanted the
entire subject in focus, but the background as blurred as possible.
This was shot with a Canon f1.4 50mm lens, and I did a whole series in
2/3-stop increments from f1.4 through f18. I ended up with this f5.6
as my preferred shot. The f1.4 just couldn't keep the entire subject
in focus, and of course the smallest lens openings made the background
sharper and more distracting than I wanted.

The thing I found most interesting was that in a couple of cases, a
larger stop produced a better image than a smaller on. For example,
this f5.6 was noticeably clearer than the f7.1 shot. I'm not sure why
that would be.

JD



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 8159 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

Beautiful photo John!

~Bob


John - Pa. wrote in message
...
More experiments with still-life and interior lighting. This was done
with halogen work-lights and processed as "incandescent" white balance
through Bibble software.

I also spent some time trying to find a good depth-of-field setting.
The total depth of the subject was about 9" and it was 3' in front of
the background wall and about 4.5' from the camera. I wanted the
entire subject in focus, but the background as blurred as possible.
This was shot with a Canon f1.4 50mm lens, and I did a whole series in
2/3-stop increments from f1.4 through f18. I ended up with this f5.6
as my preferred shot. The f1.4 just couldn't keep the entire subject
in focus, and of course the smallest lens openings made the background
sharper and more distracting than I wanted.

The thing I found most interesting was that in a couple of cases, a
larger stop produced a better image than a smaller on. For example,
this f5.6 was noticeably clearer than the f7.1 shot. I'm not sure why
that would be.

JD