|
BetterLekNextTime posted:I have this Ok, cool, I'll just print the photo of that rig and take it to my dad, will keep him busy for a few days. He loves that kind of poo poo. Thanks much for all the info, I appreciate it. I'll post a photo here after I get it all worked out.
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:02 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 10:16
|
|
|
I got some extension tubes in today, and I realized that I could get ok macro shots from ~4 feet away now with this setup  My fish are less than amused about this (not pictured: the flash that sits on top of everything).  DSC_0091.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  DSC_0092.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  DSC_0093.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr Same thing with a p67 lens on the end instead and I can get some greater than 1:! magnification  Magically Delicious by MrDespair, on Flickr  English Muffin by MrDespair, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
Found in my apartment. Critters at home 2 by Execudork, on Flickr  Critters at home 3 by Execudork, on Flickr  Critters at home 5 by Execudork, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 03:33
|
|
|
Then you need to leave your apartment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 03:47
|
|
|
Or clean. With a hammer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
You guys have issues, spiders rule.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 07:12
|
|
|
That is what basically every place in Australia looks like, FYI. It is literally impossible to get rid of all the critters that find their way into your house. Sometimes they're lizards!
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 09:02
|
|
|
Lizards would be awesome! But this is Tassie, which is kind of like Australia for beginners. Only three species of snakes (don't worry, all are venomous), and only two species of spiders that have ever killed anyone (redbacks and some straight-out-of-your-nightmares large funnel web spider). I think the top one I posted with the orange legs is some kind of jumping spider, it moved in that special way they have. The other spider didn't move at all, even with me blasting it with guide-number 53 flashes from 6 inches away. Also, I'd like to remind you this is the macro thread - objects pictured are smaller than they appear. Eeek posted:Then you need to leave your apartment. Edit: the fighting ants I posted last page are either Jack Jumpers (Myrmecia pilosula) or a close relative in the same genus; Jack Jumpers kill more people in Tassie than spiders, snakes, sharks, and wasps combined, if you believe the Wikipedia article. What's not to love? ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Dec 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 13:54
|
|
|
I do need to add that I am completely kidding. I can pretty much assure you I'd be on my belly most of the time taking pictures of all the awesome things crawling around over there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
Merry Christmas! Who wants some turkey chilli?     
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 14:39
|
|
|
Is it from like three years ago and you just found it at the back of the fridge?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Merry Christmas! Whoa o_o How zoomed in is this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:Whoa o_o How zoomed in is this? It's just really, really, really large mold. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 21:02
|
|
|
At first glance I was wondering if I was looking at coral or something. Then I read the description. Haha, that's awesome and disturbing at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:Is it from like three years ago and you just found it at the back of the fridge? somnambulist posted:Whoa o_o How zoomed in is this? PREYING MANTITS posted:Haha, that's awesome and disturbing at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
This was taken with the kit zoom, so not really macro. But I don't know where else in the Dorkroom to put my bug shots. Tuesday Drive to Freycinet 7 by Execudork, on Flickr And a visitor to the entrace area of my tent on Christmas day.  Tuesday Evening at Freycinet 6 by Execudork, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 13:07
|
|
|
The critterquest thread in gbs is a good place for all critter shots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
e: Wrong thread; disregard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
Are there any old 90-105 macros that didn't skyrocket in price the past few years?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
Depends what you mean by "skyrocket". I have a Vivitar Series 1 105mm f/2.5 macro that is my favourite lens that cost me $400 about a year ago. The Viv S1 90mm, which does 1:2 instead of 1:1 like the 105, seems to go for about $150-200. Both of these are manual-focus lenses from the mid-1980s, if your camera can't support a lens mount from that era then the above information is irrelevant. It seems like almost every lens Vivitar slapped "Series 1" on back in the day had some sort of advertised macro capability; the ever-popular 70-210 zooms can do about 1:2.5, and I have a 28-105 f/2.8 that goes to 1:2 (and is absolutely delightful, and was cheapcheapcheap - $40, right here on the forums - thanks again, Nannypea!). What system are you shooting? Pentax (or, apparently, Canon EF-S via adaptor) can use old K-mount manual focus stuff, going back to the mid-1970s. Macro lenses have always been popular, and it seems like the 90 or 105mm designs were figured out a while ago, I've seen 3rd-party lenses for sale from the late 1970's, though I have no idea about quality. Also: 105mm macro + wireless flash + half a bottle of wine and a beach at sunset = FUN Lightroom is digesting the photos right now. Bugs move too fast for me when I've been into the Pinot Noir, but the flowers are sexy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 09:11
|
|
|
I got a nex 5n so I can adapt almost anything. Currently I have a sears 55mm macro that only goes to 1:2. Its surprisingly unsharp and too short anyway for my liking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
 Untitled by Eeek5127, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
Minolta MD mount (also known as MC or SR mount, there are differences in how these behave on the later manual-focus Minolta bodies, but they're minor) has stayed pretty cheap. They made a few 100mm macro lenses over the manual-focus years, this site provides a head-to-head review of two of them: http://www.rokkorfiles.com/100mm%20macro.htm though it's not clear that the lenses are able to achieve 1:1 without extension tubes. A quick look at ebay suggests $200 as the upper end for Minolta manual-focus 100mm macro (watch out for the AF version, more expensive, and usuable sans adaptor on modern Sony DSLRs). EDIT: poking around sites dedicated to now-defunct lens mounts (Konica AR, Yashica) it seems the usual approach to 1:1 macro circa 1985 was a lens capable of 1:2 coupled to an extension tube or bellows. This goes some way to explaining the way my Vivitar held its value over 25 years. This site suggests the Canon 200mm macro had no need of such contrivances to achieve 1:1, with the added bonus of a huge working distance suitable for the more paranoid little critters. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 11:41 on Jan 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 11:29
|
|
|
I bought my 75mm p67 lens for about $110, reverse mounted it'll do around 1:1. So what I'm saying is that it's a great excuse to buy a pentax 67. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 08:18
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:
 She Made a Kill 1 by Execudork, on Flickr That's what an abdomen full of beetlejuice looks like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 11:34
|
|
|
 Untitled by Eeek5127, on Flickr Finally found one. Hooray!
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 12:10
|
|
|
Does anyone have any hands on with the Sigma F2.8-4.5 17-70mm DC Macro lens? I am thinking of picking up a used one for my D5100. I am getting tired of my DCR-250 and want something new. Mostly going to be used to document plants and their parts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
Just snagged a good deal on an older Nikkor Micro 105mm f/2.8 AF lens. Can't wait to play with a proper macro lens, and not have to gently caress around with reversing rings and extension tubes. edit: drat, that was some fast shipping. Good job USPS! Played around a bit on my lunch break, and I can already tell I'm going to love this lens. Still don't really know what I'm doing, but here's a few quick shots.  DSC_2792.jpg by meramsey, on Flickr  DSC_2805.jpg by meramsey, on Flickr  DSC_2826.jpg by meramsey, on Flickr  DSC_2817.jpg by meramsey, on Flickr  DSC_2794.jpg by meramsey, on Flickr Enos Cabell fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Jan 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
I found a sick bee. Not sure what was up with him. So I built a tiny studio for him, got some pictures and stuck him on a branch. Untitled by Eeek5127, on Flickr edit: swapped picture. Eeek fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Jan 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
I set up a 10 gallon photo tank today, and got a handful of shots I'm pretty happy with. Maybelline by meramsey, on Flickr  DSC_3088.jpg by meramsey, on Flickr Enos Cabell fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Jan 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
The second one looks great but it could use a little work in post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
I'm still pretty much a complete novice with Lightroom, so that's definitely something else I need to work on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
Why does only one of your fish have a name? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 08:24
|
|
|
HookShot posted:Why does only one of your fish have a name? Maybe she was born with it..
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 09:12
|
|
|
The second one is Big Jilm, but Flickr didn't update the name in the link.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
One of these things is not like the others.   
Whitezombi fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Jan 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
Goldmund posted:
There's still time (just!) to enter the Dorkroom photo contest! http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3526403
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 06:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:02 |
|
|
ExecuDork posted:There's still time (just!) to enter the Dorkroom photo contest! Thanks, I'll do that!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 15:30
|
|