Phototest of CombineZM

[AlkemScaleModels]

The problem with macro lenses is their difficulty focusing on distant objects. They're really suited only for "subject" photographs, as opposed to scenes.

While I have not personally noticed this effect, I tend not to use my macro  lenses outdoors, so you may be right. My macro lens are fixed focal lengths and not well suited for general photography. I have a zoom lens with a Macro setting, but it can not focus as close as my dedicated macro lenses.

When doing focus stacking with N scale subject matter, the ability to focus as close as possible helps provide the image data to make the foreground sharp. For example, shots where I place the camera an inch or two from the loco and want the whole scene in focus- from the silflor grass just in front of the camera to the painted backdrop- I use my macro lens. Other scenes that start further back, I will try my zoom lens with the macro function, as sometimes the wider angle makes a better composition.

[DKS]

The problem with macro lenses is their difficulty focusing on distant objects. They're really suited only for "subject" photographs, as opposed to scenes.

While I have not personally noticed this effect, I tend not to use my macro  lenses outdoors, so you may be right. My macro lens are fixed focal lengths and not well suited for general photography. I have a zoom lens with a Macro setting, but it can not focus as close as my dedicated macro lenses.

When doing focus stacking with N scale subject matter, the ability to focus as close as possible helps provide the image data to make the foreground sharp. For example, shots where I place the camera an inch or two from the loco and want the whole scene in focus- from the silflor grass just in front of the camera to the painted backdrop- I use my macro lens. Other scenes that start further back, I will try my zoom lens with the macro function, as sometimes the wider angle makes a better composition.

I accomplish much the same using extension tubes. Not as precise, but much cheaper than a dedicated macro lens, and a bit more versatile. Allows me to focus within a fraction of an inch from the lens--any lens.

[AlkemScaleModels]

This was shot at f5.6 for 15 seconds in a dimly lit room.  I flashed the building lights and track power to limit overburn.  The trick I like to use to "broaden" the focal area, is to stage two subjects parallel to the lens.  In this case it's the bulkhead flat and the locomotive.  While both are at an angle, the focal plane slices through both subjects, so more of the image appears to be in focus.  The truck and the forklift, as well as the lumber stacks under the canopy, and to some extent the main warehouse are sharpened a bit by the long exposure.

I'm not concerned about the stuff in the far background, although if that could be sharpened up as a third layer with helicon or something, that would improve an otherwise pretty good shot.

Lee

You're right. The effect you were going for works great in this shot. I think the image is enhanced by the overall dusk lighting effect that you captured. The blurring of the background helps one fix their attention on the foreground - a well known compositional trick for photographers.  Just for grins, can you try shooting that shot with HF to see what happens when the whole scene is sharp?  We may find that the scene works better with a blurry background, even if that isn't what a "prototype camera" would have done in that spot. An example of  art versus technology.

[AlkemScaleModels]

The problem with macro lenses is their difficulty focusing on distant objects. They're really suited only for "subject" photographs, as opposed to scenes.

While I have not personally noticed this effect, I tend not to use my macro  lenses outdoors, so you may be right. My macro lens are fixed focal lengths and not well suited for general photography. I have a zoom lens with a Macro setting, but it can not focus as close as my dedicated macro lenses.

When doing focus stacking with N scale subject matter, the ability to focus as close as possible helps provide the image data to make the foreground sharp. For example, shots where I place the camera an inch or two from the loco and want the whole scene in focus- from the silflor grass just in front of the camera to the painted backdrop- I use my macro lens. Other scenes that start further back, I will try my zoom lens with the macro function, as sometimes the wider angle makes a better composition.

I accomplish much the same using extension tubes. Not as precise, but much cheaper than a dedicated macro lens, and a bit more versatile. Allows me to focus within a fraction of an inch from the lens--any lens.

But with an commensurate increase in focal length. 

[AlkemScaleModels]

This was shot at f5.6 for 15 seconds in a dimly lit room.  I flashed the building lights and track power to limit overburn.  The trick I like to use to "broaden" the focal area, is to stage two subjects parallel to the lens.  In this case it's the bulkhead flat and the locomotive.  While both are at an angle, the focal plane slices through both subjects, so more of the image appears to be in focus.  The truck and the forklift, as well as the lumber stacks under the canopy, and to some extent the main warehouse are sharpened a bit by the long exposure.


Lee

One other thing, strictly speaking the "long exposure" did not effect sharpness, only f stop does. But I knew what you meant, as  f stop and exposure are reciprocal functions.  Nevertheless, it is a really nice shot.

[DKS]

The problem with macro lenses is their difficulty focusing on distant objects. They're really suited only for "subject" photographs, as opposed to scenes.

While I have not personally noticed this effect, I tend not to use my macro  lenses outdoors, so you may be right. My macro lens are fixed focal lengths and not well suited for general photography. I have a zoom lens with a Macro setting, but it can not focus as close as my dedicated macro lenses.

When doing focus stacking with N scale subject matter, the ability to focus as close as possible helps provide the image data to make the foreground sharp. For example, shots where I place the camera an inch or two from the loco and want the whole scene in focus- from the silflor grass just in front of the camera to the painted backdrop- I use my macro lens. Other scenes that start further back, I will try my zoom lens with the macro function, as sometimes the wider angle makes a better composition.

I accomplish much the same using extension tubes. Not as precise, but much cheaper than a dedicated macro lens, and a bit more versatile. Allows me to focus within a fraction of an inch from the lens--any lens.

But with an commensurate increase in focal length. 

True. But when your entire subject range is only an inch or so, this doesn't much matter.

[AlkemScaleModels]

I accomplish much the same using extension tubes. Not as precise, but much cheaper than a dedicated macro lens, and a bit more versatile. Allows me to focus within a fraction of an inch from the lens--any lens.

This reminds me of an experience I had with my first canon digital slr a D30 IIRC. I was using a canon 50mm macro lens to take model rr shots. I was getting a blurry red spot in the center of the images when I shot at small apertures. So I took the lens, camera and some sample prints to the camera shop. They thought the lens was defective, so we swapped it out. Same problem. No one there could figure it out. So they called canon customer support. After talking to about 5 different people we were transferred to a engineering department. After we explained the problem, the engineers consulted with each other and then told us, "oh yeah, that lens does that!"    

It's not a bug, it's a feature.

The underlying problem has to do with adapting lenses designed for film camera bodies to work in digital bodies were off axis light reacts differently when striking a sensor versus a piece of film. Turns out film is much better at accepting light that is at an angle to the film plane.

Newer camera lenses can deal with this. My later digital slrs do not have this problem.

[DKS]

I accomplish much the same using extension tubes. Not as precise, but much cheaper than a dedicated macro lens, and a bit more versatile. Allows me to focus within a fraction of an inch from the lens--any lens.

This reminds me of an experience I had with my first canon digital slr a D30 IIRC. I was using a canon 50mm macro lens to take model rr shots. I was getting a blurry red spot in the center of the images when I shot at small apertures. So I took the lens, camera and some sample prints to the camera shop. They thought the lens was defective, so we swapped it out. Same problem. No one there could figure it out. So they called canon customer support. After talking to about 5 different people we were transferred to a engineering department. After we explained the problem, the engineers consulted with each other and then told us, "oh yeah, that lens does that!"    

It's not a bug, it a feature.

The underlying problem has to do with adapting lenses designed for film camera bodies to work in digital bodies were off axis light reacts differently when striking a sensor versus a piece of film. Turns out film is much better at accepting light that is at an angle to the film plane.

Newer camera lenses can deal with this. My later digital slrs do not have this problem.

Yes, I've encountered vaguely similar problems with certain combinations of extension tubes and lenses. I do wish I could afford a macro or two.

[tom mann]

Bernie,

The problem also exists with Macro Lenses too.  You're not seeing it because the image is probably being displayed smaller on your monitor, reducing the apparent blurriness.  Zoom in to 100% size and you'll see the difference.

Standing back from the subject and zooming in with the camera is a way around the "problem" of depth of field, but the scene ends up looking compressed.

Lee,

What ruins your shot is the out of focus foreground, not necessarily the background.

[wm3798]

Lee,

What ruins your shot is the out of focus foreground, not necessarily the background.

Man.  My vote was going for the shabby modeling!  I can crop out the foreground...  I'm stuck with the models! ;D

Lee

[AlkemScaleModels]

Bernie,

The problem also exists with Macro Lenses too.  You're not seeing it because the image is probably being displayed smaller on your monitor, reducing the apparent blurriness.  Zoom in to 100% size and you'll see the difference.

Wow, I've been using Photoshop for 15 years and never thought to do that!    ;D

But, I will do a test under controlled conditions to see what the delta is. Film at 11 (in a few weeks). But i am willing to make a prediction, any image that can be displayed on a forum will be effected more by jpg artifacts than diffraction loss going from f8 to f32.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Yes. This is a very good point. You gotta think about the display medium too.

The diffraction issue doesn't seem to be so horrible when you're only looking at it at 800px wide...

[tom mann]

But, I will do a test under controlled conditions to see what the delta is. Film at 11 (in a few weeks). But i am willing to make a prediction, any image that can be displayed on a forum will be effected more by jpg artifacts than diffraction loss going from f8 to f32.

As Ed says, it is more of a dimensional issue (800 px wide) than an artifact one. 

[sizemore]

Wow in typical Railwire fashion this has ran the whole gamut.  ;D

[DKS]

But i am willing to make a prediction, any image that can be displayed on a forum will be effected more by jpg artifacts than diffraction loss going from f8 to f32.

This is entirely under user control, by varying the jpeg compression setting. It's also dependent on the paint program being used, as jpeg compression engines are not all created equal. I'm not sure how it is these days, but several years ago I pitted Adobe PhotoShop against Corel PhotoPaint in a head-to-head jpeg compression match, and Corel was the clear winner for compression quality by a surprisingly huge margin. Given the incessant march forward in technology improvements (for the most part), the playing field has probably leveled out a fair bit by now.

Yes. This is a very good point. You gotta think about the display medium too.

The diffraction issue doesn't seem to be so horrible when you're only looking at it at 800px wide...

Yes, however, it can be risky making assumptions about how an image is used. More than a few times I've been left kicking myself because I shot an image "casually" only to learn that the one single image I had was the most appropriate for use in a larger format (like printing in a magazine). Sure, progress photos of layout construction, etc., are "safe" to just knock off with a pocket cam, but when you're shooting "good" stuff, it's always safer to assume that it needs to be the best it can possibly be.