Yesterday morning I was up and out early — still not early enough to catch the 5:30ish sunrise, but still early enough to catch a bit of softer light. I stayed close to home, visited the site at the end of my row located on the East Wash.
I decided to work on Karen’s mini assignment since it would also help me learn a bit more about my new camera.
A few comments on the above two photos:
1) If one is going to take a close-up make sure that “pretty” spots are not bugs. I couldn’t believe it when I opened these photos! I have some that are really close-up and icky. (I’ll show them to you if you want to see the sucking little aphids… probably my clearest pics of the morning!)
2) I wish I had thought to take the camera out of AUTO ISO… so that value would be equal in each.
3) You can see a difference in depth of field but it is not extensive. Basically I’ve learned that my camera’s aperture only ranges from f/2.8 to f/8; but if I use the zoom, then that range is reduced favoring the more open apertures (f/5.0 to f/8). So, this tells me that I’m not going to be able to play with aperture priority as much as I had hoped (yes I read the specs before buying the camera but I didn’t “get it.”) Anyway, I can work with this.
The following is a photo taken with the aperture set at f/2.8:
ISO 80; f/2.8 1/500 5 mm — this photo was cropped to remove the edge of an ugly green outdoor carpet.
I forced the camera to enable me to set an aperture at f/2.8 by shooting at a wide angle, rather than zooming and framing the shot. I cropped the image to get rid of the unwanted elements.
I learned an interesting lesson during this exercise… if I want depth of field to look more extensive, even if aiming for a shallow depth of field, having a line that leads away from the central image helps. I had also taken a photo with the fence directly behind the plant, still at f/2.8 and although there is a bit of a bokeh, it was not enough to hide the fence. Final result was not an interesting photo.
I wish I had taken this photo with an aperture of f/8 but still at 5mm – just to see the difference. In fact, now that I see how much I cropped from the photo, I think I would have been better off shooting it with the zoom and the higher aperture that comes with it.
From this point on, if I’m going to experiement I need to take notes. The EXIF information is not enough since it does not show when I used the Macro or Super Macro setting.
Also, I think if I take notes I’ll run through a more disciplined set of tests. As it is, I’m having a hard time finding enough photos (although I took at least 100) for exact comparison.
Manual focus and I do not get along. I’ll stick to auto focus… but will continue to tell the camera WHERE to focus. In the following photo, I used manual focus — can you see the problem? Well, maybe it isn’t as noticeable at this size, but if you look at my original size it’s like a a bad copy and paste.
ISO 80; f/5; 1/320; 59.2 mm; no post processing
Many of the “keeper” photos are are f/5 or f/5.6. Nice mix of clear focus with depth of field leaning on shallow, but not a bokeh. A bokey would be welcome, but I’m not finding that I have a pretty bokeh. But to determine that for sure, I’ll have to experiement more with the Macro and Super Macro.
What was I saying about the bokeh? Obviously this is good bokeh…. but until I get more disciplined about this, I’m not going to be able say why it worked here and not in some/many of the other photos.
I probably should crop this, right? And do a little post processing with levels, maybe burn a bit here and there: