Neowin Digital Gallery

[11222111]

Finally got around to testing out some macro shots with the Sigma lens.. (is there anything relatively cheap that i can add on to this lens to get me a little closer?)

Self portraits? You're well ripped

[Bubbabyte]

Self portraits? You're well ripped

I wish i could say it was a self portrait..lol It's a UFC figure of Frank Mir.

[richardsim7]

[11222111]

I wish i could say it was a self portrait..lol It's a UFC figure of Frank Mir.

lol, yeah, I knew it was some sort of figure - can't believe UFC fighters are action figures now. Where will it stop :laugh:

Lol, you've caught the top of the monitor in the image on screen - close one, might have had some sort of crazy infinite loop had you captured the wee penguin to! :laugh:

EDIT: lol, you did get him, right in the corner! infinite loop - begin.

[Draconian Guppy]

lol, yeah, I knew it was some sort of figure - can't believe UFC fighters are action figures now. Where will it stop :laugh:

Lol, you've caught the top of the monitor in the image on screen - close one, might have had some sort of crazy infinite loop had you captured the wee penguin to! :laugh:

EDIT: lol, you did get him, right in the corner! infinite loop - begin.

I don't get the loop :s

[11222111]

I don't get the loop :s

You know you could have (even though the pic on the screen does't actually have a copy of that same pic on the screen :wacko: ) the penguin staring at the face on the screen and, behind the face on the screen, another (out of focus admittedly) penguin staring at another face on the screen of a monitor within the first picture and behind that you could have.......

Works in my head lol

[Draconian Guppy]

You know you could have (even though the pic on the screen does't actually have a copy of that same pic on the screen :wacko: ) the penguin staring at the face on the screen and, behind the face on the screen, another (out of focus admittedly) penguin staring at another face on the screen of a monitor within the first picture and behind that you could have.......

Works in my head lol

:| :wacko:

Ok i'll believe you :p

[Draconian Guppy]

Keeping with my b & w theme.

[crazzy88ss]

[Andre]

Finally got around to testing out some macro shots with the Sigma lens.. (is there anything relatively cheap that i can add on to this lens to get me a little closer?)

<...>

Close up filters: Canon 250D (4+ dioptre, only unto 58mm filter thread) or 500D (2+ dioptre, unto 77mm). There are many similar achromatic filters around, but these are the most common and are easy to get hold of. Nikon has some as well, but they are not as widely used and/or produced, so they are hard to find (Nikon 3T, 4T, 5T, 6T... 6T has even been discontinued). Any of those attached on your macro will allow you to focus closer without losing optical quality. Don't spend money on cheap close up filters (aka sets) as they will ruin the image quality dramatically and will produce a lot of chromatic aberrations.

Extension tubes. Never tried with a macro, since I don't own one, but they work very well with normal glass if you wish to focus just a little bit closer. Some say because tubes contain no glass, there's almost no image quality loss. Which is true. Others say there is because the light is forced to take a path other than it was designed to take. Also true. Tubes work the best for short lenses, upto 50mm or so. If you stack a lot tubes, then you start seeing degradation in quality. Hence why with tele lenses you are better of with achromatic close up filters.

[11222111]

Close up filters: Canon 250D (4+ dioptre, only unto 58mm filter thread) or 500D (2+ dioptre, unto 77mm). There are many similar achromatic filters around, but these are the most common and are easy to get hold of. Nikon has some as well, but they are not as widely used and/or produced, so they are hard to find (Nikon 3T, 4T, 5T, 6T... 6T has even been discontinued). Any of those attached on your macro will allow you to focus closer without losing optical quality. Don't spend money on cheap close up filters (aka sets) as they will ruin the image quality dramatically and will produce a lot of chromatic aberrations.

Extension tubes. Never tried with a macro, since I don't own one, but they work very well with normal glass if you wish to focus just a little bit closer. Some say because tubes contain no glass, there's almost no image quality loss. Which is true. Others say there is because the light is forced to take a path other than it was designed to take. Also true. Tubes work the best for short lenses, upto 50mm or so. If you stack a lot tubes, then you start seeing degradation in quality. Hence why with tele lenses you are better of with achromatic close up filters.

What would happen if you put a reversing adapter on the camera to turn the macro around - would you get like electron microscope detail?

[Dejon]

[richardsim7]

Woah, got a bigger one? :)

[11222111]

Woah, got a bigger one? :)

seconded that looks awesome.

[Bubbabyte]

wow Dejon, that pic is incredible.

[Draconian Guppy]

hmmmm I've never seen dejon share bigger than 1024x768, not that there's anything wrong with that, just saying ;)

Quite amazing, though kinda gives me the creeps of being lost in a desert :p

[TAZMINATOR]

I took this picture with my old FujiFilm camera:

I thought it's funny because of her tongue. I got it at the perfect timing.

[Draconian Guppy]

I took this picture with my old FujiFilm camera:

I thought it's funny because of her tongue. I got it at the perfect timing.

Dem evol Dog ais!!! Good timing :)

[crazzy88ss]

watermarks are so lame :/

[Draconian Guppy]

watermarks are so lame :/

+1 But to each their own. I kinda like Bubbas watermark though. Customized for each photo.

[crazzy88ss]

Yea I kinda just meant the generic GIANT ugly watermark. Moonman's are fine too.

It just seems like so much extra work, though :/

[spikey_richie]

Taken in the Maldives.

This is taken from the balcony of the Getty Museum in LA looking out towards the south west

[Jordan Green]

[Draconian Guppy]

Yea I kinda just meant the generic GIANT ugly watermark. Moonman's are fine too.

It just seems like so much extra work, though :/

+1 Only if i'm going to give away my shots to someone eg, shots I took of a friend and he wants them, no prob, I'll add a slightly embossed initials on one of the corners barely noticeable, not enough to ruin the shot, but still there to prove ownership in case needed.

Nice, but the second one need to look like the first one in terms of contrast/saturation, it feels washed out.

@ Jordan, love black and white (Y) color is overrated :p

[spikey_richie]

Nice, but the second one need to look like the first one in terms of contrast/saturation, it feels washed out.

A LOT of pics from my E500 look washed out, I usually have to up the contrast some. The image looks fine on the LCD on the camera, but when they're downloaded they do look pale.