New additions, C & C Welcome!

[Jonleeper]

I have finally managed to get my good lady to agree and Bonny and Clyde (they robbed my wallet of all its cash and keep trying to escape!), 2 year old Royal Pythons, are now happily ensconced in my spare room. I will want to document their growth and have made a start below. The photos are not particularly good and focus seems to be a real issue! All taken with my Canon EOS 10d and Tamron XR Di 28-75mm 1:2.8 Macro lens. I was trying to keep the aperture large to both decrease the depth of field and increase the shutter speed. Unfortunately the shutter speeds are quite low and I do not have a suitable tripod to use. They do not move very fast but they are both fascinated by the camera and move towards it making accurate focus quite difficult! The lack of light is also an issue and flash just washes out the colours. Thy have all just been uploaded from Lightroom so have had no post-processing added.

Would I be better investing in a macro lens set-up to capture them or would a longer "macro" zoom (Sigma 70 - 200 f2.8 for example) be a better bet? Most of the shots were at the limit of reach for my lens (75mm) but would a, for example, 100mm macro be best? They are much bigger then the usual subjects for macro photography so I am not sure how to progress.

All comments welcome. Many thanks Jon


Taken without flash. ISO 100 60mm f/2.8 1/4 sec

Taken with flash. ISO 100 60mm f/2.8 1/200 sec

ISO 400 75mm f/2.8 1/15 sec

ISO 400 75mm f/2.8 1/20 sec

ISO 400 75mm f/3.5 1/40 sec

ISO 400 75mm f/3.5 1/40 sec

ISO 400 75mm f/3.5 1/25 sec

ISO 400 75mm f/2.8 1/30 sec

ISO 400 75mm f/2.8 1/15 sec

[stigmundfreud]

think you've gone way too wide at that focal length / f stop as ther is litterally only a small portion in focus, also its blending too much with all the surroundings making it like a magic picture

Edited by stigmundfreud on Wednesday 25th June 11:43

[DIW35]

Would agree with Stigmund. With such a shallow depth of field, you can see where the focus point is in some of your pictures, and it's not where it should be. I don't think you need to consider a different lens; I would use a smaller apertur and use a tripod if this results in shutter speeds that are too slow to be comfortably hand held.

[miniman]

:shudder:

[Jonleeper]

miniman said:

:shudder:

I didn't think that they were that bad for a first attempt!

The reason for thinking about a longer lens was that I could get further away from the head and still retain the large aperture. The extra distance would increase the depth of field whilst keeping the shutter speed as fast as possible. I just like the warm tones of the natrually lit image as opposed to the harsher light of the flash. What do people think about the composition?

Edited by Jonleeper on Wednesday 25th June 14:46

[Goldeeno]

Do you really need a macro lens? because you get such a small focus plane, surely a "normal" zoom lens would be better, you cant see much, especially on animals with the macro etc..?
If you can afford a 70-200mm F2.8, awesome, how big are these things and how close can you get to them? the 18-55mm kit lens as minimum focus distance of 28cm, and if the light is bad might i surrgest a cheap flash gun and cable, to have off camera flash? I assume you used the on camera flash for these?

Edited by Goldeeno on Wednesday 25th June 14:49

[stigmundfreud]

Jonleeper said:

miniman said:

:shudder:

I didn't think that they were that bad for a first attempt!

The reason for thinking about a longer lens was that I could get further away from the head and still retain the large aperture. The extra distance would increase the depth of field whilst keeping the shutter speed as fast as possible. I just like the warm tones of the natrually lit image as opposed to the harsher light of the flash. What do people think about the composition?

Edited by Jonleeper on Wednesday 25th June 14:46

focal length has nothing to do with aperture. You can be at f1.8 at 24cm or at 3meters = no difference. I think you have used too wide an aperture because your depth of field is so narrow you have hardly any substance in focus. You could go f8 - focus on tip of nose which then should cover down to the rear of the head at least whilst still dropping the rest out of focus (f8 may be too narrow)

[Jonleeper]

stigmundfreud said:

Jonleeper said:

miniman said:

:shudder:

I didn't think that they were that bad for a first attempt!

The reason for thinking about a longer lens was that I could get further away from the head and still retain the large aperture. The extra distance would increase the depth of field whilst keeping the shutter speed as fast as possible. I just like the warm tones of the natrually lit image as opposed to the harsher light of the flash. What do people think about the composition?

Edited by Jonleeper on Wednesday 25th June 14:46

focal length has nothing to do with aperture. You can be at f1.8 at 24cm or at 3meters = no difference. I think you have used too wide an aperture because your depth of field is so narrow you have hardly any substance in focus. You could go f8 - focus on tip of nose which then should cover down to the rear of the head at least whilst still dropping the rest out of focus (f8 may be too narrow)

I thought that the distance the lens is from the subject increases the depth of field, ie taking a shot of mountains in the far distance even at f/2.8 will still render a significant depth of field whilst taking a flower at a few feet would result in a considerable smaller DOF.

[_dobbo_]

Jonleeper said:

I thought that the distance the lens is from the subject increases the depth of field

It does - so with a 70-200 f/2.8 not only would the DoF be even shallower, but there would be no more light getting into the lens, so you would still have to use the same shutter speed.

Your two choices here are higher ISO, or better lighting.