Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Back when I were a lad, our chief photographer used the only Canon 7s I've ever seen in captivity, along with a f1.2/50.
I know that he used focus bracketing with the lens wide open, on account of I saw him doing it at a folk gig I attended in my leisure time. I poked my nose into the darkroom the following morning and he was printing the shots on 10x8, looking for one that had the singer's eyes right in focus.
He found two, out of ten frames.
This was a man who knew that what matters is the result.
I know that he used focus bracketing with the lens wide open, on account of I saw him doing it at a folk gig I attended in my leisure time. I poked my nose into the darkroom the following morning and he was printing the shots on 10x8, looking for one that had the singer's eyes right in focus.
He found two, out of ten frames.
This was a man who knew that what matters is the result.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
That's great.. but.. here's the thing..
the guy in the video is a) not shooting macros and b) using a Leica M (not exactly the tool you'd use for macros in the first place but I'm sure someone will say I'm absolutely wrong and that it's perfectly good to use for macros *waits for Jaap to show up*
Cheers,
Dave
It just camera and lens, doesn't matter if it is Leica or DSLR, same known technique. Nothing new. DOF is DOF always.
Cheers.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
It's a technique that I can see being used for macro .. sure.. but portraits?!?!?!
That's someone who doesn't know the right equipment for the job.
Cheers,
Dave
redisburning
Well-known
so we're not above criticizing proper technique now, are we?
let's say you **** up one of your shots with missed focus (we're all human) but you really like the light/composition. are you now going to call back the model, set everything up again, and take the picture?
this thread is 100x more stupid than the video. FFS
let's say you **** up one of your shots with missed focus (we're all human) but you really like the light/composition. are you now going to call back the model, set everything up again, and take the picture?
this thread is 100x more stupid than the video. FFS
DougK
This space left blank
Totally agree. At the distance he's standing, even wide open he should have at least a little DOF to play with to cover a slight focus error.
EDIT: I'd also think that rocking back and forth would increase the likelihood of blurring the shot through motion.
DNG
Film Friendly
He did say he shooting at large f/stops for this "Technique",
BUT, I'd imagine at 8-15 feet away, the DOF is plenty deep wide open for the Eyes/Nose & Mouth to be in focus in most cases..
as others said.... I don't see the need, and the EVF would help if he has problems with the LCD.
He used "Safe Cracking" which is not Focus Stacking the way he uses it .... He does slightly change the focus ring during his braketing... but, he does not do it to "Stack" then later... He says he will pic the sharpest image (the 1st and last ... Hahaha, and pick one of these)
I will "Re-Focus" for each shot... so I have 3-6 images to chose from, That is how I focus Bracket ;-)
BUT, I'd imagine at 8-15 feet away, the DOF is plenty deep wide open for the Eyes/Nose & Mouth to be in focus in most cases..
as others said.... I don't see the need, and the EVF would help if he has problems with the LCD.
He used "Safe Cracking" which is not Focus Stacking the way he uses it .... He does slightly change the focus ring during his braketing... but, he does not do it to "Stack" then later... He says he will pic the sharpest image (the 1st and last ... Hahaha, and pick one of these)
I will "Re-Focus" for each shot... so I have 3-6 images to chose from, That is how I focus Bracket ;-)
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
Not only for macro, also some kind of product photography can benefit from this. I do this quite often with food photography, when the dof is so shallow that most of the picture is actually out of focus it is sometimes not exactly trivial to know which is the point which should be the sharpest and even tough I usually have my opinion I'd rather have one picture more than one less. Also, if it is stock one is shooting it is useful to have almost the same picture with, say, the shrimp or the rice in top focus as these pictures can be used in different context, for instance to go with an article about seafood or with one about the great value of rice in a diet.
GLF
brbo
Well-known
"Whatever works for you"...
...unless you're typ240+noctilux rich.
...unless you're typ240+noctilux rich.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
That post is cruel, unkind and just plain hurtful.
Admittedly, it is also 100% accurate
unixrevolution
Well-known
I guess what I don't understand is how, if carefully focusing with the RF doesn't get it dead-on, a random amount forwards and backwards will.
It would seem to me to do this right, you'd have to rock back and forth taking at least 10-15 shots each direction, if the DOF is THAT thin and could be (or may not be!) off by THAT much, to get EXACTLY what you want in focus.
It would seem to me to do this right, you'd have to rock back and forth taking at least 10-15 shots each direction, if the DOF is THAT thin and could be (or may not be!) off by THAT much, to get EXACTLY what you want in focus.
redisburning
Well-known
focus is like exposure, there is no "correct" focus. there is a best focus for what you want to do.
If you take 3 exposures at different focus points, you simply select the one that is closest to what you wanted originally. If you take 3 when focused on a 45 degree face, you could get far eye, close eye and tip of the nose. If your RF is aligned perfectly AND you didn't move AND your eyesight is good enough to focus that accurately. You might also get close eye, tip of nose and straight up OoF.
it's fine to be careless when you are an amateur. I rarely bother with focus or exposure bracketing. but if someone was paying me, or even more if I was paying a model, I'd have to have a lobotomy to act as carelessly as many of the people in this thread suggest is perfectly fine.
rough, blurred and OoF is fine for certain styles. if you want to be in the shineys it just isnt.
If you take 3 exposures at different focus points, you simply select the one that is closest to what you wanted originally. If you take 3 when focused on a 45 degree face, you could get far eye, close eye and tip of the nose. If your RF is aligned perfectly AND you didn't move AND your eyesight is good enough to focus that accurately. You might also get close eye, tip of nose and straight up OoF.
it's fine to be careless when you are an amateur. I rarely bother with focus or exposure bracketing. but if someone was paying me, or even more if I was paying a model, I'd have to have a lobotomy to act as carelessly as many of the people in this thread suggest is perfectly fine.
rough, blurred and OoF is fine for certain styles. if you want to be in the shineys it just isnt.
ferider
Veteran
You have to admit though, RIB, that if somebody was paying you, you would be unlikely to use an M240 + Noctilux + ND filter for this kind of shoot, no ?
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Which brings me back to choosing the right tool for the job at hand.
I can always use the head of a screwdriver to hammer in a nail IF it's all I had available to me...
(mind you, if dude has got the M9, the M240 and the f0.95 Noctilux it could be that truly IS all he has available to him because he doesn't have any money to purchase other equipment..
)Cheers,
Dave
furcafe
Veteran
brbo
Well-known
In a way, focus bracketing IS (extra) careful focusing.
Besides, the guy in video uses focus and recompose a lot. I'd like to know a "dead-on" way of focusing with a rangefinder in this situation.
Sure, his movements seem random and quite excessive for my taste, but he's got the principles right. He's increasing the odds of getting away with a picture that he'll like.
redisburning
Well-known
there is no other way to get that shallow DoF with that perspective and level of contrast unless you go to MF. And if you don't want to shoot tethered, well then the M240 actually is a good choice.
BTW even if you use a 1Dx and a 200/2 IS you may still need to bracket focus to get it exactly right. AF systems have slop inherent to their design.
regardless of the tool he is using, his is using good technique to maximize the hit rate of his focus with his preferred tool. you should note he is using a magnifier as well, on the most accurate RF ever put in a Leica, and he still brackets focus. just like how large format shooters take two exposures just in case.
being sloppy yourself is fine. making fun of someone for holding themselves to a higher technical standard than you do for yourself is completely asinine.
redisburning
Well-known
well I compared his flickr to yours and regardless of how good the photographs are respectively, his technical image quality is a lot higher than yours.
which I guess implies you are extra garbage at using a rangefinder.
BLKRCAT
75% Film
alright zip em up, this pissing contest is over.
ferider
Veteran
RIB, I'm not sure why you think I'm sloppy
Nobody is saying focus bracketing has no uses. It's just easier, more accurate and much faster with other tools.
And, BTW, the Noct Nikkor has basically the same DOF as the Noctilux wide open. And then there is the Canon 50/1 USM as well.
That being said, I'm following ZF1's advice and leave this thread now.
Roland.
Nobody is saying focus bracketing has no uses. It's just easier, more accurate and much faster with other tools.
And, BTW, the Noct Nikkor has basically the same DOF as the Noctilux wide open. And then there is the Canon 50/1 USM as well.
That being said, I'm following ZF1's advice and leave this thread now.
Roland.
redisburning
Well-known
Roland, the Noct Nikkor does not have the same field of view and it is severely behind the Noctilux in off-axis contrast at large aperture. it doesn't catch up to the Noctilux in on-axis contrast until f11.
the Canon has the field of view but it's even further behind the Noctilux in contrast.