Cool eyes! Love the detail. thanks for sharing!
Cheers Adam
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fernando Gonzalez Gentile" <fgnzalez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 12:23 PM
Subject: [OM] FW: macro shots with OM 38/2.8
>
> ----------
> From: "Dean C. Hansen" <hanse112@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: Dean C Hansen <hanse112@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:46:55 -0700
> To: fgnzalez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: macro shots with OM 38/2.8
>
> Hello Fernando,
> A week ago you posted on the OM list about a photo I had sent you
> some time ago. Thank you for the kind words. I tried to reply to the
> list, but I had my post rejected by the list server. What I tried to
> post follows.
> Best wishes,
> Dean
>
>
> Hello OMers,
> Walt rightly pointed out:
> "And two T32s? Isn't that a little overkill? And that's got to be one
> heavy rig! I've got the Lepp gear, too, but the T28 twins are more than
>
> enough for any situation I've ever encountered."
> Yes, normally, two T32s are overkill. But I'm not normal. I use a
> home-made fixture to hold two sheets of polarizing sheets in front of
> the T32s, and then I use a polarizing filter on the 38/2.8. This
> "cross-polarization" set-up eats up about 4 stops, and even the 2 T32s
> can't always be counted on to come up with enough light.
> And, yes, the whole thing is heavy. The Lepp II is a bit of a pain,
>
> if fact, because the weight of the T32 is beyond the Lepp's capacity to
> hold it securely, so I have more than once cursed the whole arrangement
> as a flash swings out of place. What we macro freaks will put up with
> to photograph something most folks never see anyway.
> Walt also mentions:
> "At any distance the 38/2.8 will focus on, the T28s are plenty powerful
> enough to shoot at f/22, with room to spare."
> Be that as it may, I never shoot above f11 with my 38/2.8. I have
> found (YMMV) that diffraction takes over above f11, at least with this
> lens, and any increase in depth of field is more than negated by a
> decrease in resolution. And good resolution at f45 with the 135/4.5?
> I'd have to see it to believe it.
> Then Fernando added:
> "Dean sent me privately, a year ago, "a shot of a mayfly nymph taken
> with the OM4T, 38mm lens, and 65-116 tube in a home-made underwater
> housing." using two T32s. Hope not to be disclosing any secret. Dean
> may have good reasons for not having his pictures posted on the web."
> The good reasons are lack of time and lack of experience with
> setting up a web site. I have a number of shots I'd be happy to share.
> Some are posted at:
>
http://www.benthos.org/DigitalLibrary/index.cfm/fuseaction/browse/13/Browse.
> htm
>
> Start with "Baetis eyes" (8th one down) and go through to "Simuliid
> larvae." If you're not too familiar with aquatic insects, remember that
>
> only the "Baetis eyes" was shot in the lab; the rest are of aquatic
> insects photographed while they were at home underwater in streams.
> Best wishes,
> Dean
>
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|