On 4/14/2020 5:17 AM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:
Any discussion that prompts Moose to illuminate the intricacies of photography
are never a bother.
Thanks, Wayne,
Although Philippe says he is sorry for bothering me, I'm not sorry. In fact, I've been known to see a question implicit
in a posted photo, raise, then answer it.
I only choose those that I find interesting, and I find them interesting in
several way.
First, there is just more information, about gear, settings, software and technique than I seem to be able to hold in my
head.
Second, there's even more stuff to learn than I have already learned and partially or completely forgotten. It's not
uncommon for me to find an example I did in the past that I've forgotten, at least until I see it again. Here, I knew
that the Pentax 67 T132 achromatic C-U lens worked well for me, but now I know its actual max magnification and subject
coverage area.
Then there's the anticipation of giving others the gift of gear knowledge, tools and techniques that allow them to
improve their own photography. And the joy when I see or hear the results.
At 4/13/2020 10:57 PM, Philippe wrote:
Thanks dear Moose
the original question was "why use a RING flash on a 100-400 eq."
And after reading everyone’s answers I still can’t see its justification.
Flash question almost never interest me. I do have the original Oly ring flashes. I even replaced a failed flash tube in
one - then digital happened - then LEDs happened. I do use an LED ring light for macro on the stand.
Your secondary question, "FL eq 100-400 - do you really shoot macro with that
FL?" did interest me.
Happy Dabbler Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|