(Be sure to adjust your monitor so that you can see all 20 steps in the gray scale calibration strip.)
ClarkPhotography@spiritone.com), December 04, 1998

Answers

ClarkPhotography@spiritone.com), December 04, 1998.

ClarkPhotography@spiritone.com), December 04, 1998.

Shot with 80-200 f2.8, T90, Canon extension tube, Canon 300TL flash with small softbox diffuser, Velvia. f16 @ 1/250.

This is a re-sampled (and watermarked) version of a file I output on canvas. Wish I could display that one here. No tweaking other than the border. Colors are as close as possible to the original, given the limitations of the scanner.

Keith -----

You kept forgetting closing quotes on your HREF for the gamma strip.

Anyways, nice picture. Is critical focus on the bee sharp in the original? This image looks sharpest on the left antenna.

-- Andrew Y. Kim (andy_roo@mit.edu), December 04, 1998.

Gee, it almost takes an MIT degree to do this right...what a minute...I have an MIT degree...what a mess! :)

-- Andrew Y. Kim (andy_roo@mit.edu), December 04, 1998.

Beautiful picture, both in balance and exposure. The border plug-in and copyright treatment are not my cup of tea, but what do I know.

-- Mike Green (mgprod@mindspring.com), December 04, 1998.

OK, serves me right for trying to be fancy with HTML. My degree isn't in software. ;> Sorry guys.

The DOF with this setup is next to zero (it's not an excuse, either ;>). I think it's in the range of fractions of an inch. Knowing this, I chose to let the foreground legs stay soft in order to keep the body as sharp as possible. It's probably complicated by the fact that I wasn't exactly parallel to the critter...this super closeup stuff is lots of fun but challenging. I spent 3 days once getting a picture of a fish in an aquarium (the result was hilaious).

I shot this about three years ago and found the slide yesterday as I was looking for another one. I was so spring-like, I just had to scan it. ;>

The border is actually a custom combination of three frames, one of which I made myself. Yeah, it ain't so hot on the monitor, but you should see it on canvas!

Later,

Keith

-- Keith Clark (ClarkPhotography@spiritone.com), December 04, 1998.

The focus comment wasn't a particular criticism, it's tough to deal with active insects!

When handling a zoom on an extension tube, how do you deal with all the degrees of freedom? Shaw's closeup book recommends against using tubes on zooms, but it seemed to me that if one were to find some kind of consistent working algorithm, it could work fine...any hints? I've been thinking of hooking up an extension tube to the 80- 200mm f2.8 to try a hand at insects as well.

I don't find HTML particularly nice to deal with either...it was just funny that I made it worse at first, along the lines of the "how many engineers does it take to..." jokes I get all the time.

-- Andrew Y. Kim (andy_roo@mit.edu), December 05, 1998.

Andy,

Actually I don't use any algorithms, I just know from experience what I can do with each combination of tubes.

Remember, just because a big name like Shaw says something, doesn't make it gospel, necessarily. God gave us brains of our own to use and I'll always be gratefull fo my sixth grade science teacher, who taught me to question authority. (He says, as he emits an "evil" laugh ;>)

Yeah, I do agree that working with tubes can be a pain at times, but it's one I'll live with in order to not put another piece of glass in front of the lens. After all, a basic part of a dedicated macro lens is built in extension...

Best to all,

Keith

-- Keith Clark (ClarkPhotography@spiritone.com), December 08, 1998.