Mon Dec 5 22:04:53 EST 2011 Christine Nielsen wrote: > Do you think steam could be a factor? Fogging your lens, or even just > wisps of vapor in the foreground...? I see a few spots where the > texture of the drops changes to a softer, lighter appearance, which > made me think of that possibility... >
I don't think so. It was not steamy at that point, as it was seating in the oven for a few hours after that was switched off. It's probably just the curvature of the pot cover (and hence different distance, resulting in the softer image). Mon Dec 5 14:57:54 EST 2011 Bob Sullivan wrote: > Igor, > Charles is right and f5.6 isn't much of a stop down for Macro. > Mirror shake can be there, but the depth of field is the real issue. I am concerned that nothing is really sharp. At least something should've been sharp. > Try a flash (or two) and a smaller aperture. The effect here was from the ambient source of light. That's why I didn't want to use the flash. > You're trying to photograph a pretty wide field. > Regards, Bob S. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Charles Robinson <charlesr at visi.com> wrote: > > If you pick the 2-second-delay, it will automatically disable the SR. Thanks, I didn't know that. > > For macro work - 5.6 isn't really "stopped down" much. Go to the > extremes and f/8, f/11. OK. (Actually, the shot I showed was done at f/7.1) Ghm.. I previously have done some macro shots at about f/4 +/- ... and they were sharper.. > > As for this particular image, I find it to be too small to evaluate > sharpness/focus. What were you focusing on? > Here is a fragment that is in the area of focus, - with the actual pixel size. (Beware: 2M file) http://42graphy.org/misc/_IR33616-area.jpg I was trying to focus on the smallest bubbles approximately in the middle of this area. Igor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
