Posted by Tim Buchanan on April 17, 2006 at 12:39 AM
I've never had a chance to see these in the wild, but found them in a backyard in Illinois. Very interesting flowers! (and hard to get the color just right)
Canon 20D
ISO 100
TS-E 90 (an interesting new lens!)
f2.8 for 1/125 of a second.
Thaks for looking!
Posted by Wayne Rhodus on April 17, 2006 at 9:59 AM
Beautiful Tim! Wonderful light, color and detail and the subject makes for a perfect comp. I really like what you've done here.
Starting from the right, the first & third bloom are slightly OOF so I was wondering if there was a tiny bit of wind or whether it's more a function of the TS-E? I can't imagine trying to focus that new bad-boy lens of yours. I have enough trouble with one that's directly in line with the sensor!
Posted by Tim Buchanan on April 17, 2006 at 10:53 AM
I was certainly dodging the wind (I snapped many shots here, but only a few of them were usable), but this time it's the wide open aperture that's causing the OOF area. For the composition I wanted, the smaller flowers were further away from the camera than the large ones and tilting the focal plane in that direction let me use a wider aperture (perhaps I could have stopped it down a little more, but sometimes I think focus is overrated).
One trick you can do to fight the limited depth of field issue is to bracket your focus - shoot a series of exposures with different parts of your subject in focus (all other controls being equal) and just blend them together as needed. Works better on some photos than others (and you might have to enlarge/reduce a layer), but sometimes all you need is just one additional spot in focus and that is easy to do.
That 90 is a pain to use but is one of the very best lenses of all time.
Very nice Tim! I like these flowers as much as Dutchmans Breeches, or even more. It doesn't require much imagination to see what close relatives they are. You've done a great job of capturing their beauty.
I don't want to seem picky, but I think the name that Nikon and Canon gives to these lenses is somewhat of a misnomer, and can be confusing to those that use both 35mm and LF. In LF work, a tilt is a movement about a horizontal axis. A swing is a movement about a vertical axis. When it comes to 35mm work, you can't technically swing or tilt the focal (sensor) plane, only the lens. So, if a 35mm camera is oriented horizontally, the movement is a lens swing, and if the camera is oriented vertically, it would then be a tilt. Just my $.02 worth...
Posted by Wayne Rhodus on April 18, 2006 at 10:54 AM
I know I'm new (somewhat) to all this stuff but I don't understand your point Bill. In my mind they sound and work the same, LF or not. Could someone please explain?
Posted by Tim Buchanan on April 18, 2006 at 11:09 AM
I'd love to work with one of the new digital backs and a LF body - maybe one of these days when I win the lottery (of course I'd have to play first ).
Since I've never done LF, I can only describe Canon's lens. On this lens, there are only two movements - a tilt and a shift. The lens can rotate within its own body so that the tilt technically becomes a swing (and the shift becomes rise/fall), but that can be done independently from the camera's orientation (good thing, or you'd be really limited instead of somewhat limited).
You could also have this lens altered (or there are instructions to do it on-line) to have rise/fall and tilt OR shift and swing. I guess you could buy a second lens to easily switch between the two formats.
I THINK I've got all of that right, but I'm sure I'll hear about it if I didn't!
I guess my main point was that the focal plane remains fixed on a 35mm camera body. Since the lens rotates within itself (cool!), then regardless of the camera orientation if you "swing" the lens about a vertical axis as it appears you've done here, it's a swing movement. Rotation about a horizontal axis is a tilt. I'm not going to touch the alteration and second lens thing...
Posted by Wayne Rhodus on April 18, 2006 at 11:55 AM
Well I've confirmed one thing for sure .... I'm not ready for a tilt/shift lens anytime soon ....
Discussion
9 repliesCanon 20D
ISO 100
TS-E 90 (an interesting new lens!)
f2.8 for 1/125 of a second.
Thaks for looking!
Starting from the right, the first & third bloom are slightly OOF so I was wondering if there was a tiny bit of wind or whether it's more a function of the TS-E? I can't imagine trying to focus that new bad-boy lens of yours. I have enough trouble with one that's directly in line with the sensor!
That 90 is a pain to use but is one of the very best lenses of all time.
I don't want to seem picky, but I think the name that Nikon and Canon gives to these lenses is somewhat of a misnomer, and can be confusing to those that use both 35mm and LF. In LF work, a tilt is a movement about a horizontal axis. A swing is a movement about a vertical axis. When it comes to 35mm work, you can't technically swing or tilt the focal (sensor) plane, only the lens. So, if a 35mm camera is oriented horizontally, the movement is a lens swing, and if the camera is oriented vertically, it would then be a tilt. Just my $.02 worth...
Since I've never done LF, I can only describe Canon's lens. On this lens, there are only two movements - a tilt and a shift. The lens can rotate within its own body so that the tilt technically becomes a swing (and the shift becomes rise/fall), but that can be done independently from the camera's orientation (good thing, or you'd be really limited instead of somewhat limited).
You could also have this lens altered (or there are instructions to do it on-line) to have rise/fall and tilt OR shift and swing. I guess you could buy a second lens to easily switch between the two formats.
I THINK I've got all of that right, but I'm sure I'll hear about it if I didn't!