• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Bass Photography! Part 2

#501
finalrequiem said:
If I could get a version of it in 960x800 resolution it'd be the new background wallpaper on my Captivate! hint hint ;)
Click to expand...

I'm sorry finalrequiem, I missed your post before :(! I'll PM you and we'll sort it out ;).


Anyway, here's another slightly abstract one, fresh from being 'Photoshopped' :D ...

Deep_Purple_01_1000.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluesdogblues
#502
Carver said:
Here's a few from a set of B&W macros that I've been working on to put in my office (I'm also going to surprise a friend of mine with a set to put in his new studio). I plan on shooting several other instruments, but here's a few of the first batch.

What do you guys think?

IMG_7210.jpg
Click to expand...

:) I think that they are all stupendous :hyper:!

What kind of aperture were you using for those shots - f/1.4 :confused:? Whatever it was, the shallow depth of field really does a great job of highlighting the flame maple in that first shot. If you'd just gone with a smaller aperture and kept the whole flame pattern in focus, the impact would have been drastically reduced, IMO :hmm:. Sometimes, less really is more :smug:.

Well done Dr. Carver - excellent work :D!
 
#512
Fender32 said:
:) I think that they are all stupendous :hyper:!

What kind of aperture were you using for those shots - f/1.4 :confused:? Whatever it was, the shallow depth of field really does a great job of highlighting the flame maple in that first shot. If you'd just gone with a smaller aperture and kept the whole flame pattern in focus, the impact would have been drastically reduced, IMO :hmm:. Sometimes, less really is more :smug:.

Well done Dr. Carver - excellent work :D!
Click to expand...

Thanks!

I'd have to go back and look, but I think it is f2.8. I used a Canon 100L macro lens, so that sounds about right.
 
#513
Carver said:
Thanks!

I'd have to go back and look, but I think it is f2.8. I used a Canon 100L macro lens, so that sounds about right.
Click to expand...

Ah, it was a telephoto macro lens :smug:!? That explains why the depth of field appears to be so shallow. F/2.8 would almost certainly be the largest aperture on that lens (I'm a Nikon man myself, so I don't know the lens), but the DOF looks much like a larger aperture would on a shorter (non-telephoto) lens.

Anyway, technical guff aside, they're still a really great set of images IMO ;).
 
#516
Fender32 said:
Ah, it was a telephoto macro lens :smug:!? That explains why the depth of field appears to be so shallow. F/2.8 would almost certainly be the largest aperture on that lens (I'm a Nikon man myself, so I don't know the lens), but the DOF looks much like a larger aperture would on a shorter (non-telephoto) lens.

Anyway, technical guff aside, they're still a really great set of images IMO ;).
Click to expand...

Yeah...I had to get super close to get that shallow DOF. I had just gotten the macro lens, so I was excited to put it through its paces. I'm hoping to add a few more to the series this weekend. I'll post them when they're finished.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back