• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

found the cause of blurred images

Harvey Moore

New member
Went for a walk this morning with my 300 in hand, almost stepped on this, which caused the rest of the shoot to be a little blurry

300 f4, 400, f11, 1/200 IS on, man focus



All comments on this and the iimages posted down the thread a little are welcome

harvey
 
Last edited:

Harvey Moore

New member
Not sure of the kind of snake, we have a good variety of rat snakes, king snakes etc around here. This one was about 5'-6' long, coloring a little on the dull side, I think it was ready to shed.

The only poisonous snakes here are copperheads, generally a lot smaller than this guy.
 
Cool shot, Harvey! My guess would be Northern Water Snake, but if there's any question, I can check with my son - he's the "herp" in our families (has been since age 13! - now raises and breeds milk snakes, corn snakes, and a variety of others!).

Where were you exactly - I have gone to a Park just southeast of Rock Hill with my son (and grandson!) to look for these, and just enjoy a good walk in the woods. It's on a river, and I'm blocking just now on the name.
 

Harvey Moore

New member
Thanks Don

Just did a google search, I think you are right about Northern Watersnake, the web site said about 3' max, this one was at least 4 1/2', but maybe my startled state influenced this, although I did watch it cruise along the waters edge hoping to shoot it eating, but it disappeared into some vegetation.

I live in Anderson, this was taken just south of Clemson.
 

Harvey Moore

New member
Asher,

No, these were all pure 300 f4, the f4 focuses a little closer then the 2.8 version.

I've been testing the 500D on the 300, but the depth of field seems about as thick as a piece of paper, even stopped down to f11. And the slightest breeze is enough to blur the subject some, even at 1/250".

I am going to set up indoors with the 300+500D, maybe sometime this weekend, and I will post results.

I think it was you who suggested extension tubes, looks like you are correct. I am going to order the smallest 1st and see how that does w/300.

harvey
 
hgmoore said:
Asher,

No, these were all pure 300 f4, the f4 focuses a little closer then the 2.8 version.

I've been testing the 500D on the 300, but the depth of field seems about as thick as a piece of paper, even stopped down to f11. And the slightest breeze is enough to blur the subject some, even at 1/250".

I am going to set up indoors with the 300+500D, maybe sometime this weekend, and I will post results.

I think it was you who suggested extension tubes, looks like you are correct. I am going to order the smallest 1st and see how that does w/300.

harvey
With respect to extension tubes: Kenko makes a set of 3 (12mm, 24mm, 36mm) for around $120 last time I checked. These are simply hollow tubes with electrical contacts, and no glass, so in my opinion there is no need to use the more expensive Canon set (which only has 2 tubes). The effect of extension is inversely proportional to focal length: 50mm of extension on a 50mm lens has a huge effect on point of focus and image magnification, but would be much more subtle on a 500mm lens. There are formulae to calculate this (I can dig them out if you'd like).

With respect to the images you posted, we haven't yet established any rules or guidelines for this (Asher: we might need to consider this), but in order to provide effective critique, it would probably be preferable to have a new thread, with a single image. That way the discussion can be more 'focused' and therefore more helpful

Best,
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Don,

We have started to think of various ways to deal with images. Generally Michael annd Nicolas want them on a server. That way the bandwidth here is not compromized.

Currently here is the status:

Picture posting must be for a spcific purpose.

1. Submitted and a few selected for cycled front page showing as examples of some of the very best in each aspect of photography.

2. To illustrate articles, reviews, tutorials and news.

3. At the discretion of OPF members to request solutions to problems of set up, lighting, composition, work flow or final delivery of an optimized image file or print.

4. For critique, so that the photographers artistic vision is developed, refined and then fully expressed in an image of value. This is our goal after all.

5. Glamour, dog, cat, your latest lens picture and so forth have no home here because it detracts from the goals of the serious part of this forum.

6. If you think that some poeple are very likely to be offended by the content, there is a special site at OPF, for such work, the thread of which only, one should link to as a way of being considerate. We want full professional expression, but without being hateful or having the slightest link to child pornography or other degrading material.

7.Fine art nudes are welcome.

8. All images must the the work of the person submitting or posting or else have documented authorization submited and accepted before posting.

9. Images should be annotated in the metafile or EXIF with the © of the photographer and, optionally, key worded for search. But no key word suggesting prurient interest or sexual preference or such acts that might be detected by search engines and draw unwelcome guests.

Asher
 
Asher,

I think what you have itemized sounds very appropriate for OPF.

One item not addressed:

Maximum Size in terms of pixel dimensions and total file size. While perhaps most are on broadband, we need to be considerate of those who aren't, and generally there will be little gained by having an image to be larger than say 600 to 700 pixels at the widest dimension.

Thanks.
 
Just to tie this up: my son confirmed that the original image is in fact a Northern Water Snake. Maximum size is 3-4 feet, and very common around NC/SC lakes, rivers, etc.

And it's the Landsford Canal State Park that I was thinking of. We've been there several times, and he never fails to find (and catch) quite a number of Water Snakes.
 

Harvey Moore

New member
Don, the locals here (I was born and raised in Mich) insist that the name of the snake means Northern South Carolina Water Snake :)

harvey
 

Daniel Harrison

pro member
Nice snake, Yes after that I am sure your photos were a little blurry:) But it looks like the IS works pretty good :) Do you find the IS somewhat indispensible, or could you do without it?
Thanks!
 

Mike Spinak

pro member
Harvey, Asher, Don,

The Canon 300 f/4 IS lens focuses pretty close on its own. When that is not enough, my first choice is usually to add the 1.4 teleconverter, so that I can keep the same distance, but get the subject larger in the frame. The extension tubes work, too, but they make you very limited when dealing with moving subjects going through difficult terrain (uneven ground, puddles, brambles, poison oak/ivy/sumac, stinging nettle, etc.), because they give you a very narrow range of distances from the subject in which you can achieve focus. This is just a rough estimate, but I'd say less than a foot of depth from nearest to farthest, all somewhere in the vicinity of four feet away from the subject. When necessary, the 300 works quite admirably when stacked with both the teleconverter and the extension tubes, provided you stack them in the proper order: the extension tubes next to the camera body, followed by the teleconverter, followed by the lens. (The autofocus does not seem to function as well, when the teleconverter is next to the camera body and the extension tubes are next to the lens... which is unforunate, since the extension tubes would have a more pronounced effect next to the lens.) The 300 stacked with extension tubes and teleconverter is the combination I used all day, today, on a butterfly photo excursion.

Mike
 
Top