Painting with Lenses

[Fons Baerken]

Df 58mm f/1.4g @ f2

[Fons Baerken]

Df 35mm f/1.4g at full aperture

[Michael Erlewine]

I support and respect all of what has been posted here, but still have (like all of us) my own direction and what satisfies me.

And I APPRECIATE posting which which lens, camera, etc. on our posts, so that we can take that under consideration.

Personally speaking, and I hope we can be frank with one another, I like all of the wild bokeh, but in my images I always want one (perhaps small) something or other in focus, and acute focus at that. Those airy photos that are all bokeh I respect, but they don’t satisfy me. All blur is just that. I want some kind of differential, a point where (as we say) the “rubber meets the road.” Everything a little out-of-focus is just that IMO. Here is one I took with the CRT-Nikkor.

[Michael Erlewine]

There is an interesting video, worth watching, on the use of the Venus 15mm Macro by Thomas Shahan.

w.youtube.com/watch?v=PZcYXUMkhek

The Venus/Laowa 15mm 1:1 Macro WA lens is worth playing with. I am just getting used to it. Shot this one this morning, in that effort. Nikon D810.

[Jakov Minić]

Michael, I am not certain whether this is sharp enough, but I am afraid I cannot do any better when painting. It seems that my brush is too thick
The excessively enthusiastic approach of 45P and PN-11 on a Df.

I'd like to share my observation/taste on the 15 mm stacked photo you just posted.
For me the transition from sharp to unsharp is too sudden. Perhaps both flowers didn't need to be sharp?
I do however like those blues in the lower right hand side of the out of focus areas.
(edit: i added another photo with the same combination)

[Michael Erlewine]

Well, the point is that we each are different, and we allow that in others. Yes, for me, this one you just posted has no area sharp enough to let me feel grounded. Too much spaciness for me. If I were shooting that, I would stack one to three frames of the stamens, so they were tack sharp and then stack those with what you have now. merge them together, but, again, that is just me. We are not shooting a field-guide photo here, but trying to scratch whatever itch we have. For me, I always want to express the reality we have (sharp focus) with the fact that our life is also like a dream.... so some unreality or dreaminess.

I consider all these we post here, tests, trials to push the envelope this way and that to see how it works out. Unless you ask me, I am not going to comment on anything you (or anyone) posts, unless I just really like it, and then you might get a "nice." What you post is you and your right to be what you are; same for me.

What would be good (for me) in this thread is for all of us to specify exactly the lens and camera we use, and to talk about the behavior of the lens, and how we get whatever we get out of it. That is what I try to do.

This idea that you are going to "like" my view or me "yours" just is not important, although it happens. I do like this or that. But what I really want is to learn how to use new lenses to get what I like, not what others like. Capiche?


With that note, here is a photo with just a bit of focus; I had a LR crash that lost the info on which lens this is, since I don't normally use lenses that Nikon cameras can read EXIF from.

[Jakov Minić]

I completely agree with you Michael; we all have our own taste and it is not for discussion.
We are all here to learn from the experiences of others and their camera + lens combinations.
The photos I posted were made with 45P and the PN-11 which gives a really high magnification hence the extremely narrow depth of field.
It doesn't matter whether anybody likes them or not, they get an idea of the results that can be achieved with the given combination, right

[Michael Erlewine]

I completely agree with you Michael; we all have our own taste and it is not for discussion.
We are all here to learn from the experiences of others and their camera + lens combinations.
The photos I posted were made with 45P and the PN-11 which gives a really high magnification hence the extremely narrow depth of field.
It doesn't matter whether anybody likes them or not, they get an idea of the results that can be achieved with the given combination, right

I will have to try the Nikon 45 P lens myself. Have you tried shorter and longer extension than the PN-11 and what were the results. How did you arrive at the PN-11?

[Jakov Minić]

I will have to try the Nikon 45 P lens myself. Have you tried shorter and longer extension than the PN-11 and what were the results. How did you arrive at the PN-11?

It was the only extension ring I had at the time
I didn't try it with shorter rings yet. The Heligon 100/1.6 simply took over...

[Michael Erlewine]

It was the only extension ring I had at the time
I didn't try it with shorter rings yet. The Heligon 100/1.6 simply took over...

If you have time, tell us about how you use the Zenit lens. I see that it has some odd rings on it. What I have done is just setit to wide open, but I imagine you might say a few words for us about how to set the rings, which is not intuitive and can be confusing. Is there a clear an simple way to set that lens up for optimum images?

[Thomas G]

Michael,
I understand the concept of connecting the image to perceived reality through at least getting one recognizable pinpoint in focus and sharp.
That's an idea I try to follow in my own work as well.
I like the idea of learning about the different lenses and add lens information and comment as far back as I still can modify my posts.

Here is an example pushed to just that last pinpoint limit - a crocus sprout.
Df, Tokina Macro AT-x 90mm 1:2.5 + original 1:1 extender (exif is not set right) @ f/4 and t/320s
This lens allows for very (very) smooth transition from very sharp to not sharp at all.
It does not play in the league of rendering abstract artifacts, it's just incredibly smooth in off focus rendition.
It's very versatile and useable for different tasks like close ups, portraits, light tele, as long as the object does not move fast - it has a very long focus throw and extends a lot when focussing close.

[Fons Baerken]

D700, 35/1.4

May 2010

[Michael Erlewine]

Michael,
I understand the concept of connecting the image to perceived reality through at least getting one recognizable pinpoint in focus and sharp.
That's an idea I try to follow in my own work as well.

I too have that Tokina lens, which is quite sharp. I should revisit it myself. From this post I see that I am probably "spacier" than you, for I would need a strong single point to feel grounded. It is interesting how we all differ in what grounds us or makes of fly. The photo by Fons is closer to what I need, but I would paint even that a little sharper.

Another way to ground is like this image in with wider in-focus areas like here, probably done with the VOitlander 125mm f/1.5 APO-Lanthar and the D800E

[Thomas G]

The sprout example was the result of testing my own imagination, which I do from time to time.

I usually have a faible for getting back lighting or transmission light effects involved, and/or geometric elements.
I usually hesitate on extreme sharpness in PP for which I also might miss the lenses or technique for.

The following examples: D700; AF-S 60mm Micro Nikkor, free hand.
The first inspired by your last post @ f/5.6 t/320s, the second one a favorite of mine for transmitted light, @ f/5.6 t/800s.

Following your consideration: both get me soundly grounded.

[Jakov Minić]

If you have time, tell us about how you use the Zenit lens. I see that it has some odd rings on it. What I have done is just setit to wide open, but I imagine you might say a few words for us about how to set the rings, which is not intuitive and can be confusing. Is there a clear an simple way to set that lens up for optimum images?

I couldn't figure out the aperture rings either until Erik explained them to me. Why is it so confusing? Yes there are two rings but how come it's so non intuitive? Well it's rather simple. We all know what aperture rings are and how they behave on most if not all of the lenses that we have ever used. It is that ring that has numbers on it and clicks in place when you rotate it, right?
Well, with the Zenit that is not the case. Once you get that it's rather easy to operate it. 

So there are two rings:

1. The one that clicks and has numbers, and that is the 'stopper' and is situated at the front;
2. The other one is smooth and is the aperture ring and is situated in between the stopper and the focussing ring.

How it works:

I keep the stopper at 1.5 becuase I have no intentions to use the lens at any other aperture stop, as you have it set, Michael.
If you move the stopper to 2, you will be able to move the aperture ring between 1.5 and 2.
If you move the stopper to 2.8, you will be able to move the aperture ring between 1.5 and 2.8.
If you move the stopper to 4, you will be able to move the aperture ring between 1.5 and 4.
And so on...

I use the Zenit wide open because of its rendering at f/1.5 of the out of focus areas.
That doesn't mean that the lens isn't sharp at other aperture stops though...

Any questions