# In a slump



## Tiller (May 14, 2013)

I've just been in a slump lately. I've been struggling to either find a shot or capture it correctly, or both. Bleh.





IMG_6022.jpg by tsmcdona, on Flickr





IMG_6606.jpg by tsmcdona, on Flickr





IMG_6608.jpg by tsmcdona, on Flickr


----------



## hayley.price (May 14, 2013)

really like the first one the others are good but could do with a larger aperture as i would like to see more of the fly in focus


----------



## 480sparky (May 14, 2013)

hayley.price said:


> really like the first one the others are good but could do with a larger aperture as i would like to see more of the fly in focus



A larger aperture will reduce DOF, not increase it.

Shooting with a flash will only provide so much light.... trying to increase DOF by closing the aperture can only be countered by an increase in ISO.


----------



## hayley.price (May 14, 2013)

480sparky said:


> hayley.price said:
> 
> 
> > really like the first one the others are good but could do with a larger aperture as i would like to see more of the fly in focus
> ...



when i say larger aperture i mean a larger number say like f22 to give a wider DOF appose to say f2.8 to give a narrow DOF.


----------



## globeglimpser (May 15, 2013)

I agree with the fact you needed to stop down a bit. The out of focus look only works with macro if you get it closer - for example, a view of the eye with the body out of focus

Like these:

http://creativeoverflow.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/insect-macro-photography.jpg
http://smashingtips.techgeeks.netdn.../2012/05/Wasp-Reflection-Macro-Photograph.jpg
http://www.thisiscolossal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/chambon-4.jpg


----------



## 480sparky (May 15, 2013)

hayley.price said:


> when i say larger aperture i mean a larger number say like f22 to give a wider DOF appose to say f2.8 to give a narrow DOF.



That would be confusing to a lot of people.  F/22 is smaller than f/2.8, both physically and mathematically.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 15, 2013)

Don't get in a slump fellow Tyler, just remember... YOLO!


----------



## sm4him (May 15, 2013)

The photo issues seem to already be addressed; as for the slump, most of us can completely identify. It happens. I was in one pretty much all last month, maybe the end of March too. Usually, when I get in slumps, I have a variety of things I do that often help me "snap out of it." This time, nothing worked and I finally just had to put the camera down for about two weeks or so. 

Then I got an awesome new lens. That took care of the slump.  But I really hope the next slump doesn't require a $1K chunk of glass as a remedy. :lmao:

Some of the things that *normally* work for me:

--Just putting the camera down for a day or two. Still LOOK for the shots, but don't take any. 

--Take pictures of something you don't usually do. If you're mostly into portraits, do some landscapes...or water drops...or abstracts. If you do a lot of nature stuff, try something else that is completely "out of the box" for you. Doesn't really matter if it's good, bad, or so-so, just makes you THINK differently.

--Use a different lens. I shoot 99% of the time with either my 70-300 (well, NOW, with my 150-500) or my 100mm macro. But if I'm in a funk, I might put the 50mm on or the 18-55 kit lens and shoot just with that lens for a day or two. Find anything I can and make it as interesting as I can, just using that one lens. 

--Do one of those "10 Things within 10 feet" type challenges.  Or shoot only green things, or red things. 

ALL of that is about getting out of my "normal" way of thinking about photography. That usually helps me to come back with a fresh view when I do my "normal" stuff again.


----------



## 480sparky (May 15, 2013)

sm4him said:


> ..... But I really hope the next slump doesn't require a $1K chunk of glass as a remedy. :lmao:.........



Send me $1,000.  I'll send you half a pair of broken eyeglasses. 








I'll sell you both halves for $1899.


----------



## globeglimpser (May 15, 2013)

480sparky said:


> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> > ..... But I really hope the next slump doesn't require a $1K chunk of glass as a remedy. :lmao:.........
> ...



I will give u three fiddy!


----------



## hayley.price (May 15, 2013)

480sparky said:


> hayley.price said:
> 
> 
> > when i say larger aperture i mean a larger number say like f22 to give a wider DOF appose to say f2.8 to give a narrow DOF.
> ...




thats just the way i was taught to read it as 22 is a larger number then 2.8 so to me a larger aperture would be the larger number value, this is just my way of doing it, its not a wrong way of doing it everyone has there own preference


----------



## o hey tyler (May 15, 2013)

hayley.price said:


> thats just the way i was taught to read it as 22 is a larger number then 2.8 so to me a larger aperture would be the larger number value, this is just my way of doing it, its not a wrong way of doing it everyone has there own preference



The thing is though it actually is wrong unfortunately.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 15, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> The thing is though it actually is wrong unfortunately.



To expand upon this, what's a larger number: 50/2 or 50/22?


----------



## hayley.price (May 15, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> hayley.price said:
> 
> 
> > thats just the way i was taught to read it as 22 is a larger number then 2.8 so to me a larger aperture would be the larger number value, this is just my way of doing it, its not a wrong way of doing it everyone has there own preference
> ...



i think you will find its not wrong, its just my choice of term its like calling something a nick name and lots of photographers i know down my way use this terminology don't like it don't bother replying  7 years of photography learning from a various professional photographers, i know the teqnical terms and i chose not to use them. this is my choice and your opinion is not going to change that.

just because i chose to call it one thing when someone else choses to call it something different does not mean i'm wrong it doesn't matter how you get somewhere as long as you get there.

i get the same results by calling f22 a larger aperture then f2.8 as you do by calling f22 a smaller aperture then f2.8  i want a wider DOF i would use a f22 you want a wider DOF you would you f22 i want a shallow DOF i would use f2.8 you want a shallow DOF you would use f2.8 

i call it larger becase its a larger number you call it smaller because the space the light allowed to go through is smaller


----------



## o hey tyler (May 15, 2013)

hayley.price said:


> i think you will find its not wrong, its just my choice of term its like calling something a nick name and lots of photographers i know down my way use this terminology don't like it don't bother replying  7 years of photography learning from a various professional photographers, i know the teqnical terms and i chose not to use them. this is my choice and your opinion is not going to change that.
> 
> just because i chose to call it one thing when someone else choses to call it something different does not mean i'm wrong it doesn't matter how you get somewhere as long as you get there.
> 
> ...



Dude. It's wrong. You're wrong, your photographer friends are wrong, and your logic is wrong. I hate to be so blunt, but this is a very basic photographic concept. 

 Tell me which is a larger number:

Fifty divided by two 

Or

Fifty divided by twenty two

Aperture numbers are a fraction. F standing for focal length. 

You have a focal length of 50mm, your aperture is at f/2. Divide 50 by 2 and you get 25mm. That is the diameter of your aperture diaphragm when it contracts during the exposure. F/22 is not larger, it's not a larger number. It's a smaller number and citing otherwise is incorrect.


----------



## 480sparky (May 15, 2013)

Simply put, the numbers on the lens are only *half of a fraction*. The other half, _f,_ is left off the barrels for simplicity.  Apertures are _in real life_ a fraction:  the focal length (_f_) of a lens divided by the diameter of the aperture blades (_D_).  So when we say f/22, it could mean 2.2727 on a 50mm lens ( 50 / 22 = 2.2727 ), or it could mean 9.0909 on a 200mm lens ( 200 / 22 = 9.0909).

On the same lens, say the 50mm, f/22 is smaller than f/11 or f/8 because mathematically, 50 / 22 is smaller than 50 / 11 and 5 / 8 ( 50 / 22 = 2.2727   <   50 / 11 = 4.5454   <  50 / 8 =  6.25 ).

Click here for a more in-depth explanation.


----------



## VanGogh121 (May 17, 2013)

hayley.price said:


> i call it larger becase its a larger number you call it smaller because the space the light allowed to go through is smaller


Sometimes, "a Cigar is just a cigar." Every time 1/2.8 is larger than 1/22.


----------



## 480sparky (May 17, 2013)

VanGogh121 said:


> Sometimes, "a Cigar is just a cigar." Every time 1/2.8 is larger than 1/22.



You have a 1mm lens? :shock:


----------



## ktan7 (May 18, 2013)

Great macro shots!


----------



## VanGogh121 (May 18, 2013)

480sparky said:


> VanGogh121 said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes, "a Cigar is just a cigar." Every time 1/2.8 is larger than 1/22.
> ...


Hahaha, actually 500mm F/1. I always need a wide aperture. Just can't hands a shallow depth of field. I guess you " can't always get what you want."


----------



## 480sparky (May 18, 2013)

VanGogh121 said:


> Hahaha, actually 500mm F/1. I always need a wide aperture. Just can't hands a shallow depth of field. I guess you " can't always get what you want."




You mean you haven't upgraded to the 5-1500mm f/0.7 pancake? The new one, that takes 49mm filters, not the original that used 55mm.


----------

