Jump to content

Rudy Umans

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rudy Umans

  1. 4 hours ago, HodagMedia said:

    But it looks like more new cameras are adding this feature.

    You can probably thank the cellphone camera technology for that I suspect. (not sure) 

    I think it is a useful  camera feature  for handhold shot. On the other hand it seems  we have to use our brains less and less and, although it has some pros, is a little bit of a shame, but that is for another day.

    Fortunately Charles seems to be happy with his new stacking software and that's what counts.

  2. 2 hours ago, Charles Lewis said:

    Maybe I'm missing something here. 

    If I'm using a 105mm prime lens then the focal length is 105mm and that is fixed. It doesn't change.

    https://shuttermuse.com/glossary/focus-breathing/#:~:text=Focus breathing is term that is used to,appears to zoom in or out very slightly.

    If you focus manually in a number of steps from front to back and you would simply manually try to blend these images, you will encounter a small difference in magnification. Even with prime lenses. The combined image will be blurry obviously.  Focus stacking software takes care of this so you don't have to worry about it

    If you move the camera/lens combo without touching the lens, you don't have that magnification problem and with extreme macro that might make a difference

  3. 14 minutes ago, HodagMedia said:

    It doesn't?

    It  does?

    Now you guys have me totally confused. If I have a lens with internal focusing, does that change how the lens distance is the same and the focal length doesn't change according to focus point. Or  doesn't matter because the point of focus changes the focal length?

    I'm watching you two!  😁

    ps changing the f/stop changes the depth of field, which is just one more problem that could enter. So I'd say, focus manual and exposure as well? But adjusting the shutter speed should be a good way to compensate for variable lighting.

    Now someone explain, does the focal length change or not or it depends on the lens?



    Look up "Focus breathing"


  4. 40 minutes ago, HodagMedia said:

    Yeah I notice the Canon G X was in there and not the M. I would have picked the M-50 instead. Interchangeable lenses, 4K, probably the same sensor, Digic 8 processor, mirrorless


    I agree (the M50 has a larger sensor too)

  5. 2 minutes ago, Charles Lewis said:

    Just by moving the little box (focus point) across the viewfinder using the 'joystick' on the back of the camera. So where I am focusing changes but the focal length doesn't move because the camera and the subject haven't moved.

    You do change the focal length that way. It's the other way around

  6. 50 minutes ago, HodagMedia said:

    Happy that @Charles Lewis brought this up and that @Rudy Umans has some experience with Affinity. I was using Picolay which works, just that I hadn't learned how to use it properly. I have assorted Adobe software, hadn't tried those. I need something for my level.


    I have been using Affinity from day one a number of years ago (4?) until about a year ago. As said, the only reason I use PS is because of some 3rd party software that doesn't work with Affinity because they are extensions and not normal plug-ins. My PS UI doesn't look like the regular user interface most of the time

    One is Canon's print module and some 3rd party luminosity mask and B/W conversion software. If it wasn't for this software, I would still be using Affinity Photo. (I still use Affinity Publisher though)

  7. 9 hours ago, stevemart said:

    Looks great Charles.

    Question to the experts: Which shooting technique is preferable for stacking? Focus change or camera displacement with a macro rail slider?

    both ways have problems

    If you change the focus on a lens, you effectively change the focal length (Focal length to subject) of the lens each time. With that, you also change the magnification. If you move the camera/lens combo, you change the focal plane to subject distance, but not the magnification.

    Although professional Focus Stacking apps are perfectly capable to handle and correct both situations, moving the camera seems to be less problematic 

  8. 7 hours ago, Charles Lewis said:

    Okay ... after some research, I bought Affinity. It is really easy to use for focus stacking so I ran a test. This is a Concrete Anchor screw. It's probably about an inch long. I took five shots of it with adjusting the focus along its length.


    Looks good Charles

  9. Focus stacking is not part of the solution, it is the solution.  Besides a sturdy tripod and a remote release or 2 sec. delay obviously

    I strongly recommend to look into Affinity photo. It is great software and much much better than Elements. In some aspects even better than Photoshop and Focus stacking is one of those aspects. Few clicks and it is all done for you. (the other thing is  Fast Fourier Transform - FFT to get rid of patterns in scans)

    I use Affinity and Photoshop and although most plug-ins work with Affinity,  I use a couple of extensions (panels, not plug ins) that only work with Photoshop otherwise I would use Affinity full time.

    Learn Affinity, which is not hard, a lot is the same, and you will never use elements again

    Right now it is only $24.99 , incl. updates and future versions. Can't beat that even if you would only use it for focus stacking


  10. 12 minutes ago, Linda Bestwick said:

    Conspiracy theories are just click bate these days.

    Not exactly!  Not in the US. Conspiracy theories can be very dangerous 

    What happened in the US on January 6th and for a great deal what led up to it, was caused by conspiracy theories (look up QAnon)

  11. 17 hours ago, Wendy Townrow said:

    Sari even the newspapers cant be trusted now ... they are as prone to misinformation and half truths as the social media.

    Ever since the invention of removable type, you never could trust the newspapers. Not by a long shot

    The medieval troubadours were probably not all that reliable either

  12. 25 minutes ago, Jeffrey B. Banke said:

    Wendy, you island suggestion is what the Brits tried back in the 1800's sending all their criminals to Australia 🙂

    Then they realized what a nice place it was LOL!

    You mean after it was discovered by William Janszoon? ("Bill-Son of Jan) and James took credit for it? (Well the indigenous people at the time told him, didn't they?

    The Spanish called the island later "  "Austrialia del Espiritu Santo" - "Southern land of the Holy Spirit"  Maybe some on that Island need to be reminded?

    I have a number of Friends and relatives there and it has been on my bucket list for some time now but it will probably stay there for a little while longer. (If my dogs can't go, I don't go)

  13. 24 minutes ago, HodagMedia said:

    Yes you do, if you think about it? Reputation and the buyers bragging rights... "I hired Anne Geddes to shoot my baby photos." I'm sure she got to where she is with style and quality, but after that,  public recognition, popularity, from marketing, is the biggest step for anyone getting famous and making top money.

    Reading too fast or too slow again?

    It is not the price for the customer, it is her cost for a shoot.

    “The thing that people don’t seem to get is that it takes about $250,000 to $350,000 to produce the kinds of shoots that I do,” she says. 

  14. 1 hour ago, Firn said:

    Thought the same.
    Looking at her photos I think, costs for camera equipment excluded, I could assemble her photo props for under $100. I have no idea what makes her shoots so expensive.

    I seriously doubt that even Annie Leibovitz 's elaborate shoots cost that much

    The price of babies must have gone up tremendously ................

  15. 1 hour ago, Emily Veinglory said:

    The net worth site is wildly inaccurate, generally over-estimating.  That said, I am sure she is poor for someone used to being rich, rather than poor poor.

    and you know that how? 

    Either way. I think that net worth is in Australian dollars and even if only half or even only 25% is true, she will be fine methinks

  16. it turned out that I have 3 drops of blue blood (could be 2, but I stick with 3)

    I am a Descendent of the Count Dirk van Brederode. This line started in the 12th century, but stops for me with my great grandmother on my father's side 

    The maiden name of my great grandmother was still Van Brederode, but she married a Smit. They had a daughter, my father's mother, who married a shoemaker named Umans.


    Dirk's place (of what is left of it) built in the 13th century


  17. 3 hours ago, HodagMedia said:

    Well oddly enough I live in Belgium, which is 6 miles South of Holland, at least locally? Belgium was supposed to be named Luxembourg, but there was a clerical error when registering the name of the post office.

    You might guess what nationality settled much of this area. The Luxembourg American Cultural Society & Center is located there and we don't have a Christmas parade, it's a St. Nicholas parade first weekend in December.

    As far back as roots go, my family, we don't know much but one theory is, Flanders. Someone is doing research again, maybe we'll find something new, or accurate, this time. Grandpa Klinger listed his occupation on the papers entering the country as Tinker. It fits? The grandfather on the other side, the Italians, was a Tailor. We still have cousins over there.

    No one with money in our ancestors except all those people from Nigeria who keep dying off? 😉


    That's interesting. Let me know the outcome.

    If you happen to have Belgium/Dutch (Flanders/Vlaanderen) blood, I can teach you some dirty words ... :)


  • Create New...