nikon – Can my Nikkor 35mm f1.8 be used as a macro lens, with reversing ring?

We can do macro work with or without lens reversal. Why reverse the lens for micro work?

Most camera lenses are optimized to image objects at different distances and project their images on the flat surface of film or digital sensor. Most close-up objects we will image are flat or nearly flat surfaces. We are talking, copy work or the like. As a result, micro lenses are optimized to do flat-to-flat work.

A standard camera lens is optimized to project and image on a flat surface. We reverse a standard lens, pointing its rear towards the subject because this end is optimized to work a flat surface. Reversing generally does a better job when doing close-up work.

Additionally, the focal length of a lens is a measurement taken from a point called the rear nodal. The distance lens to subject is measured from the front model. Reversing the lens changes these points. Most often, the reversed lens, has a slightly different focal length that results in a little added magnification when doing macro work. That being said, the reversed lens works best on the typical close-up subject which is likely to be a flat subject.

Should I shoot color or black and white 35mm film to learn photography fundamentals?

I want to practice composition, or the basics of photography in reality. From what I’ve read, some people say shoot color, or only shoot black and white to learn composition right.

From my personal opinion as a beginner, I think if I want to practice composition and play with shadows, angles, etc. shooting in black and white is cheaper and I can practice it more.

I would like to hear your thoughts about what would be the wisest option in terms of practicing composition and photography skills in general.

Also I’m a big fan of color, if you can recommend me a cheap color film it would be great.

focal length – Is there a difference between taking a far shot on a 50mm lens and a close shot on a 35mm lens?

Do you have a selection of lenses (or a zoom lens) now?

Shoot a table-top test with different focal lengths, repositining the camera to get tye same view of the foreground object. Then look carefully at the photos to see for yourself.

If you’re one of those peopke where this doesn’t just scream at you, it’s good to develop your eye to seeing the perspective.

For example, my wife takes still-life photos of food, and I say “too close! Back up!” and had to teach her to use the numbers (e.g. don’t use a focal length shorter than 40), as she doesn’t “see” the perspective when framing the shot. Even if she can “see” it in the final picture on a full-size screen, it’s too late.

In particular, the background (table and room beyond) becomes a sweeping expanse that dominates the composition, or even looks unnatural.

The other day, my Mom showed draft/concept of product shots she wanted, and knew that they didn’t look good but didn’t know why. I explained “because you were too close.” The bottles looked fatter on top and thinner at the base, because the distance was different and that distance was significant compared to the individual distances.

A person’s face will look bad if you shoot from closer than you would normally view a face. Percepually, you actually need a longer lens to look best because you view a photo as if seeing someone on stage or otherwise at a distance, beyond a normal personal conversation distance. So portrait lenses are longer again than the “normal” lens below which it simply looks bad.


I have an Alpha 6000 as you do, and use it for social events including getting pictures taken with people at an event, parties and gatherings, etc.

I use the 35mm f/1.8 OSS prime lens.

In real real situations, I still have a bit of a chore getting far enough away to frame a shot. The pictures look good. The 50mm would be too long, making it difficult to back up enough.

On the other hand, for portraits (close up to show just the face) the flatter perspective of the 50mm would look better, all else being equal. But I think that’s not the primary use for an ultra-portable camera. (Note that the 35mm is a normal perspective and ok enough for such shots, and great for anything that shows more than just the head. You can avoid crowding in and shoot the head-only by cropping the result, as you hace 25 megapixels to start with!)

So unless you have something completely different in mind, get the 35mm. Also lookmat renting first if you are not sure.

35mm – Film photography – what causes the following effect/error on a single frame of a developed roll of film?

I shot the following picture with a Canon AE-1 Program on a roll of Ilford HP5 400 (I pushed the roll to 800). I developed it using Ilfosol 3 and scanned it with Epson scanner V370. As you can see, there are – I’m not sure how to describe them – smudge like shadows corresponding to the perforations. The shadows are only on the third frame of the roll. I am left to wonder what caused these on only one frame, and what can I do in the future to prevent it from happening?

Smudges on film perforations

The effect is even easier to see on the negative:

Negative roll

slr – Potential causes to bad quality of this 35mm film results

Taking a while to finish the roll won’t normally cause problems (within reason). I’ve finished rolls in the past year that sat in a camera for literally a dozen years and got acceptable images.

Part of what you see above is certainly a scanning issue — the vertical (as shown) banding is probably due to a power supply ripple in the scanner or its scanning lamp.

The poor shadow detail is due to underexposure, pure and simple, and the green cast is from the scanning process trying to compensate for that. Not really a scanning fault, though it can be reduced by using scanner settings to let the clear film areas go black instead of trying to average the frame to a “normal” exposure.

I’d be very inclined to ask the lab to rescan this roll, and then use a different lab in the future.

aperture – New but old Canon 20 – 35mm f3.5 – 4.5 will no longer stop down to f 3.5

You can’t stop the EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 down to f/3.5. That is because f/3.5 is the f-number when the aperture is wide open and not stopped down at all. It can only open up to f/3.5 with the lens’ focal length set to between 20mm and 23mm.

I’m going to take a wild guess and assume that you’re trying to get the lens to open up to f/3.5 at a focal length longer than 23mm? What you seem to be trying to do is to open up to f/3.5 when the lens won’t go any wider than f/4 or f/4.5 at the focal length the lens is set. Is this correct?

The short answer is that the lens can’t, and never could, be used at f/3.5 at focal lengths longer than 20-23mm.

The EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 is a variable aperture lens. What this means is that as the focal length increases, the lens’ maximum f-number also increases. When there are two f-numbers in a lens’ model name or description, the first number is for the largest aperture (lowest f-number) when the lens is used at the widest focal length. The second number is for the largest aperture (lowest f-number) when the lens is used at the longest focal length. Both numbers are the largest aperture (lowest f-number) the lens can do at the respective ends of the focal length range.

One reason your EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 lens can be so lightweight and compact is because of design decisions that resulted in a variable aperture. A constant aperture 20-35mm lens that maintains f/3.5 throughout the entire zoom range would be heavier, more complex, and require all of the zooming elements to be between the front of the lens and the physical aperture diaphragm. By placing some of the zooming movement behind the aperture diaphragm, the lens can be made more compact (and cheaper). One of the compromises made in such a design is that the lens will have a variable maximum aperture.

When you remember being able to use the lens at f/3.5, you had to have had the lens zoomed to somewhere between 20mm and 23mm. At 24mm-38mm the widest aperture available is f/4. At 39mm-40mm the widest aperture available is f/4.5.

You may use narrower apertures (higher f-numbers) at any of the lens’ available focal lengths. But the widest available aperture (lowest f-number) will vary depending upon the focal length to which the lens is zoomed.

For why variable aperture lenses have higher f-numbers as they are zoomed to longer focal lengths, please see the following existing questions and their answers here at Photography SE:

How do zoom lenses restrict their widest aperture at the telephoto end?

Why doesn’t the picture become darker the more you zoom in?

Can I correct double exposure of 35mm film?

I have a set of developed colour photos taken using 35 mm film which are double exposed. I must have taken a 2nd set of photos using the used film. Can they be corrected?

35mm – How to preserve undeveloped film as a legacy gift

I recently had this strangle little idea to take some photos and just leave them undeveloped until I am nearing the end or my family is looking at them after my passing.

How disappointed do you think you’d be if, after being given a prognosis of a few months, you attempt to develop your film, but they’re all fogged?

What if your family simply doesn’t care to attempt to develop them and just discards them? It’s very common. I’ve seen lots of discarded negatives, slides, photos, etc.

Is there a means of preserving it…

Develop now. Store in a cool, dry place.

… to be developed decades down the road…

Store in a freezer.

… or some esoteric technology that may be suitably used?

Scan and upload your photos to Facebook. After your passing, Facebook will periodically spam your old friends’ and family members’ feeds with your photos.

35mm – How to preserve undeveloped film

I am new to film photography; however, I recently had this strangle little idea to take some photos and just leave them undeveloped until I am nearing the end or my family is looking at them after my passing. I think the elements of surprise would be novel and the idea of being the first to see a decades-old memory captures some essence of photography to me. I was wondering if this concept would be possible to accomplish, however, given that film naturally has an expiration. Is there a means of preserving it to be developed decades down the road, or some esoteric technology that may be suitably used? Thanks in advance.

audio – Can 3.5mm Headphone Jack of the laptop be used for multiple devices

I am using a Surface pro 6 that has one 3.5 mm head phone jack .

i want to use this jack for connecting external mic (Boya BYM1 Omnidirectional Lavalier ) and external Speaker (JBL GO)

Both mic and speaker has 3.5mm Jack. Both are working with 3.5 mm jack when connected independently. However i want to use both of them together.

I tried purchasing a audio splitter cable Splitter Link however found that speaker is working but mic is not.

What am i doing wrong ? Is there a specific device that i should purchase to make both the audio input and audio output work with Surface pro 3.5 mm jack.