Photography

Tools    





...I used manual exposure in all of them, on that one it was 100 ISO, F4.5 and 1/50 shutter speed.
It's impressive that you used manual exposure, that takes skill to do, It sounds like you're dedicated to learning photography. I use to do a lot of photography but I haven't had much time lately...But your thread has got me interested so maybe I can find some time and take some photos

I didn't thought about the focal length while taking the picture, I'm trying to find that info on the camera picture info, but is no where to be fond, anyway, my focal lens is 18-55mm, it was the most cheap and generic to buy with the Canon 600D,
That lens can do a lot even though it was inexpensive. Like most lenses it will have a sweet spot where a certain fstop/aperture setting and focal length will give the sharpest image.

how the focal lens affect the picture, I don't really know much about it.
For sure, mm focal length + the distances to your subject + the fstop/aperture...makes a big difference in photos. If you had more a telephoto lens you can of course zoom in on far away object and make them look bigger, but you can also focus on close objects with the lens wide open at it's fastest f stop and you can limit depth of field that way and create a pleasantly blurred out of focus background, often called bokeh. Different lenses produce different bokeh.



I took that long time ago, with a lens at 200mm f4 and I was close to the subject, which made a nice blurred background out of the green foliage behind the red twigs. But it's not a good photo, as the red twig itself isn't really sharp. But at least I like the colors I think that's red dogwood, btw.

There are two things I'm dying to take a picture of, just to see how it's like: fog and light coming out of a shadow/darkness, like a open window in a sunny day in January.
Both are very hard subjects to do but look so cool when they turn out. Hopefully you will post them when you take them. I have a few fog photos, mostly the ones I took never seemed to work out. Fog is hard!
Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	Photo 70-210mm e.jpg
Views:	44
Size:	68.6 KB
ID:	57388  



"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



It sounds like you're dedicated to learning photography. I use to do a lot of photography but I haven't had much time lately...But your thread has got me interested so maybe I can find some time and take some photos
Yes, I'm really dedicated. I like photography, can't say that about many things. I hope you and other people share there photos, but I understand how private without being personal private a photo can be, is a vision on something. Most things are not meant to be shared as much people today think.

Like most lenses it will have a sweet spot where a certain fstop/aperture setting and focal length will give the sharpest image.
Now that you talk about it. When I was taking the picture of the sunflower (the first one), I was squatting trying to give the lowest zoom possible, because I thought that was going to make the picture sharper, I only use manual focus, so the camera didn't do anything for me. I took the picture and I didn't like it, was not sharp on the right side of the sunflower. I decided to try zoom instead and it actually solved the sharp problem on the right side. Why? I don't really know, but the next thing I'll do is, do a search on that sweet spot.


I took that long time ago, with a lens at 200mm f4 and I was close to the subject, which made a nice blurred background out of the green foliage behind the red twigs. But it's not a good photo, as the red twig itself isn't really sharp. But at least I like the colors I think that's red dogwood, btw.
I like that color very much. I'm trying to remember where I saw a tree like that, but I just can't.



I just want to hug (your FACE)!
Grats on taking up photography. I always found it therapeutic. The lens can really help slow the world around me down and force me to just see what's in front of my camera rather than pinging from one random thought to another. Please keep posting. My favorites of your shots are 1 and 5. nice focus, great composition (IMO).

To your focus question, you got 2 factors at play. Both revolve around the focal plane and the depth of field before and after that focal plane. It can get quite "mathy" and you can find YouTube videos going into detail if you want to chase that.

As mentioned earlier, your aperture setting is probably the most obvious factor. That's basically the gateway of your lens that determines how much light gets through into your camera. The lower this *aperture #, the shallower your depth of field. As Citizen described, this can create a nice soft and blurry background to help pop your subject out. The trade-off is that you have a much narrower depth of field that can be in focus. So for a real world example, you might use an aperture setting of f5.6 to get a small group (2-3) friends all in focus. However, an aperture setting of f1.8 (all other factors being the same, like distance, zoom, etc.) may only have one face in focus while the rest of the group is blurred out some, especially if the others are slightly in front of or behind the face you are focused on.

In addition to aperture, you have your zoom (focal length in mm). How close you are physically to the subject will make your focus depth of field more or less shallow, too. The closer you are, the narrower your depth of field will be. The farther away from your subject, the deeper that depth of field becomes. That is probably why you had part of the subject out of focus while you were sitting close to it and more of it in focus the farther back to moved, even though you may have zoomed in.




[you]-----distance-----[start of focal range]----[subject focus]----[end of focal range]




[you]-----distance--------------[start of focal range]------------[subject focus]------------[end of focal range]





*I didn't want to include this earlier because it can get overwhelming. But the lower your aperture #, the larger that light gate is. For me, this was tricky to learn. The lower the number, the larger the aperture opening is, allowing more light to enter the camera. If you then have more light hitting your sensor/film, then your exposure time can be much shorter to compensate. This is ideal for low light or action situations. Smaller apertures (f1-8 to f2.8) are wide open, letting more light through, giving you the option to use a higher shutter speed. The higher the shutter speed, the more likely you are to freeze the action you are shooting. Else, if the shutter speed is slower (as required buy an aperture of f5.6 to get enough like for a proper exposure), then the action may have motion blur if the shutter is open too long.

It's all this weird tricky 4-way sliding scale between zoom, aperture, shutter speed, and ISO! Each affecting the other slightly, one way or another. To see how this all affects your shot, maybe shoot in AV or TV mode. See what settings the camera chooses for a shot then try to manually recreate those settings. I did like you too--just jump in and sink or swim. But it does help to focus only one one setting while learning.

Very cool stuff! Keep posting please
__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you."
- Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy."
- Captain Steel



In addition to aperture, you have your zoom (focal length in mm). How close you are physically to the subject will make your focus depth of field more or less shallow, too. The closer you are, the narrower your depth of field will be. The farther away from your subject, the deeper that depth of field becomes. That is probably why you had part of the subject out of focus while you were sitting close to it and more of it in focus the farther back to moved, even though you may have zoomed in.




[you]-----distance-----[start of focal range]----[subject focus]----[end of focal range]




[you]-----distance--------------[start of focal range]------------[subject focus]------------[end of focal range]
This I didn't had in mind until today. Citizen mentioned focal length and I didn't though that as a factor, so I searched into it. What you said, about aperture, iso, shutter speed I knew nothing about when I first created this thread, in the first day was hard for me to understand, by the end of the second day I was already understanding but didn't knew how to conjugate the triangle, by the third day I was taking the first test pictures and in the forth day I took these pictures, I'm glad you liked them.

Today I realized my focal lens have fungos. Seven years trapped in a box, some humidity, no light in them, that's what caused. I can buy a exact same lenses for 20 euros without fungos, the only problem is the AutoFocus doesn't work, I think it's a common problem among this model, something I don't use neither plan on using, so I'm considering, but for now I don't think it's affecting the black and white photography, I might actually buy something nicer in the future.

Today I learned the meaning of Dynamic Range and it's importance on editing, something that doesn't really affect me much, I don't plan on making editing, so lost information is not something i'm really worried about, I'm not afraid of dark/shadows while highlighting the whites also. I also learned how to read the histogram. Didn't took any photos, almost damaged my lenses trying to open them to clean the fungos, that made me stress a little bit. I'll take the rest of the week off, it's been exhausting so much information to process. I am so eager to learn it turned into stress or a kind of pressure, it's like a kid waiting for christmas.

About taking photography, yes, It's like you said, I find photography very zen kind of activity, you're paying attention to the details of what you're trying to capture, is meditative, you're focused on the present moment and your photo is a souvenir of that moment, of that experience, you look at the photography and you remember, you know exactly how everything around was, the environment, the sun, the shadows, the color presence, everything. I'll try to capture detail in everything we look but don't see, I'll try to make it as simplistic as I can, and that's the reason I prefer black and white; Tarkovsky once said that black and white photography/filming is the true format, because you're paying attention to everything and the color is not a distraction.

The world is perfect, appreciate the details. by RZA in The Dead Don't Die



I just want to hug (your FACE)!
Here's the only one for today.

I love the composition. Good pic. If I may offer a small criticism, maybe bump up your exposure just a bit. White whites and dark darks to get everything in between?

Keep it up. I'm digging the compositions a lot.



Of course, I want the more criticism the better, without criticism you think you're doing everything alright. I deliberately decided to get that exposure, but I had in mind that was probably too dark, and I understand that anyone that actually knows what is doing don't get out of exposure very often, a dark or a white pixel is lost information, is something the editing program can't work on. About the composition: I haven't yet looked much into it, I just imagine how can I highlight what I want, in this picture for instance I wanted the contrast between the white wall and the gray of the cement tank, something that was bothering me was the shadow the tank produced, the plants was something I wasn't considering, if I had posted the original format you would see the lack of detail, actually noise, in the shadows of the flower pot, even so I just used 100 ISO. I don't see much to photograph around the house, I believe my lenses are increasing the fungus. I'm think about buying the Canon 50mm, f1.8, but the static lenses are something I don't know if I'll like in some situations, I'll sure like in cases of low light, those are the cases I'd like to photograph the most.



I just want to hug (your FACE)!
Of course, I want the more criticism the better, without criticism you think you're doing everything alright. I deliberately decided to get that exposure, but I had in mind that was probably too dark, and I understand that anyone that actually knows what is doing don't get out of exposure very often, a dark or a white pixel is lost information, is something the editing program can't work on. About the composition: I haven't yet looked much into it, I just imagine how can I highlight what I want, in this picture for instance I wanted the contrast between the white wall and the gray of the cement tank, something that was bothering me was the shadow the tank produced, the plants was something I wasn't considering, if I had posted the original format you would see the lack of detail, actually noise, in the shadows of the flower pot, even so I just used 100 ISO. I don't see much to photograph around the house, I believe my lenses are increasing the fungus. I'm think about buying the Canon 50mm, f1.8, but the static lenses are something I don't know if I'll like in some situations, I'll sure like in cases of low light, those are the cases I'd like to photograph the most.
Well the texture on the wall does come through and looks good so it can be a trade-off a lot of times. Totally get your situation. I think I read you saying that you want to focus on the action of taking the picture rather than editing it later. Fair. But I would like to nudge you a bit in the editing direction

Ansel Adams spent 50% of his photography work in the darkroom, manipulating the exposure of the photo paper to create the highlights or shadows he envisioned for a shot. This video might be interesting for you. It starts in with some of his studio techniques at around the 9-minute mark and later.




I don't want to push you to or away from anything, but don't avoid post-production for a purist sensibility. I mean, I think we all have to experience something and set our goals to follow. What we discover along that path informs us on future decisions. That is great, so please do not misunderstand my meaning. At the same time, however, there are tools available to refine what you may not be able to produce with a click of the shutter. A conscious choice to limit your tool set is fine. Just know that once you've grown into that and possibly grown past that, explore more with post-production. The Photoshop clone "GIMP" is a free, open source program. So put that in your back pocket and forget about it for now. Maybe revisit the idea as you get more comfortable in your work.

The 50mm 1.8 prime lens was the only lens we were allowed to use in class. It is the closest lens to the human eye as far as field of view. It does not distort the way wide angle lenses do (exaggerating the edges like a fisheye), and it does not zoom. Sure, having a zoom is fun and helps get closer to a shot without getting physically in the way, but restricting your zoom technique to literally walking forward or backward to frame a shot can help reduce some of the variables you have to chase when dealing with exposure. In the case of a 50mm lens, you're always at 50mm so you're basically safe to use 1/50 of a shutter speed without worrying about changing that to match a zoom distance.

You lens has that in its range, so maybe just put it around the 50mm zoom mark and leave it there. Make an effort not to adjust your zoom to see how it feels. That way you're not burning money on an unknown. I wouldn't worry too much with mold in the lens yet. Chances are it's not really affecting your shots and it should probably blur out to such a degree that it may be unnoticeable in the final print. Test to make sure. I have dust spots all inside mine and I've never noticed it in final.

Whatever, as long you're enjoying it then all is well. Keep at it.



Well the texture on the wall does come through and looks good so it can be a trade-off a lot of times. Totally get your situation. I think I read you saying that you want to focus on the action of taking the picture rather than editing it later. Fair. But I would like to nudge you a bit in the editing direction
Yes, is more or less what I like in photography. I know I'll probably get into that direction, I'm just playing hard.

Ansel Adams spent 50% of his photography work in the darkroom, manipulating the exposure of the photo paper to create the highlights or shadows he envisioned for a shot. This video might be interesting for you. It starts in with some of his studio techniques at around the 9-minute mark and later.

This, this is what I'm here for. Thanks for sharing.

I don't want to push you to or away from anything, but don't avoid post-production for a purist sensibility. I mean, I think we all have to experience something and set our goals to follow. What we discover along that path informs us on future decisions. That is great, so please do not misunderstand my meaning. At the same time, however, there are tools available to refine what you may not be able to produce with a click of the shutter. A conscious choice to limit your tool set is fine. Just know that once you've grown into that and possibly grown past that, explore more with post-production. The Photoshop clone "GIMP" is a free, open source program. So put that in your back pocket and forget about it for now. Maybe revisit the idea as you get more comfortable in your work.
I'll download it before I forget. I think you've already understood what I like and want in photography, my point is not to just to make a beautiful photography, that the internet have plenty around. I have a very dumb, ignorant perception of editing, I instantly add it to Instagram, but that's what you would expect from someone that entered blind into photography.

The 50mm 1.8 prime lens was the only lens we were allowed to use in class. It is the closest lens to the human eye as far as field of view. It does not distort the way wide angle lenses do (exaggerating the edges like a fisheye), and it does not zoom. Sure, having a zoom is fun and helps get closer to a shot without getting physically in the way, but restricting your zoom technique to literally walking forward or backward to frame a shot can help reduce some of the variables you have to chase when dealing with exposure. In the case of a 50mm lens, you're always at 50mm so you're basically safe to use 1/50 of a shutter speed without worrying about changing that to match a zoom distance.
Wow wow, explain me the underlined please. I'm sure I'm learning something new. Zooming changes the exposure? I think I noticed that today trying to take a picture while inside my house, but I thought was something else changing the exposure. The shutter speed have something to do with the zoom distance? I thought the shutter speed was just the amount of time the camera allows light to come in, have relevance if what I'm photographing is moving, there is more to it? I think I need to learn more about: [you]-----distance-----[start of focal range]----[subject focus]----[end of focal range], that you mentioned before.

You lens has that in its range, so maybe just put it around the 50mm zoom mark and leave it there. Make an effort not to adjust your zoom to see how it feels. That way you're not burning money on an unknown. I wouldn't worry too much with mold in the lens yet. Chances are it's not really affecting your shots and it should probably blur out to such a degree that it may be unnoticeable in the final print. Test to make sure. I have dust spots all inside mine and I've never noticed it in final.
That's a, good idea. Why haven't I though about it? The mold is not in the center of the lens, just around on both, left and right side. I think there is too much things affecting my shoots that I'm not considering and I'm thinking about the god damn fungus.

Whatever, as long you're enjoying it then all is well. Keep at it.
That's my plan, but really, you're helping a lot. Thank you for spending some of your time with my newest fantasy. Also, what do you think about compact cameras? People tend to use them for street photography, anything else? They seem appealing.



I just want to hug (your FACE)!
To the underlined zoom text:
You are familiar with motion blur I assume. Imagine a car passing in front of you. If you took a photo of that car in motion then likely that image will have motion blur. That is because the shutter was open too long and captured the motion of the car as a blur. To compensate, you would use a faster shutter speed. With a faster shutter speed you can then "freeze" the motion and the car will be correctly focused and not blurred by its motion.

Fair?

There is another type of blur that you must consider. It's not so important now as your lens' zoom is not extreme. Let's say you have a lens that can zoom at 200mm. At that distance the slightest movement you make can affect the shot. Breathing may create a subtle bounce as you hold the camera. If zoomed in at 200mm that bounce is extremely exaggerated. Imaging looking through binoculars. You move to the left just a bit but your image suddenly moves meters away from your target. That is the effect that I am describing. Your lens will act the same with very subtle motion by you. So, like the example above taking a shot of a car in motion, you can use the shutter speed to compensate for your zoom distance to avoid your own motion from blurring the shot.

General rule is to take 1 (second) and divide it by your zoom length. That will be your shutter speed. For example, if using a 200mm zoom then your shutter speed needs to be at least 1/200 of a second. That will prevent subtle motion YOU create from blurring the shot.

What problem can you predict then, if your shutter speed is a very fast 1/200 of a second? Well, likely then you will not get enough light into your camera for a proper exposure. In that case you will need to compensate somehow to get more light through the lens. You can't reduce shutter speed in this example, else your shot will blur just from you holding the camera. What else can be changed then? Aperture and/or ISO. You could bump up your ISO to maybe 400 or whatever. Or enlarge your aperture by using a lower number f-stop (f2.8 or whatever). So yes, in a way, zoom can affect exposure like that.

That is why I mentioned that if you are using a prime 50mm lens that never changes, you know your shutter speed should always be at least 1/50 of a second. If you use anything slower, you risk blurring the shot. In your case, if your lens goes up to 75mm and you use anything less than 1/75 of a second, then you risk blur. If your lens has a zoom range of
35-75, and you are shooting around 35mm most of the day but then you decide to zoom in to 75mm for one shot, then you need to remember to change your shutter speed accordingly.

If you set your lens at 50mm and pretend you cannot zoom, then you can feel safe setting your speed at 1/50. Of course if it is a very bright day, you may have to set the speed very high to reduce the light entering your camera. But I'm meaning in very general terms.

All of that is probably too deep to worry about yet. Mostly, I just wanted to point out a few benefits of only shooting at 50mm. But there's the explanation.

If you were shooting earlier in low light my guess is you had your shutter speed set low to compensate. In that case your blur most likely came from you breathing or unable to hold the camera perfectly still as with a tripod stand. My guess is if you were zoomed to 75mm, you had your shutter speed less than 1/75 of a second. You might try the same shot again but this time set ISO from your default 100 to something around 400 or maybe even 800 depending on how dark it is. That way you can zoom with the appropriate shutter speed and keep aperture where you want it to control background blur.



Yes, I understand motion blur. I have to be honest, this was not the only picture I took today, but was the only one that turned out like I wanted to. I had no idea of something so basic, and makes so much sense, if you increase the zooming you have to increase the shutter speed, damn. I've been hearing photographers talk about the perfect light, and don't having light to take a certain picture. I was just putting the ISO to the lowest possible to remove noise, using the lowest aperture possible to receive the largest amount of light and compensate everything with the shutter; and that's why. Keep talking and I keep learning. Thanks, again! I have another question. Let's assume, you have a 50mm, f1.8 lenses, you're using your standard 1/50 speed, you have your ISO set at 100, and the the lowest f possible- you're getting too much exposure, you're desirable exposure is total balance, the zero in the light meter. What is your thought process? You think on how much you want to highlight the background and increase aperture, or you instantly increase the shutter speed? Thanks!

Edit: this is a stupid question now that I read it twice, you should already know the aperture from the start, if your desirable aperture doesn't get you to the correct exposure than the only thing left is the shutter speed. Also because of lens diffraction the more you increase aperture the less sharp the picture becomes.



I just want to hug (your FACE)!
lol.
See, you got a good handle on that sliding scale we were talking about earlier. Don't fear ISO noise. You MIGHT start to see slight artifacts in really dark areas of your shot at 800 ISO, but not much. For sure not enough to harm the photo. 1600 ISO is probably borderline with that camera. But even so, some people find artistic value is ISO noise. Too, mostly it's only going to be apparent in underexposed shots. So as long as you keep your exposure correct (or slightly overexposed) then you can push ISO quite a bit without seeing anything bad.

I will offer a caution in picture noise. I used to obsess over these specs of white and gray that would creep into the dark areas of my shots. I would dote over each one using Photoshop to brush out these pixel-sized flakes. I spent too much time looking at the images through a digital view. Once I printed the shot I couldn't even tell that anything was there. Even when enlarging the print I still couldn't see the noise. I realized I was obsessively zooming in like 400% just to be able to see anything, as if that was a real world situation. Not likely. So I just stopped looking for it. Sometimes it's actually very nice, especially in black and white because it can almost simulate the grain of older film photography. Don't forget that even film had different ISO speeds so if you bought higher ISO film it would inherently have a grain to it. There is something classic about that texture. Experiment with it with your mid- to high-ISO settings. You might like it, especially since you're shooting B/W anyway.

To your question, yes adjust shutter speed. That's really all that's left as you said. You can buy filters to put on the front of your lens too, for extreme situations. They are like sunglasses for your lens and come in varying shades of dark. You would use something like that if say you absolutely need a f1.8 aperture and shutter speed isn't cutting the light enough. Or for longer exposure times maybe. Shooting on the beach where light is constantly reflected off of the sand and water, etc. I'm not suggesting you get that, but it's an available tool.



I just want to hug (your FACE)!
Now, not under exposed.

f/14, 1/50 sec., ISO-200, 50mm focal length
Granted, this is arguably all subjective, but I think this is a much nicer shot. The composition is flatter, not giving depth through perspective on the planter box. That's good, for me, as it's almost a mystery what I am looking at.

The gradient of the light cast against the wall is now more apparent providing a different type of tonal depth to contrast the flatness of the view. Too, the texture of the wall is also now more prominent helping to counter the 2-dimensional appearance.

From a narrative view, it's nice that the planter box is opposite the light and that the plants (and shape of the box's lip) seem to be moving toward the source of light. That can be something to be mindful of when shooting. "Is there a story to tell or to exploit that might add just a bit more to your shot?" In this case, yeah, I think someone might pick up on that. So why not look for it and highlight it?

Going back to the change of perspective (looking level with the planter box instead of slightly above), the thin line of black that is the cavity of the planter is far more interesting now. It's again 2-dimensional, but because of it things are not spelled out for me. I have to think about what I'm looking at as light, dark, shape, and composition because the perspective has been removed. Because of that, I cannot rely on my assumptions in already knowing what I am looking at, as I would not normally view it from this point of view. That forces me to reevaluate the scene. "Wait. IS that a planter? What am I looking at actually?" That is also good.

---

My only criticism would be to try to reproduce the same shot, from the same view and lighting conditions, only this time try to frame it where the planter box is maybe half as close to the left edge of your framing than it is now. The thought is as follows: Where the box is now, you can almost draw a vertical line at the 50/50 mark right down the center of the shot. The right edge of the planter box sits almost exactly on that line. That almost reinforces the 50/50 balance of light (right) and dark (left) of the composition. Too, it also exaggerates the balance of "mass" and positive/negative space in your photo. For example, the lower left is heavy and solid while the upper right is light and airy.

If the planter were just a bit closer to the left edge you might break up some of those more obvious balance splits to something like 30/70 rather than the current 50/50. Too, narrowing that space to the left of the planter might create tension as the two edges would appear to want to meet but never do.

Those last two paragraphs are just ideas, neither right nor wrong, of how you might approach your next shots by considering these types of less obvious dynamics. Actually, your current composition will probably be stronger anyway. But thinking that way as you frame things out through your lens will give you more conceptual ideas to play with beyond the physical objects in front of you. That is really all that I mean by the suggestion.

Great photograph.



Since the first time I saw what could be a possible interesting photography, I though about making it flatter, for a more mysterious view, and because the plants were not the point for me and also make the contrast between the cement tank and the wall, for that I wanted to show, like you said, more wall, for some reason that's the picture I took and that's why I enjoy your criticism, I haven't yet been able to take a picture of what I have in mind, that's why all of the photography's I took are close views. I understood your point on the 3rd paragraph, I could highlight it, actually probably should narrative-wise, it actually crossed my mind for an instant, now that I think again I actually tried it and didn't succeeded (used the lowest f), I didn't made any special effort after, but the major reason for me not to highlight it was because it was something I did in practically all the pictures I took. I plan on taking very different kind of pictures, and the worse they come out (the more you can criticize), the better. The first paragraph of the criticism I agree one hundred percent, was something I didn't want, I agree totally that the photography lost a key element, the composition on the first one was exactly what I planned, on this one was not, is 50 percent each, and I though about just delete the picture because of that, but I'm devoted to only use 50mm, and on the right upper corner of the photograph there is a roof, and I was having a hard time trying to occult the edge of that roof from the picture. That's another advice you given me that was spot on, use my lens at 50mm to see what is like before spending money on something I don't know how it's going to be. That's the first obstacle, if I take a step back the edge of the roof comes up, if I take a step left the cement box stays in the middle. I see everything as opinions, and they are all valid, and on this one we are on perfect agreement. Thank you again for spending your time, I really appreciated it.



Sorry I haven't been back to post. I read the previous post, lots of great info from ynwtf! I just have a couple thoughts:

You mentioned your lens has some fungus. I use to buy used, older lenses and they often had fungus, so I would clean them, with some success, but not always successful. If your lens has fungus on the back glass elements (towards the lens mount) that will effect image quality. But it sounds like the fungus is towards the front glass so then it won't effect images much, or most likely not at all. I don't see any evidence that your photos are showing any problems from fungus. Generally a lens that has lots of fungus or internal hazing/cloudiness will take a photo that looks like you were outside in a fog.

It sounds like you might be buying a new camera in the future, so if you replace your lens now, it might not fit whatever camera you buy next.



@Citizen Rules appreciate your comment. I've been putting the lenses inside a boot on the roof, hopefully my cats won't find it. I see some fungus decrease, at least is not as intense, is in the front glass like you mentioned. No, I don't plan you buying a new camera, I'm the kind of guy that doesn't spend money very often, I plan yes, on buying a used 50mm lenses in the future.

Took this one 30 minutes ago, is getting darker now. It have no meaning for the viewer, the person I'm sharing with, I don't plan on taking photographs with an hidden meaning or a point, I don't like meanings, labels, little boxes to put things, I see something beautiful, some detail in something and I take the picture like I see it. This carved stone personally have a meaning for me; when I was younger, when my parents first bought the house I'm living, a very old house, no one lived in this house for a long time, it was covered with thorns, you couldn't see the roof of the house, everything was mystery and my father saw something no else saw and bought a house probably no one else would. When we, actually they, started cleaning the thorns I fond that carved stone hidden. It was the first time I wondered the effort and dedication someone had to put into something, like making a hole in such a hard rock.


f8 1/50 sec. ISO 800 50mm