What is a Macro Extension Tube and how does it work?

Todd Wolfe explains what Macro Extension Tubes are and how they work.

Did you know what an extension tube is or how it can save you money over purchasing a Macro lens? Todd likes to call them tube extenders but whatever you call them they have been around a long time.

In most situations your non macro lenses wont allow you to get super close to your subject. So how do you get closer with the lenses you already own and not have to spend a lot of money on a macro lens? The simple answer are extension tubes.

Extension tubes are literally rings that attach to your camera body and lens to “extend” distance from the lens and the body. There is no glass involved whatsoever in the rings. As you can see from the video using an extension tube gives you the ability to get extremely close to your subject.

There are different size tubes which allow you to get closer or slightly further away from your subject.

You may be wondering why would anyone purchase a macro lens if these extension tubes are so inexpensive? The simple answer is true macro lenses are sharp edge to edge. When you use extension tubes your sharpest area will be in the center of the lens with the outer part of the image getting slightly out of focus.

Tubes can range from $100 and up.


Would You Take This Bet?

Psychological literature shows that we are more sensitive to small losses and than small gains, with most people valuing a loss around 1.5-2.5 times as much as a gain. This means that we often turn down reasonable opportunities for fear of the loss. However over the course of our lives we will be exposed to many risks and opportunities and this invariably means that taking every small reasonable bet will leave us better off than saying no to all of them.

NOTE: The video is not saying to accept every bet, only those with reasonable odds (preferably in your favour), and those which if you lose would not cause significant financial or other damage. In those cases it is wise to be loss averse!


The Ins and Outs of Sex Scenes

Bob Verini is the Los Angeles-based theater critic for Daily Variety dissects the task of writing sex scenes.


“It took me three hours … but, you see, when it was over, I had really done something—something worthwhile— something only I could have done. Who else would have cared enough to do it right?”

There’s a true artist speaking, by golly! You can imagine Cole Porter uttering these words upon finishing the lyrics for “You’re The Top,” or Richard Avedon after printing his Marilyn Monroe portrait. (Actually it’s American Gigolo’s Julian Kaye explaining how he was able to give an older woman, “somebody’s mother,” her first orgasm in 10 years. But, hey! Artistry is where you find it.)

In any event, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to imagine anyone’s expressing this kind of pride of craftsmanship about the writing of a movie sex scene. Far from “something worthwhile,” it may be the most thankless and least-respected screenwriting chore of them all, with a variety of reasons why this is so.

For one thing, the specifics of a sex scene are often little more than a road map: Make a left at that fork, spin around the cul-de-sac and then take the straight route up the highway. And no matter how you approach it, there’s a nagging sense that you, or someone, has been there before. How different can sex be, anyway? Some writers are probably held back by a puritanical streak while others may be frustrated because the full orgasmic experience can’t be depicted outside of XXX video. (Journalist Neil Fulwood observes that hardcore-porn stories like Boogie Nights and Body Double always see to it that their characters climax while still coupling so as to avoid what, in all reality, would be the very visible “money shot.”)

The real problem is that the writer is surely the least important part of the sex scene as it will appear in the finished film since the principals—the director, the actors and the D.P.—will be all too ready to throw out the blueprint and just see what happens on the set. One of the most famous of all sex scenes, that of Julie Christieand Donald Sutherland in Don’t Look Now, never appeared in the script. Total improvisation. Larry Kramer never scripted the Alan Bates/Oliver Reed nude wrestling in Women in Love, either. Instead, he inserted D.H. Lawrence’s original text both to appease censors and to reassure Reed, already nervous about how in the staging he would, um, stack up against his co-star. (Evidently Bates won that battle as well as the wrestling.)

Script Mag | Read the Full Article

Newer Posts
Older Posts