“The most glaring example of the cognitive dissonance on the left is the concept that human beings are inherently good, yet at the same time cannot be trusted with any kind of weapon, unless the magic fairy dust of government authority gets sprinkled upon them.”
by Moshe Ben-David




"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

photography cube

For Christmas, Better Half gave me this: 


It makes a lot more sense when removed from its case.  Also, it tends to be somewhat energetic about the whole “removing” thing: 


(The sides are held up by metal bands which are wrapped around themselves for packaging – if you do not expect it, it can be… interesting.  )

Which allows me to take photos like this: 




Now I just have to get used to taking photos with a lens that has such a razor-thin depth of field. 

That said, lightboxes are awesome, and greatly simplify the whole “lighting” thing. 

8 comments to photography cube

  • A couple 500 watt tungsten bulbs and you could enlarge that depth of field a little. Unless razor thin is what you’re after . . . .

  • Yoda is Santa Claus?

    …much is explained.

  • Skas

    Santa Claus Yoda is awesome.

    Also, some comment about further down the light side of the force…

  • Rob Reed

    Funny timing. I just built a light tent and a light box and I’ve been experimenting with both.

    There’s a great thread on the subject on the Canon forum. The thread dates back to 2007 so some of the earlier photos have been removed, but if you keep reading ahead you’ll find some very good tips and info there.

    I just posted about my setup with some sample pics on the very last page of the thread (page 287). Check it out.


  • well. you can tell i know nothing about photography, i thought it was a very small popup tent.

  • @ Fill Yer Hands: Yeah, I was just running with what I had. Need to get some more clamp light rigs and a lot more powerful bulbs.

    What’s funny is that one of those pictures was taken with f/5 and one with f/2.8, and I can hardly tell the difference… going to take some practice.

    @ bluesun: Seriously. Fitting down the chimney suddenly makes a lot more sense!

    @ Skas: He was the Christmas Eve piece for last year’s advent calendar – he even has shorty, non-bendy legs.

    @ Rob Reed: I have some serious reading in front of me :). Thanks!

    @ dave w: About the only thing that would fit are my cats, and they are getting nowhere near it ;).

  • Rolf

    @ Linoge:
    If you want greater DoF, get close and go wide, or else expect to crop things down a bunch. Going from a 50mm to 25mm lens will increase your depth of field four-fold, so (at two feet and f/5) it’ll go from 1.63″ to 6.93″. Or, going from 50mm at 24 inches to 25mm at 12 inches will give the same DoF, but with a larger image to play with.

    I’ve been trying to teach myself photography for a while, and even though the basics are pretty simple, I sometimes still have to stop, think, and ask myself “what am I REALLY trying to get, and which of the four things I can control on the camera will get me there (lens length, shutter speed, aperture, film/sensor speed/sensitivity)?” and then go through each one and look at what a change would do.

  • And the situation is only further complicated by having an APS-C sensor, like I do, I am sure. I have a 50mm prime and the 100mm prime macro I used for these pictures, and even though the 50 goes down in f-stops a LOT farther, even its narrowest DoF has nothing on the macro.

    If there is one thing I have learned about photography, it is “more light more better”. I need more/bigger lamps :).