Sharpening macro photos

[DanK]

In response to some photos Les posted, someone made a comment that macros often need very little sharpening. I agree. If you are close enough to get sufficient detail and have the focus in the right place, very little sharpening is needed. To illustrate this, I'll post two versions of the same photo. The first is as imported into Lightroom, with no editing at all. The second is the final edit. The sharpening was done in Lightroom. The equipment was an old Canon 7D (first generation), a 100mm macro lens, and a 36mm extension (which gives more magnification, but at the cost of needing to be closer). The lighting was a diffused flash.

Original:




Edited:

[AntonioCorreia]

LR has an impressive processing capability on many levels.
I myself use it frequently and, in my opinion, with good results. Still, Photoshop is much better for more complex tasks.

The outcome of this work of yours Dan, is clear proof of that (how good LR is), even though the original image was already a very good. The insect was indeed quite cooperative !

You did well to share this experience !

[billtils]

Not much more to be said ... thanks for posting Dan!

[DanK]

Antonio,

My point wasn't that Lightroom's sharpening tools are good, although I think they are. My point was that almost no sharpening was needed. The keys to sharp macro are focus, which is very difficult with such a narrow depth of field, and getting enough pixels on the subject. Conventional sharpening won't compensate for missed focus or too few pixels, e.g., from cropping severely.

That particular bug was indeed cooperative, but unless the temperature is low, most aren't. That's one reason why macro takes a lot of patience. I'm sure that people who are better coordinated than I am do better, but I count myself very lucky to have two captures I'm willing to show after a shoot, and I often have none at all.

Re pixels: this is why I don't use my FF camera for bugs. At any given distance, the bug's image on the sensor is the same size, regardless of the sensor size. Therefore, my R6 II, which has 24 MPX spread over the larger size of a FF sensor, places fewer pixels on the bug than my ancient 7D, which has 18 MPX spread over a much smaller area. If I had infinite money and expected to do a lot of bugs over the next few years, I would probably buy myself an OM-1 Mark II, which as 20 MPX over the even smaller area of a micro-four-thirds sensor. In addition, a much lighter 60mm macro lens would give me roughly the same angle of view as I now have with a 100mm. Since balancing and minimizing motion to get good focus is one of the challenges, the lighter weight would help, particularly at my age.

Dan

[AntonioCorreia]

Dan, I perfectly understand your point of view, with which I fully agree.

Have a great weekend !