I did tone down the white but I tried for more natural color and it was white.

[JBW]

[DanK]

Hi Brian,

As one aspiring macro photographer to another, I'd like to offer some advice. I hope you don't mind and will find it helpful. According to Kuso exif viewer, you are usually shooting your macro shots at f/3.1. I'd try to use a narrower aperture.

IMHO, one of the two or three biggest problems with macro is shallow depth of field. While some of the best macro photographers are steady enough that they can get multiple images of bugs and stack them for more DOF, I am too much of a klutz for that, so I normally have to make do with a single shot. To do that, I typically shoot bugs at f/13 on a crop sensor camera and try to keep the bug reasonably close to parallel to the camera. Your camera has a smaller sensor, so you can get the same DOF with a wider aperture than that, but I don't know the exact size of your sensor, so I didn't calculate the equivalent f/stop. Even that doesn't get the whole critter. For example, here is one shot at f/13:



You can see that the back of the inchworm is badly out of focus.

Unfortunately, it is hard to get this kind of aperture with natural light, unless the sunlight is very bright. I use a diffused flash a lot of the time when I am hunting bugs, including for the image above, but I don't know if that is practical with your camera. If not, I'd just try to get a narrower aperture to the extent that available light lets you do that.

Dan

[ajohnw]

The exif suggests Brian was using a focal length of 4.3mm Dan, against your 100mm. The sensor diagonal is probably under 7.5mm.

John
-

[DanK]

The exif suggests Brian was using a focal length of 4.3mm Dan, against your 100mm. The sensor diagonal is probably under 7.5mm.

John
-

Good point: I should have checked the focal length. However, I don't think it would make all that much difference, as you just get closer with a shorter focal length. This is from the tutorial on this site:

Note that focal length has not been listed as influencing depth of field, contrary to popular belief. Even though telephoto lenses appear to create a much shallower depth of field, this is mainly because they are often used to magnify the subject when one is unable to get closer. If the subject occupies the same fraction of the image (constant magnification) for both a telephoto and a wide angle lens, the total depth of field is virtually* constant with focal length! This would of course require you to either get much closer with a wide angle lens or much further with a telephoto lens,

Dan

[JBW]

Hi Brian,

As one aspiring macro photographer to another, I'd like to offer some advice. I hope you don't mind and will find it helpful. According to Kuso exif viewer, you are usually shooting your macro shots at f/3.1. I'd try to use a narrower aperture.

IMHO, one of the two or three biggest problems with macro is shallow depth of field. While some of the best macro photographers are steady enough that they can get multiple images of bugs and stack them for more DOF, I am too much of a klutz for that, so I normally have to make do with a single shot. To do that, I typically shoot bugs at f/13 on a crop sensor camera and try to keep the bug reasonably close to parallel to the camera. Your camera has a smaller sensor, so you can get the same DOF with a wider aperture than that, but I don't know the exact size of your sensor, so I didn't calculate the equivalent f/stop. Even that doesn't get the whole critter. For example, here is one shot at f/13:



You can see that the back of the inchworm is badly out of focus.

Unfortunately, it is hard to get this kind of aperture with natural light, unless the sunlight is very bright. I use a diffused flash a lot of the time when I am hunting bugs, including for the image above, but I don't know if that is practical with your camera. If not, I'd just try to get a narrower aperture to the extent that available light lets you do that.

Dan

Advice is always appreciated and often applied. My problem is that my camera only allows me F/3 or F/8 on macro. I prefer F/8 but as you point out it does depend upon the brightness of the sun.

[Dave Humphries]

Good point: I should have checked the focal length. However, I don't think it would make all that much difference, as you just get closer with a shorter focal length.

Hi Dan,

The point John was making is that Brian's sensor isn't anything like the size yours is - so DoF comparison on focal length is not really valid - well, it certainly isn't the biggest factor in play.

Most people know that we can multiply the focal length by the crop factor to give an equivalent focal length (compared to FF - well really it is an equivalent field of view), but many don't know that you can multiple the aperture by the crop factor to get an 'equivalent' DoF?

Your crop factor (compared to FF) is 1.6, for Brian's Fuji S4200, I believe it is about 5.5.

Brian's 4.3mm focal length is about 24mm FFE, yours about 160mm FFE (100 x 1.6), as you say, this difference isn't relevant.

However, Brian's f/3.1 equates to f/17 (FF), or f/11 (rounding to whole numbers) on your camera - so actually, you two are not so far apart if you shoot at f/13

Hope that helps,

[JBW]

Hi Dan,

The point John was making is that Brian's sensor isn't anything like the size yours is - so DoF comparison on focal length is not really valid - well, it certainly isn't the biggest factor in play.

Most people know that we can multiply the focal length by the crop factor to give an equivalent focal length (compared to FF - well really it is an equivalent field of view), but many don't know that you can multiple the aperture by the crop factor to get an 'equivalent' DoF?

Your crop factor (compared to FF) is 1.6, for Brian's Fuji S4200, I believe it is about 5.5.

Brian's 4.3mm focal length is about 24mm FFE, yours about 160mm FFE (100 x 1.6), as you say, this difference isn't relevant.

However, Brian's f/3.1 equates to f/17 (FF), or f/11 (rounding to whole numbers) on your camera - so actually, you two are not so far apart if you shoot at f/13

Hope that helps,

I am still way under educated about the technical side but yes your explanation does help.

[ajohnw]

I became a bit wrapped up eslewhere. When it comes to extremes it's best to make your own mind up about DOF. Brian's camera is so far away from say a full frame that the approx formulae usually used to work out macro depth of fields that doesn't include lens focal length is likely to be way out. The other factor is how much the shot is reduced - reducing increases the depth of field as far as the "sums" are concerned. I seem to be getting more than I should on m 4/3 and I don't think reduction has anything to do with it.

The basic problem is that the sums are based on simple lenses. With those the 1:1 magnification point is when the subject is twice the focal length away from it and the image will also be that distance behind it. It would be wonderful if a 100mm macro lens had a 200mm working distance but they can't. That's one difference. It's probably best like most things to take some shots and see how you get on so if Brian manages at F3 so be it. He has taken a lot of them.

I'm wondering why I seem to get more at F11 on m 4/3. If I wonder too much I will probably set a 150mm rule up at an angle so that 1mm represents 1/2 mm and take some shots. On the other hand it's far more fun to just shoot and see what happens.

John
-