It is my birthday and what was I doing? C&C

[IzzieK]

Thanks for all the wishes, Benjy, Kris, Matt, Bruce, Janis, Griddi, John (Rostron) and Dan...I appreciate your comments and feedbacks very much.

[IzzieK]

Thank you Christina. I saw your message last night and tried to google the pronunciation of that Finnish' Happy Birthday thingie and I had my Bose speakers high and still wouldn't have a clue how to pronounce those words. It is easier for my Asian tongue to relate to Spanish and Asian phrases and language (I speak 4 of them fluently + Spanish or the variation thereof) but not those deep Europeans ones...like Finnish or French even... Thank you for your well wishes...

[IzzieK]

Unfortunately for all their excellence your Nikons do not have a fully articulated LCD which is of great value in taking selfies like my rather older 5700 Nikon ..... So for your third camera can I suggest a moderate super zoom along with a moderate 2 dioptre close-up lens so you can learn the delights of working this way ... it is a lot simpler than extension tubes etc [ I have both systems ] Then using your CS5 can be fun too so do not neglect it

My extension tube are fairly new. I have only used it for the assignment I put myself into with Grahame's suggestions from another post. Fortunately I have the same camera system as he does so it is good to be able to follow his instructions. My last extension tube was lost on my last trip to Australia last February. This is the replacement. I also still have the set of 4 close-up lens I have from my film era...I forgot I have them...thank you for reminding me...

Just for you Issie .....

Quite awhile ago now before my caterract ops

Thanks John... that was a nice gesture to let us all know how you look like in this selfie...

Edit .. I was going to suggest the Panasonic FZ200 but noticed the later FZ1000 which is a moderate super-zoom only going to 400mm equiv. Both have fully articulated LCDs which I would be hard done to be without

As soon as I finish my contract on my cell phone (which is a flip btw for simple minded people like me...) I will go back to using an Android that I can use as a second screen for my camera instead of using my heavy laptop sometimes on location for my more serious shots (aka family pictures). I am buying a brand new longer lens today from B&H. I could have got it a few days ago but they were close for Passover. I am sure they will open today...I still want to have my longer lens because I want to practice getting more reach when I try my failed birding experience from last time...it will be handy too in identifying who the pilot of a plane is when I cannot relate quickly to the N-numbers of their planes during the fly-in events my husband is very much involved in.

Thank you for your photo and suggestions. I truly appreciate it very much.

[IzzieK]

I am pretty new to the forum here, although not new to 'Net fora and photography. I have to tell you, this is a scary thread. Not sure which scares me most, you or some of the responders

You better make up your mind...it's either me or them! Me, I don't mind...if I scare you enough you won't comment on any of my posts. My lost. If it is them, I will advice you to be gentle with our "thems" here because our bantering is the result of really being good friendship and relationship between members of CiC here. Just a common occurrence around to soften up the seriousness of the whole post. And I like laughing at their antics and their images as they do with mine...comments and feedback make you think where you did right and where you did wrong. The banters makes it more easier to relate and be friends with the rest of the crew here. I enjoy it and they know that...if you will notice Grahame's first and third posts on page 2 are serious suggestions on what I can do with my image as I have the same camera as he does, but his third post made me laugh. He is guiding me in my technique as well as other suggestions from others. No need to be alarm. He is good at what he does and I consider him as one our experts here on bugs along with David (deetheturk). I feel humbled that they even take the time to teach me their techniques. Learn as you observe. We do not have to have a named brand of camera to be able to post here. The resulting image is the most important. Now that this is out of the way....

Now with THAT out of the way, 2 points:

1. Happy B'Day, Shorts over PJ's sounds like a new fashion trend, I will have to try that one.
2. For truly good wildlife shots you really need a catch light in your subjects eye. Often when the light is not quite right, we have to fake one in. I am sure that somewhere on the 'Net you can find a video on how to add a catch light to a dead flies eye.

I think it was also with Grahame's tip on another post that I got to learn how to do catchlights...then I googled the term and learned how to do it. In this case of my post here, I am starting from scratch so I do not bother myself with too many processes like light and composition, etc. I just need simple instructions and Grahame provided me with that. I am most grateful and humbled that he does...

Thank you for taking the time to comment. I really do appreciate any help that I can get from everybody here. They are a treasure to have -- both instructions, tips and techniques...and the people themselves.

[IzzieK]

If you swat him with a baseball bat you won't have any problems with depth of field. Eyes are nice and sharp, Izzie.

Thanks for your help! There are comments that I wish I should have said myself. You opened my eyes to one of your nice quip...I will remember that next time...

[IzzieK]

Happy Birthday Izzie from Down Under. What better way to start a birthday than doing something you love with a dead fly.

I think you've done a good job here especially as it was hand held. I've used extension tubes and know how close you have to be and how the tiniest movement stuffs it all up.
Keep 'em coming.

Thanks Graham, I appreciate this comment very much...I will improve more soon as I get my bugs. I took note of John F's suggestion on how to remedy my propensity for swatting my bugs. It will help me look at other ways to do his suggestion than murder them instead...

[IzzieK]

Cute mouse, George...The second one always get the cheese, do you know that? Thank you for your comment and this almost dead mouse...he's is dead now, isn't he?

Make it yourself easy. Buy a moustrap and just wait. An old one with a 50mm and reverse ring.



George

[george013]

Cute mouse, George...The second one always get the cheese, do you know that? Thank you for your comment and this almost dead mouse...he's is dead now, isn't he?

Yes, he or she was a quite model.
I just checked the original, it was shot april 12th 2009. Exactly 6 year ago.

George

[IzzieK]

A Wonderful Birthday to you Izzie

[You have done exceedingly well here, I congratulate you on your progress and I'll forgive you for the flies demise !

Thank you..that forgiveness means a lot...it means you are still talking to me..what a relief!!!

Ok, firstly a bit about what you have achieved with image No 1 (I note with the D300)that I suggested you shot. You have filled the frame there with 30mm although I suspect you did not adjust your lens focus to it closest

No, I misunderstood your instruction. I focused on how big a centimetre is... so I will know...

In taking that shot you will have noticed how close you had to get using that rig, 50mm + 36mm tube and the actual distances would have been;

a) With lens focused nearest - 27mm achieveable across frame at a shooting distance of 57mm from lens front to subject.
b) With lens focused farthest - 34mm achieveable across frame at a shooting distance of 65mm from lens front to subject.

So from the above you can see that for whatever you are going to shoot using 50mm + 36mm tube you are always going to have to be pretty close to your subject and with only the capability of moving 8mm further away from minimum distance/max magnification. More tubes and you are restricted more. The rig is fine for achieving a high IQ shot of a standard fly sized bug but if a live fly, can you get your lens front to 65mm from it without it noticing you

As a comparison, to achieve the same magnification results with a 1:1 105mm macro lens you would have a working distance from the lens front of 148mm+ BUT with the option of not being restricted in movement aaway from the subject being limited to just 8mm.

Got this one after thinking about it overnight because I saw your message very late already after coming home from dinner with friends. This morning, I got my ruler with a mm on it and went to my kitchen to take a quick shot of this small berry. Hubby was guilty about something that happened last night at the restaurant so he was on peace offering mode and I asked him to hold a flashlight to remove the shadows from my intended image. Here it is. It is not a bug but it'll do for now ('ya think? I focused on the berry on the mm of the ruler) until I can find one. How did I do??? No editing, just croping...my settings are D300s, ISO 1200 (because the shot is inside my kitchenette near the deck door), EV-3, Focal is 105 mm at the max (it is a kit lens I got from one of my older camera I think the D90) where I attached a 36mm tube; Exposure is 1/80 sec @ F9...

Right, so lets look at your No 2 & 3 images. Good sharpness and you have got the detail in the eyes shown, excellent What both images have suffered from is noise but you had little choice if hand-holding and I have PPd both removing much of it with good results.

I tried editing the noise out but I was't quite successful so I left it alone for now...I will do better with editing noise out later...I promise...

We now come on to the dreaded DoF and what I will say first is that a greater DoF does NOT necessarily produce a better image in my opinion. Your main aim is to produce a tack sharp image where you want it to be sharp and you will not always have the luxury of getting massive DoF without compromising sharpness.

So I suggest for now you continue practising getting things focussed where you want, and when feeling confident with that we move on to considering lighting that will enable you to get that ISO down whilst hand holding.

Grahame

Thank you so much for your comment and critique and everything else that comes with it after and for the laughs this morning on my swotting methods. I truly appreciate learning from you...

Oh btw...I have a YN flash that have some bells and whistles, a ring flash which I use quite often in my other images, e.g. orchid shots, and of course that dread flashlight I just used a while ago...it's not even LED mind you but it did the trick of eliminating some shadows and gave me a bit of reflection on the berry...and I also have that bracket I used in the old film days for my then flash...I stored the bracket and the flash away but I can find it. I like using my ring flash because I can disconnect it from my lens and hold it or put it somewhere I need it to shine on my object. Does this answer your question??? Or I am still vague on my understanding???

[george013]

I'm a litle confused. What lens do you use? If it is a Nikon 105 micro, than you should get a 1:1 image. Mine does anyway. But you also use an extension tuibe?

George

[Stagecoach]

I'm a litle confused. What lens do you use? If it is a Nikon 105 micro, than you should get a 1:1 image. Mine does anyway. But you also use an extension tuibe?

George

Izzie explained clearly what she was using George, I don't understand your confusion?

Focal is 105 mm at the max (it is a kit lens I got from one of my older camera I think the D90) where I attached a 36mm tube; Exposure is 1/80 sec @ F9...

[Ndukes]

Belated Happy Birthday Izzie (forgot to say it in my previous post). Looks like you had a good one. I guess the flies can relax now until next April - or can they?

[george013]

Izzie explained clearly what she was using George, I don't understand your confusion?

I don't know a kitlens of 105mm. They are all 105 micro with a magnification of 1:1, or nearly. And then there is a 105 DC for DX, but that isn't a cheap kitlens either. So if it is a micro lens why using extension tubes?
And why using ISO 1200 and EV-3?
Or is it the 18-105 kitlens. The exif isn't clear about that.
George

[Stagecoach]

I don't know a kitlens of 105mm. They are all 105 micro with a magnification of 1:1, or nearly. And then there is a 105 DC for DX, but that isn't a cheap kitlens either. So if it is a micro lens why using extension tubes?

George, it really can't be much clearer than Izzie stated. Focal length was at its MAX. It was a kit zoom lens not a 105 1:1 macro.

Focal is 105 mm at the max (it is a kit lens I got from one of my older camera I think the D90) where I attached a 36mm tube

And why using ISO 1200 and EV-3?

Izzie is presently exploring the use of extension tubes on non-macro lenses to achieve close-up/near macro magnifications, learning the limitations and problems encountered that have to be lived with or overcome. Understanding the distances involved and achieving focus where you want it have been her priorities so far. Once confidence has been gained here things can progress to such areas as lighting to......................composition.

I do not understand why you feel the need to keep questioning things such as her exposure settings above, suggesting there was something wrong, without adding a view of your own?

[IzzieK]

Belated Happy Birthday Izzie (forgot to say it in my previous post). Looks like you had a good one. I guess the flies can relax now until next April - or can they?

Thanks Neville...they will stay away from me that's for sure...one did a while ago when I went out to the deck...

[IzzieK]

I don't know a kitlens of 105mm. They are all 105 micro with a magnification of 1:1, or nearly. And then there is a 105 DC for DX, but that isn't a cheap kitlens either. So if it is a micro lens why using extension tubes?
And why using ISO 1200 and EV-3?
Or is it the 18-105 kitlens. The exif isn't clear about that.
George

George, I use another program to translate my NEF file to a psd file then move my psd file to Photoshop CS5. When I looked at the File Info from the File command, I saw that it did not have any note on the settings, so I went back to my other program to get my settings and wrote it down.

My old kit lens is the 18-105mm zoom which came from my old D90 which I am keeping for a while until I can give it away to someone more in need, both the lens and few accessories and the camera. But that is beside the point. When Grahame mentioned in his post that the 100mm macro's IQ will be more better to use, I thought I will bring out the 18-105 lens and attach the 36mm tube to it to make it a macro lens...so I thought...I do not know what problem you have about that. I am trying to learn macro and innovate while my lens is in order from my sugar daddy for Mother's Day...until then, I will use all that I have here to move on with my learning. Thank you for your further comments.

[IzzieK]

Thanks Grahame for helping explain my situation at the moment...in a few weeks I will have my macro lens and I can join your bug club...

Anyway, I found a bug! It is a live one and it is very slow moving...I It is only 2mm but I think my shot is OK ... please take a look. This is the best I can come up with and it has some noise in all of them...I did a 1400 crop at the longest instead of my usual 1200 so you can see my noise...I know, I should have used my tripod but I am scared it will fly away if I turn my back...

1.



2.



3. and one more time...

[Stagecoach]

When Grahame mentioned in his post that the 100mm macro's IQ will be more better to use, I thought I will bring out the 18-105 lens and attach the 36mm tube to it to make it a macro lens...so I thought...

Hi Izzie, to save any confusion regarding the above the reference I made to the 105mm 1:1 macro in comparison to the 50mm + 36mm tube you had used was that for the roughly equivalent magnification the 105 macro would give you an advantage of greater working distance from the subject, not a better IQ.

Although, I suspect a purpose made macro lens would give better image IQ than a 'standard' lens but have never investigated this.

Grahame

[george013]

Grahem,

I thought lesson 1 was discovering the possibilities of the gear she owns. So the lens is the 18-105. It would be nice to come to that knowledge without determination.

Izziek,
Noise isn't coming from movement. Noise is coming from your high ISO. In one of the last photo's you use ISO 800 and EV-3. Why boosting up your ISO and getting a lot of noise and at the same time bringing back your exposure with a value of -3? In this example you could use ISO 100 and EV 0. I don't know if 100 is on the D300s. Or your settings are wrong. The exif isn't clear about that either. The camera is part of your gear too.

George

[Stagecoach]

Hi Izzie, again

Thanks Grahame for helping explain my situation at the moment...in a few weeks I will have my macro lens and I can join your bug club...

No problem. So you are going to join the bug club, excellent, but you need to start learning bug language as well then

Anyway, I found a bug! It is a live one and it is very slow moving...I It is only 2mm but I think my shot is OK ... please take a look. This is the best I can come up with and it has some noise in all of them...I did a 1400 crop at the longest instead of my usual 1200 so you can see my noise...I know, I should have used my tripod but I am scared it will fly away if I turn my back...

Um, there is no way that you are going to be able to shoot a 2mm bug and produce a worthwhile result with a 50mm and tubes. I'm not sure what your set-up was but if it was the 50mm + 36mm tube at the closest possible working distance (max magnification) from the subject this equates to 27mm recorded across the width of the sensor (which is 24.6mm).

So that equates to the 2mm bug being just 1/13th of the frame width, the result may be acceptable if you want to keep it at small postage stamp size In addition, because of the noise ISO800/1000 this will kill any sharpness that you may have achieved with perfect hand-holding

For the 50mm + 36mm tube, it's best to keep to bugs around 1/2 inch long or greater and you will be able to produce high IQ images once we can get you dropping that high ISO.

Grahame