Not so much detail sans macro lens but still a pretty shot.

[JBW]

[bnnrcn]

I agree with the title,very nice composition and I like the thin border Brian

[IzzieK]

Very neat, Brian...

[JBW]

I agree with the title,very nice composition and I like the thin border Brian

We saw her when we took our dog for a walk. When we got back she was still there so I got out the camera. She let me get 12 inches away and take lots of shots.

[JBW]

Very neat, Brian...

but not too clean?

[Dave Humphries]

It is a pretty shot Brian.

Thanks for posting a large image (1,218px x 1,821px), it has allowed me to draw the following (hopefully accurate and 'helpful to you') conclusions.

I think I detect camera shake, or perhaps more likely (assuming you had your A58's SteadyShot on) movement in the subject, possibly due to slight movement of the leaf it was on.

This has reduced the detail, as you acknowledged in the thread title.
However, you could, if desired for presentation (as compared to C&C purposes), post process it to give something that appears sharper. Rather than post at over 1800px tall, after all other processing, I would save it, then downsize by a factor of two, to say 900px tall, then sharpen with UnSharp Mask (I think GIMP has that) with settings like 120% Amount, 0.4 px Radius and a Threshold of 0 or 1. Then save (the now smaller image) with a different file name, so you don't overwrite the full sized one - I always do this, even if I don't think I'll need the full size one again, because one day I might - and habits are hard to forget when you need to, so if the habit is a good one - i.e. always saving the processed full size image separately - it may save me a lot of time one day (i.e. needing to start over from the RAW capture).

(I apologise if the nomenclature above is inappropriate to GIMP)

I do like the composition/framing you have achieved. Also the background is mostly devoid of distractions, the exception being those white blobs - if they are eggs being laid, then I'd leave them in, but if not related to this species of butterfly, I might consider cloning them out - if the shot were mine.

Unfortunately, I cannot see the EXIF data, so I don't know what the shutter speed, aperture and ISO was, but the exposure is good and it is noise is not a problem.

Hope those thoughts are helpful, Dave

[Inkanyezi]

I imagine that much of the softness in the image stems from very short depth of field with perhaps a large aperture.

I can think of it like having worked for a very long time with a different type of camera, where staying at low ISO numbers used to be essential, habits have grown, which may now be time to abandon. The new camera will render splendid results at very high ISO numbers, so it can cope with a smaller aperture, as well as a faster shutter, in those conditions where the skills of holding the bridge camera steady were acquired. Still, you don't have that narrow angle of view that the bridge camera offered, so you need to get closer than before in order to frame your subjects.

It more or less boils down to the need for a macro lens, not only to take the very small objects, but maybe even primarily to get them from a reasonable distance.

One danger of the system camera is just that it is a system, and there are so many choices. Would it be reasonable to make the SLT more akin to the bridge by getting a long zoom for it, perhaps with a close-up lens for the very close distances, or is the macro the way to go? Choices that were not necessary with the previous equipment, which only needed that the skill to use it would be learned. And you indeed did that. Many of the images you have posted, of bugs and their environment, of flowers in you garden, are iconic. Now you need not only learn something new, a new tool, but also make decisions that you needed not to take before. Which would be the best way to get the image that you have in your mind? Would one lens be a better choice than another? Could a macro lens be used for all the macro shots, for the convenience of focusing at any distance, or would a long zoom lens for its convenience of using for just about any situation, complimented with a good close-up lens, be a better choice, more like the bridge in many ways? Those are decisions that can dig a hole in the purse, and we cannot know what would be the best way for you.

Anyway, the new tool is different, and you can use much higher ISO numbers when you feel like having more depth of field or less motion blur when your subject moves.

Your eye for beauty still works. I like the image.

[Stagecoach]

Brian, with respect to the 'detail' have you cropped this significantly from the original?

[Shadowman]

That brown edging around the leaf really works well with the border.

[JBW]

Brian, with respect to the 'detail' have you cropped this significantly from the original?

Actually there is almost no cropping. I just cropped enough to move the butterfly to a slightly better position. I might have lost 10% of the shot.

[JBW]

That brown edging around the leaf really works well with the border.

I hoped it would.

[JBW]

Dave and Urban, I am going to try working your suggestions into the shooting and posting. Tomorrow I will take the time to answer your posts properly.

[JBW]

It is a pretty shot Brian.

Thanks for posting a large image (1,218px x 1,821px), it has allowed me to draw the following (hopefully accurate and 'helpful to you') conclusions.


Hope those thoughts are helpful, Dave

Yes they are. Forgive the substandard cloning but it is late. But i did scale down and use the unsharpen mask. I have never used an amount as high as you suggested and i am pleasently surprised at how good it looks.

[Dave Humphries]

Yes they are. Forgive the substandard cloning but it is late. But I did scale down and use the unsharpen mask. I have never used an amount as high as you suggested and I am pleasantly surprised at how good it looks.

The cloning isn't obvious, don't fret on that front.

Yes it (the downsize and sharpen), does help a lot.

Although ... I am wondering what radius you were able to use in GIMP, this looks much wider than the 'nought-point-4' I suggested - and has created a bright halo around the wings (against the leaf).

If this is the narrowest radius it will allow, I think you may need to reduce the amount to say 80%.

If you applied 4px thinking I had mis-typed it, try the radius figure as small as it will go, which might be 1 (if so, try 100% amount), or even 0.5 (half) a pixel (and keep the amount at 120%).

Thanks, Dave

[Stagecoach]

Brian, with respect to the 'detail' have you cropped this significantly from the original?

Actually there is almost no cropping. I just cropped enough to move the butterfly to a slightly better position. I might have lost 10% of the shot.

Brian, the reason I asked that question is that I did not suspect the 'Not so much detail' as mentioned in your title was specifically due to it not having been taken with a 'macro' lens.

[Ziggy]

Pretty BFly Brian. Went out today chasing some of them myself.

[jcuknz]

Two points Brian relative to this subject ... my practice is to add a letter to the file name, which is all that is needed to maintain separation between files ... master and work-up such as usually Z which is two keys handy to each other with the left hand.... less handy is W when I have reduced a for web use and then if I have done a couple of work-ups then ZZ could be added the the basic file name/number. This system keeps them adjacent but separate.
But I appreciate with a small computer you may not be as free with storage as I am these days

Way back when I was a bit heavy and clumsy with sharpening I got rid of the white halo by cloning a 1<4 pixel copy of the surrounding colour to hide my error Tedious but feasible if you have time to play.

[DanK]

Brian,

Very nicely composed, although I would crop a bit off the top.

Can you provide exif data? There appears to be nothing sharp in any location in the image, although at this magnification, it's hard to tell. It might be that the one leg sticking forward is sharp. This is important for diagnosing the problem. If something is fully in focus, then the problem could be shallow DOF. If nothing is sharp, then you either have camera motion or missed focus.

If you focus well, it should make no difference whether you use a macro lens. Shooting with a non-macro lens just won't let you get as close, but if you are at an appropriate distance, the shot should be sharp. For example, I took the image below with an old Canon 50D (same format as your camera), a 70-200 zoom set at 200mm, f/13, and if I remember right, my entire 68mm of Kenko tubes. It's not the best dragonfly shot, but you can see that most (not all) of the bug is sharply focused.

Dan