Macro shots C&C requiered

[ajohnw]

I just managed my first APS macro shot of something I saw on the window that looked to be worth a shot. I usually use M 4/3 but focus is tricky. I can get a magnified view of an insect but not all of it if I fill the frame. I can magnify to a level where I see at the actual camera pixel level but trying to frame that or even keep it similar is nigh on impossible. There are some spider shots in one of my flickr albums taken like that using a old manual pentax macro lens on an adapter. Loads were thrown away. My hit rate with m 4/3 is a lot better. Take 3 and chances are at least 1 will be ok.



It was at a height of 7ft plus so the gear was rather difficult to use due to weight.

I'm mostly posting due to noticing that diffraction effects had been mentioned. There are a couple of things that explain why this isn't as important in practice. The lenses are not diffraction limited for a start so diffraction tends not to be the over riding factor. The lenses aberrations are. Diffraction can add to those and make them "worse" if that is the correct word by spreading the lens problems out a little. The main effect is loss of contrast which can be fixed. As the aperture is closed down more they begin to behave more like a real diffraction limited optic. Wide open nothing is remotely like a diffraction limited optic, not camera lenses anyway. It's nigh on impossible to do that when many pieces of glass are needed for the optics.

The shot was taken hand held at 1/400th at F16 with high speed flash in high speed mode. The spider may have spanned 20mm. So 1:1 wouldn't fit so it's some where around 1/2 to 2/3. I couldn't get any closer. This is a crop of the full sized image from a jpg. Raw might be a touch better but only down to improved contrast really.



I used F16 because I couldn't be certain of keeping the camera distance dead constant. Not that it gives much margin.

John
-

[xpatUSA]

While I appreciate the technical aspects of shooting bugs and the personal satisfaction in achieving a crispy sharp image of the subject [but] I gotta ask...why?

If that isn't a rhetorical question, some people such as myself are interested in flora and fauna. That's about all there is to shoot where I live anyway.

I have never seen an insect photo displayed in a LR.

Anybody know what "a LR" is?

IMHO, they are not objects d'art, but merely exercises in technique.

"merely" ??

[DanK]

Anybody know what "a LR" is?

I'm guessing living room, not Lightroom.

Some macro shooters want primarily identification and a record. Some want to see how much detail they can get. Yet others want images they find appealing. I fall somewhat into the last category, which is one reason why I photograph spiders less than, say flies. I have quite a number of bug shots hanging on the wall of my office, and a few colleagues have asked me for one or more, but in this culture, the aversion to bugs is so strong that many people can't see them as attractive. I think some are, and they make for attractive photos, particularly if there is a nice background. But it's all a matter of taste.

[Geoff F]

Yes, Gary, narrower apertures will give greater depth to your focus area. Increasing Iso a little may be necessary to keep the shutter speed high enough. I tend to find that as long as there isn't any subject movement I can shoot at 1/160 without too many problems, although I prefer 1/200 as the minimum, and with Iso not above 400. Although in extreme circumstances I will push it to 800.

However, for totally static subjects like fungi I sometimes use a much slower speed.

But the increase in focus depth isn't that great between something like F8 and F14, although any increase is useful.

So for some subjects, just using a narrower aperture isn't a magic solution. For example, what is the difference between the front of its head to the tip of that bee's tail? Probably more than you can achieve in a single shot whatever your aperture. Which means carefully positioning yourself to a suitable shooting angle, or accepting that some areas will be out of focus unless you do a merge of two or more shots with different focus points.

When shooting on windless days, or a subject on solid ground, I often take multiple shots for an attempt at focus stacking. Obviously only with tripod use. Often it doesn't work but a lot of times I can get away with two or three images for stacking. Even when it is a total failure for auto combining I can often take a leg or wing from one image and paste it into another photo.

[Minerva]

Magnified enough for me thank you!

[Stagecoach]

First of all thanks to everyone for their C&C it all helps my learning curve.
Some amazing macro photos, thank you
One thing I learned, is to use a higher f number than I have being doing in the past.

Good

Below is an image I took in July 2013 with my Canon 1100D and a Canon EF 100m f2.8 macro lens on a tripod. Exposure f5 1/320sec ISO 200

And another good image

I am I right in saying if upped the f number up to say f9 or higher, the head of the bee would be more in focus.

I'll answer this based purely on this image and this specific question of yours ..................................

Yes it would be more in focus, assuming you used the exact same focal point.

What we do not know with this image is what focal point was used (the exact focal plane distance from the camera where the image appears sharpest). Simply, did the camera AF (auto focus) or you manually focus at a point you required. But that is digressing a bit

From the Exif data of this image your shooting distance is given as 0.56m (560mm).

If we assume this correct (and sometimes it is not that accurate) for info the DOF will vary as follows for the different apertures (1100D and 100mm lens):

@ a focal point distance of 0.56m (560mm)
f/5 - DOF = 4.9mm
f/9 - DOF = 8.1mm
f/14 - DOF = 10.4mm

and for comparison ..........

@ a focal point distance of 1.0m (1000mm)

f/5 - DOF = 17.2mm
f/9 - DOF = 30.7mm
f/14 - DOF = 48.1mm

From the above you can see the significance of the DOF increase from f/5 to f/9 to f/14 and for info the change you get when increasing focal point distance.

P.S. For all the above DOF figures the DOF is split 50/50% between front and rear.

[DanK]

To elaborate on a suggestion that Geoff made: the problem of narrow DOF is lessened if you can make the bug (or whatever) almost parallel to the sensor so that the distance front-to-back is minimized. Sometimes you may want a particular perspective, say, face-on, and it's worth having the back of the bug badly out of focus. However, if you want all or most of the bug in focus, shooting from the side works better.

[JBW]

With my gear the difference in DoF between F/9 and F/14 is significant.

I used to be a pilot and it was agreed that flying was a science but landing was an art. I believe the same reality applies to macro. it is a science that follows the numbers but it is also an art. The nearly perfect combination of camera settings that will allow you to capture what your spirit sees is as much art as science. Thankfully this is digital so we won't go broke working on our art.

B.

[Stagecoach]

With my gear the difference in DoF between F/9 and F/14 is significant.

It's as per the figures above Brian (ignoring the 90mm/100mm minor difference in lenses). I agree, it is significant with respect to close up photography.

[JBW]

It's as per the figures above Brian (ignoring the 90mm/100mm minor difference in lenses). I agree, it is significant with respect to close up photography.

When i read your numbers I went 'wow' minimal focus distance is nit always the way to go for macro.

And not to hijack the thread but thanks for the size suggestion for my uploads. 1600 rather than 2000 wide with 90% instead of 100& makes a real difference in upload speed and works better ion my blog which resizes to 800 wide.

[Stagecoach]

When i read your numbers I went 'wow' minimal focus distance is nit always the way to go for macro.

Brian, it all comes down to what people want to achieve. Personally, I love bug images real close up with very shallow DOF that emphasises (separates) what I think or is at least to me real interesting. Others preference would be to want everything in sharp focus.

As for the numbers, in a way the values are not that important, it's the varying relationship between what happens to one thing when another is changed that's significant. I have not yet found a way of using a ruler between my sensor and a wasps eye to take an accurate measurement and then verify the viewed result on my monitor