Macro shots C&C requiered

[Craigie]

These shots were taken with a Canon 6D, Canon EF 100m f2.8 macro lens on a tripod and electronic release.
What could I do get sharper images of the bee.
I did not enable Mirror Lock up, would that help at all.

1 f4.5 1/400 sec


2 f4.5 1/400 sec


3 f3.5 1/400 sec

[DickyOZ]

Not bad at all Gary. Shallow DOF is the curse of macro photography and most flowers sway a little in even the slightest breeze. With my macro lens I get best results at F9. That usually means winding up the ISO or using diffused flash. The other thing that helps is to use burst mode and hope that one image is tack sharp - after all digital film is cheap.. If you have a static subject then focus stacking will give the DOF you need.

[Wavelength]

Since i have no macro experiences i cannot say anything I think the third one has come out better;

[chauncey]

I do a ton of macro work and I completely agree with Richard's comments.
That said, your lens is easier to use in studio/static scenarios because of focusing distance/DOF.

If you're insistent on shooting insects, I would suggest you cheat by capturing them and chilling
them in the fridge for a short time, then pose them on the flower.

FWIW, Canon's 185 Macro is a superior lens if a 1:1 ratio is all you need.

[xpatUSA]

What could I do get sharper images of the bee.

As already said, using a higher f-number for more DOF. But since much above f/8 on your camera starts to give diffraction blur, take a look at de-convolution sharpening which can restore that lost sharpness to an extent. I understand that the ACR Detail slider brings some in above 80%? RawTherapee has it and there are other apps or plugins that do it also.

I did not enable Mirror Lock up, would that help at all?

Probably not much with a good tripod and those moderately sized pixels, IMHO.

[ajohnw]

I can't comment on what aperture you need for bees. To get a good shot of just the bee the lens would need to be a lot closer unless a crop can be used. What I do in respect to that comes from using microscopes, No more than the magnification needed to reveal the detail and that can be judged through the viewfinder. On a bee for instance the hairs on the body should be clearly visible.

This usually means rather slow apertures to get the depth of field needed. I'd guess about F11 on your gear. Most people use a flash maybe even in high speed mode to keep the shutter speed up and also hand hold the camera. It's best to fit a home made diffuser to the flash otherwise there will be very bright reflections on some insects. Final focusing is also often done by hand just before the shot is taken. Via camera movement.

There are people around on here that can post a shot of their macro setup. I've seen them in the past. Sometime the flash is mounted on some sort of adaptation so that the light can reach the subject rather than just hit the lens.

Mine is a little unusual as I use M 4/3. I do have the 60mm macro lens but it often means getting too close so I generally use this.



I haven't got round to adding a diffuser to the flash yet. It can produce good results and problems are largely down to me. Usually miss focus. I can work from around 200 to 300mm with it.

I do intend to try my crop camera and a sigma lens as well but there doesn't seem to be much in the insect line around where I have been this year and not much opportunity to try elsewhere.

John
-

[Stagecoach]

These shots were taken with a Canon 6D, Canon EF 100m f2.8 macro lens on a tripod and electronic release.

And you have done an excellent job with No 3 Gary

What could I do get sharper images of the bee.

Firstly, I suspect you are asking what can I do to get more of the bee looking sharp? What is in focus of the bee and flower (specifically No 3) is sharp.

To increase the 'depth' of what appears sharp of the bee close down your aperture. I would suggest that for these shots you use as near to around f/14 (with your Canon). To achieve this, you may need additional lighting in certain circumstances.

There are some that will quote items as diffraction and lens sweet spot but the increased DoF (depth of focus) you will get in this situation far outweighs the very minor advantages you will get worrying about these.

I did not enable Mirror Lock up, would that help at all.

I doubt it very much (due to the inherent delay) in this situation, unless you are 100% sure that bee and flower is not going to move and both remain exactly where they were when focus was achieved

One other thing, applicable to your question is how and where did you focus on this scene?

With DoF being so critical with close up work it is essential that you choose a point of focus applicable to your subject and result you want to achieve. If your main subject was the bee and it was the bee that you wanted most within the available DoF a focus point should have been chosen taking account that the DoF will be roughly equal both behind and in front of the focus point.

[zkogut]

In my macro photography of insects I typically use an 85mm Nikkor macro lens, Sb-600 flash with large oval light diffuser and my settings are F11, ISO 100, 1/200-250 depending on how close I get. I also will use a 20mm extension tube if I want to get close enough to show the compound eyes.

Arizona Wolf Spider Focus Stack of 4 photos


Arizona Wolf Spider eyes (used just the lens, no extension tubes)


Arizona Jumping Spider (2mm big spider, used all 3 extension tubes with my macro lens)

[zkogut]

Part 2

Zebra Jumping Spider #1 (20mm extension used)


Zebra Jumping Spider #2 (same)


My Dads Eye (I used the whole set of 3 extension tubes if I'm remembering correctly)


I hope this all helps!!

-Zak

[ajohnw]

I haven't got much about on my machine but there are some macro shots in my flickr albums. I lost a lot of processed shots.

This was taken with the gear I posted a shot of. A more diffuse light would have improved it in places particularly some of the hairs. I always shoot them live.



The zoom is fitted with an achromatic close up lens. I've tried a couple. The best turned out to be one that Sigma made for one of their zoom lenses some time ago. They crop up now and again on ebay. I think this one was shot at 300mm. The exif will show what I used. Generally when the mag levels are high it's best to not go much higher than 200mm. They aren't that high here. I always try and keep colours as they were.

John
-

[madcrow]

Gary, a very good effort. +2 for Zak

[DanK]

The problem isn't sharpness; it's focus. As several people have noted, DOF is extremely shallow in macro work. If you look at shots 2 and 3, you can see that some parts of the image are in sharp focus--just not the parts you want. It's very hard to get focus where you want it--generally, the eyes--and at your aperture, even a tiny error will create problems.

I agree with Geoff: you can pretty much forget about diffraction. It's effects are tiny compared to the additional sharpness in the image as a whole from greater DOF. I generally shoot bugs at f/11 or f/13, using a crop sensor camera like yours and the same lens, and no one has ever said that the ones I am willing to post--the small number with accurate focus--aren't sharp. Here's a recent one at f/13 (with a 36mm extension tube for more magnification):



Two issues are how to get accurate focus and how to manage a smaller aperture. For the first, search this site; there are a number of threads about this. Many of us focus by setting the focus manually and then moving the camera, tripping the shutter at the time when the bug is in focus. A monopod makes this much easier. AF is iffy in macro, although I have managed to use it sometimes. One way to manage a smaller aperture, the answer is diffused flash. Again, search, as there have been a number of threads about this, complete with images showing the various flash rigs that people have worked out. In bright light, you can do without, but I most often use a flash. I'll post a photo below of one of my flash rigs. The diffuser is made from two coke cans, and the diffusing surface is just layers of backing parchment, but there are many other options.

[xpatUSA]

I agree with Geoff: you can pretty much forget about diffraction. It's effects are tiny compared to the additional sharpness in the image as a whole from greater DOF. I generally shoot bugs at f/11 or f/13, using a crop sensor camera like yours . . .

I can't agree that we can "pretty much forget about diffraction", Dan. The OP's camera has a 6.4um pixel pitch but an Airy disk diameter at f/13 is a whopping 17.6um - almost 3 pixels wide - and, at macro distances much more than that!

Therefore, I would suggest that macros shot at f/13 would need more sharpening than those shot at, say, f/8 (to get the same acutance, if that's the right word).

From your posted images you have obviously mastered your post-processing to match the f/11 or f/13 'blur' and they are excellent, don't get me wrong. I'm just objecting to 'forgetting about diffraction'.

Diffraction is quite hard to forget if your camera should have 3.9um pixels or smaller, for example, but certainly easier for me to forget up to say f/16 with my Sigma SD10 (9.12um pixels).

Now, where did I put that Sigma 50mm Macro that goes up to f/45 (yep)?

[JBW]

Hi Gary, I use a Sony Alpha a 58 connected to to a Tamron 90mm which puts us in the same zone for equipment.

I get good results by getting as close as I can using F/14, ISO 100, Flash compensation in the minuses and a tripod. Focus and stillness in both the subject and myself is crucial. Learning how to put the focus where you want is is also worthwhile .

[DanK]

I can't agree that we can "pretty much forget about diffraction", Dan. The OP's camera has a 6.4um pixel pitch but an Airy disk diameter at f/13 is a whopping 17.6um - almost 3 pixels wide - and, at macro distances much more than that!

Therefore, I would suggest that macros shot at f/13 would need more sharpening than those shot at, say, f/8 (to get the same acutance, if that's the right word).

From your posted images you have obviously mastered your post-processing to match the f/11 or f/13 'blur' and they are excellent, don't get me wrong. I'm just objecting to 'forgetting about diffraction'.

Diffraction is quite hard to forget if your camera should have 3.9um pixels or smaller, for example, but certainly easier for me to forget up to say f/16 with my Sigma SD10 (9.12um pixels).

Now, where did I put that Sigma 50mm Macro that goes up to f/45 (yep)?

Ted,

I wasn't saying that he won't get some diffraction. What I was trying to say was the same thing Geoff advised: that as practical matter, in shooting bugs, DOF will matter much more than diffraction will in terms of the overall appearance of sharpness. (Unless he stacks, that is, which I don't have steady enough hands to do with bugs.)

Keep in mind that the image I posted was shot with a 7D, which has a much smaller pixel pitch, and hence more diffraction, than the OP's 6D.

The diffraction I get shooting at f/13 or thereabouts with a 7D doesn't require a great deal of PP. I'll give a concrete example. This one was shot at f/14 (just carelessness on my part--I was rushing to get set up before the bee went on its way):



I did all the PP in Lightroom. the only adjustments relevant to sharpness were a pretty big increase in clarity, +36, and these sharpening settings:

Amount: 93
radius: 2.0
detail: 25 (default)
Masking: 61

This is pretty typical, although a bit more extreme than many of my shots. I find that a radius around 2 often works best with these shots, despite the usual advice to use a small radius for detailed images. While I suspect you are right that I could get away with more modest sharpening at a wider aperture, the image would have too much out of focus. Note that the bee's abdomen is going out of focus as it is.

Dan

[chauncey]

While I appreciate the technical aspects of shooting bugs and the personal satisfaction in achieving a
crispy sharp image of the subject, I gotta ask...why. I have never seen an insect photo displayed in a LR.
IMHO, they are not objects d'art, but merely exercises in technique.

[xpatUSA]

Ted,

I wasn't saying that he won't get some diffraction. What I was trying to say was the same thing Geoff advised: that as practical matter, in shooting bugs, DOF will matter much more than diffraction will in terms of the overall appearance of sharpness. (Unless he stacks, that is, which I don't have steady enough hands to do with bugs.)

Keep in mind that the image I posted was shot with a 7D, which has a much smaller pixel pitch, and hence more diffraction, than the OP's 6D.

The diffraction I get shooting at f/13 or thereabouts with a 7D doesn't require a great deal of PP. I'll give a concrete example. This one was shot at f/14 (just carelessness on my part--I was rushing to get set up before the bee went on its way):



I did all the PP in Lightroom. the only adjustments relevant to sharpness were a pretty big increase in clarity, +36, and these sharpening settings:

Amount: 93
radius: 2.0
detail: 25 (default)
Masking: 61

This is pretty typical, although a bit more extreme than many of my shots. I find that a radius around 2 often works best with these shots, despite the usual advice to use a small radius for detailed images. While I suspect you are right that I could get away with more modest sharpening at a wider aperture, the image would have too much out of focus. Note that the bee's abdomen is going out of focus as it is.

Dan

Hi Dan,

Now that I see your settings, I understand the POV. I am of course aware of the relationship between aperture and DOF as well as blur (sort of the same thing, really) and was certainly not suggesting any aperture settings other than what you use.

Very nice shot, the proof of the pudding, so to speak.

Currently I'm shooting the SD1M in low res raw mode (2336x1568px with 10um virtual pixels) so, with the equivalent of your settings, I could probably go to f/22 or more. Must do a test one day . .

Thanks for the clarification.

[JBW]

While I appreciate the technical aspects of shooting bugs and the personal satisfaction in achieving a
crispy sharp image of the subject, I gotta ask...why. I have never seen an insect photo displayed in a LR.
IMHO, they are not objects d'art, but merely exercises in technique.

Everyone has their own definition of art but I think both of these shots would fit most definitions.

[Craigie]

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.
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
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.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I'd say yes, as long as it didn't move with the decrease in shutter speed that would go along with it.