Practicing the craft Praying Mantis Exoskeleton

[JBW]

ISO 100 ~ F/14 ~ 1/6s ~ Natural Light ~ ImageJ

[Mike Buckley]

The mask in this version seems to be very precise. Well done!

However, the black background isn't black enough and it was immediately noticeable when I opened the thread. The luminosity value of the background is 11. It will look much darker and provide more pop to the subject if you take the background all the way down to zero.

Your previous version has a blue color cast in some areas of the skeleton that is really appealing to me, though I understand that you may not like it.

I'm curious: Is it to be expected that you would find a complete skeleton such as this one?

[JBW]

The mask in this version seems to be very precise. Well done!

However, the black background isn't black enough and it was immediately noticeable when I opened the thread. The luminosity value of the background is 11. It will look much darker and provide more pop to the subject if you take the background all the way down to zero.

Your previous version has a blue color cast in some areas of the skeleton that is really appealing to me, though I understand that you may not like it.

I'm curious: Is it to be expected that you would find a complete skeleton such as this one?

They pop out of the exoskeleton through the back of the head. This is the second one I have found in good shape. But as I have only found 2 I don't know if it is the norm.

I actually prefer the blue tints but I was curious about a different tint.

This mask was done in Capture 1.

I thought I had taken it down to 0. But when I checked it was 6. Now it reads 0 everywhere.

[DanK]

A nice image, and the lighting is very good, but you don't have enough depth of field. This is a perfect example of where stacking is the way to go.

[Mike Buckley]

I thought I had taken it down to 0.

I wonder if you used the histogram to make that determination. That would be understandable considering that the histogram displayed some pixels at the zero value. However, it displayed very few pixels at zero when you would have expected the most number of pixels to be displayed at that value. The safest method is to move your color picker around the entire background to ensure that the value is zero and that it is zero throughout the entire background.

[Wavelength]

Excellent image; looks like a heavenly horse, who is soon to spread its wings

[JBW]

Excellent image; looks like a heavenly horse, who is soon to spread its wings

I like how you see the world.

[JBW]

A nice image, and the lighting is very good, but you don't have enough depth of field. This is a perfect example of where stacking is the way to go.

I did stacking. However the slices with the head in focus didn't line up. I can manually focus for depth without moving the camera. Moving the focal point left or right I'm not so good at. Maybe different technique or possibly I need stabler gear.

[DanK]

I did stacking. However the slices with the head in focus didn't line up. I can manually focus for depth without moving the camera. Moving the focal point left or right I'm not so good at. Maybe different technique or possibly I need stabler gear.

Brian,

There is no reason to move the focal point right or left. You're just moving the plane of focus back. Just keep moving the focus point back until everything looks sharp. To avoid the risk of catching too few, I usually keep taking shots even after I think I have enough. I then blow them up on the computer, find the one that has the rear-most stuff in focus, and delete all of the photos after that.

If the head shots aren't aligned, that generally means that the subject has moved between shots--which could easily happen with something as lightweight as this.

Dan

[Davejl]

Impressive structure and shot. At least it isn't going to fly off half-way through your shoot (unless it really is a heavenly horse: my thought on seeing it was the same as Nandakumar's).

Your progress with your macro shots and focus stacking is inspiring me to seriously consider having a go at the technique myself.

Dave

[JBW]

Impressive structure and shot. At least it isn't going to fly off half-way through your shoot (unless it really is a heavenly horse: my thought on seeing it was the same as Nandakumar's).

Your progress with your macro shots and focus stacking is inspiring me to seriously consider having a go at the technique myself.

Dave

I find it a lot of fun with the added bonus that expensive gear isn't needed.

[Davejl]

I'll definitely give it a try. I need a photographic interest that I can pursue during the next few months of (probable) gloomy weather when outdoors photographic opportunities are likely to be limited. I've got quite a lot of fossils and minerals that I could try it on (no praying mantises!)

Dave

[JBW]

I'll definitely give it a try. I need a photographic interest that I can pursue during the next few months of (probable) gloomy weather when outdoors photographic opportunities are likely to be limited. I've got quite a lot of fossils and minerals that I could try it on (no praying mantises!)

Dave

I developed the needed skill set for macro first with a Fujifilm S4200 and then my Sony Alpha a58 with it's ubiquitous 18 / 55 kit lens. After give or take 20,000 shots I moved into true macro with the Tamron 90mm. ImageJ is an excellent free software for stacking and so much more.

[Davejl]

Thanks Brian. I've had a macro lens for quite a while (Sigma 105mm) and taken lots of shots, which usually get comments about lack of dof on this forum. It was seeing your shots using ImageJ that is inspiring me. I also have a macro focusing plate which needs to leave the store cupboard, so I'll definitely investigate ImageJ.

Dave

[DanK]

Dave,

There are no bugs here for much of the year, which is one reason I do a lot of flowers. I do them mostly indoors, where stacking is easier.

You are relatively new to the forum, but there has been a lot posted about techniques, software, etc. If you do an advanced search on focus stacking, you will find a lot.

There are many software options for stacking. The free program that was widely used by macro photographers I know when I started this is CombineZ. Most of the ones I follow now use a commercial product, Zerene, which I also use. Another popular commercial product is Helicon, which I have never used. Photoshop will also stack, although it's options are limited. Both Zerene and Helicon offer 30-day free trials.

My workflow for stacking is fairly straightforward:
1. I import the entire stack into Lightroom.
2. I delete extra images. I start at the nearest point of focus and work back, and I usually end up going too far to play it safe, so I delete all the images beyond the last one I need.
3. I correct white balance on one image taken with a gray card and sync that setting to the entire stack.
4. I sometimes make one or two other adjustments to the stack, e.g., an exposure adjustment if necessary, but usually not.
5. I export the stack directly into Zerene using a plug-in. I use 16-bit TIFFs and stay in the prophoto color space. Because of the plug-in, this is simple: call up the export dialog, select Zerene, and check the settings. Zerene will open with all of the images loaded.
6. I stack and if necessary clean up the stack. In the case of flowers, it is deep ones that most often need touching up.
7. I save the composite in Zerene.
8. I go back to LR and do as much editing of the composite image there as a I can.
9. If I need more, I use the edit-in menu to open the image in Photoshop.
10. I save it and go back to LR. From there, I can export to the web or print.

Dan

[Mike Buckley]

I anticipate getting into macro photography soon, so I bookmarked your post, Dan. Very helpful!

[DanK]

Mike,

Given your superb control of lighting in studio shots, indoor macro photography should be a good fit for you. I look forward to seeing your work and getting lighting suggestions from you.

Dan

[Davejl]

Dan many thanks for these tips,
Dave