2017 Project 52 - 1st QTR - Sandy(Skitterbug)

[skitterbug]

I always like these types of shots - and playing with the crop to figure out the best place for negative space is always a fun part of the challenge.

I generally find when working with small critters that because I'm so close to the subject, I have try for a greater depth of field - which means generally artificial lighting (unless I happen to be outside on a really bright sunny day). Little critters are also often moving which means a faster shutter speed is often better for sharpness. I do have an external flash that I can bounce off surfaces or even remove from the camera and remote control to get the lighting that works best.

Trying to catch that bug in a position that I can even use has become rather comical. But I've one that I'll post and see what comments there might be about my newest attempt. <lol>

Definitely something cool about this one - the colours, texture, positioning of the elements... it's almost mysterious

The pond shot was one that worked out for a change. The rock in the bottom left usually is pinkish in color but for some reason, it picked up the darker gray color along with that pink. Every now and then things seem to mesh just right!

Thanks Mal for stopping by. I appreciate your comments!

[skitterbug]

So I chased down the bug today and tried to capture a more focused shot. Not sure how this will appear online. It still isn't as crisp as I'd like but I believe it is better. One thing that is on my "I want that" list is a macro lens. Any suggestions for a T3i Canon? I've seen excellent work on Cambridge in macro work so it would be great fun to give it a try!

So here's my attempt!
1/60 - f/8.0 - ISO800 - 55mm

Bug On.......

[skitterbug]

And here is another captured while I was playing today!

1/60 - f/5.0 - 43mm - ISO800

Dice

[Geoff F]

Those look OK Sandy.

Before eventually getting a macro lens have a serious think about what will be your subjects and how close can you get to your main target area.

If you can approach to within a few inches or are photographing larger subjects like flowers, something around 100 mm will be fine. But for the more tricky stuff such as nervous insects where I need to be able to count their toes for identification purposes I use a 180 mm lens often with a 1.4x converter attached. However, besides being expensive this is a heavy rig which really requires tripod use.

I always give this warning to anybody considering this sort of venture: ''Macro photography is addictive and can serious damage your wealth''.

[skitterbug]

Those look OK Sandy.

Before eventually getting a macro lens have a serious think about what will be your subjects and how close can you get to your main target area.

If you can approach to within a few inches or are photographing larger subjects like flowers, something around 100 mm will be fine. But for the more tricky stuff such as nervous insects where I need to be able to count their toes for identification purposes I use a 180 mm lens often with a 1.4x converter attached. However, besides being expensive this is a heavy rig which really requires tripod use.

I always give this warning to anybody considering this sort of venture: ''Macro photography is addictive and can serious damage your wealth''.

I like your quote! Equipment is expensive but at least we save in development costs! I never took very many pics when I had to pay to have my film processed. It was a luxury that I couldn't always afford.

So in reality why doesn't the lens that I have do a better job? Or is it user error? My one is 18-55mm and says Macro .25m/.8ft? It is what I used for the dice and bug and I felt that I could not get zoomed in close enough and still keep my pics sharp. When I want to take pics of flowers or butterflies, it does an okay job but none of them are zeroed in like I want to do.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge!

[Goldcoastgolfer]

So I chased down the bug today and tried to capture a more focused shot. Not sure how this will appear online. It still isn't as crisp as I'd like but I believe it is better. One thing that is on my "I want that" list is a macro lens. Any suggestions for a T3i Canon? I've seen excellent work on Cambridge in macro work so it would be great fun to give it a try!

So here's my attempt!
1/60 - f/8.0 - ISO800 - 55mm

Bug On.......

That looks pretty good for no flash and the settings you had (1/60 needs a pretty steady hand with bugs). I think from a composition perspective I would have gone for having the lady beetle more towards the top right and more negative space in the bottom left - I think it would give a larger sense of height.

[Goldcoastgolfer]

And here is another captured while I was playing today!

1/60 - f/5.0 - 43mm - ISO800

Dice

I like this one - looks like the dice are in the air. For macro Geoff knows his stuff. With sharpness, I tend to shoot with a much faster shutter speed - tiny movements are massive when you're close to a subject so eliminating them by increasing shutter speed is a way of combating. I also tend to shoot around f16 and to get the depth of field for macro - but usually entails a very bright lighting source, or flash. I only ever had a 90mm macro with the shots that I've put up - but 180mm would have made things a lot easier at times. Tamron make a pretty nice, cost effective macro lens.

[skitterbug]

That looks pretty good for no flash and the settings you had (1/60 needs a pretty steady hand with bugs). I think from a composition perspective I would have gone for having the lady beetle more towards the top right and more negative space in the bottom left - I think it would give a larger sense of height.

I did get some shots with the bug in the position you suggest but he wasn’t in focus. The camera picked up on the faucet instead since I use auto focus. I tried putting a bug on the black background but it didn’t like that at all and kept flying elsewhere. Trying to get them out of the house has been a chore so the least they can do is pose for my picture taking sessions – Right? <LOL>

I like this one - looks like the dice are in the air. For macro Geoff knows his stuff. With sharpness, I tend to shoot with a much faster shutter speed - tiny movements are massive when you're close to a subject so eliminating them by increasing shutter speed is a way of combating. I also tend to shoot around f16 and to get the depth of field for macro - but usually entails a very bright lighting source, or flash. I only ever had a 90mm macro with the shots that I've put up - but 180mm would have made things a lot easier at times. Tamron make a pretty nice, cost effective macro lens.

I also like the way the dice turned out. I wasn’t sure there would be enough ‘going on’ to make the pic interesting but the result fascinated me. So I posted it for that reason and for an example of how close I can get with my lens that says it is ‘macro’ .25mm/.8ft. Seems like I ought to be able to get much closer than what I am achieving. This lens is part of the kit I purchased in 2012.

I’ve seen the name Tamron pop up often. One item that really confuses me about the specs of Macro lenses are the distances that are listed. You mention that you’d rather have 180mm versus 90mm. I’d think the shorter distance would be more desirable? Closer is better? I haven’t understood that part yet at all.

Anyway, thank you Mal, for your thoughts. In this busy world, I know it takes time to reply to others so I appreciate your comments.

[Geoff F]

Yes, Sandy, closer is better. But that only works if you can physically move close enough. Which is why I mentioned thinking very carefully about your intended subjects before actually purchasing a lens.

Using more zoom will always cause more difficulties than getting close with a lens using less magnification. However when I'm photographing nervous insects for identification purposes I reckon I am doing well if I can get within 12 inches of the target and I need to see some very small areas for the identification. That is where a larger magnification lens becomes essential because when doing photographic insect surveys I need to photograph everything which comes my way.

If you can wait until a sleepy model strays your way the smaller lens is fine; but you will end up with a reduced total number of subjects photographed. It all depends on your reasons for taking the photograph.

For flowers and some fungi, I often prefer to use my 24-70 Tamron lens which works well.

You mentioned Tamron. Well at one time I associated them with budget lenses which were constructed chiefly to meet the low price but they have recently entered the quality end of the market with some very good lenses.

[bnnrcn]

I really like this one Sandy

So I chased down the bug today and tried to capture a more focused shot. Not sure how this will appear online. It still isn't as crisp as I'd like but I believe it is better. One thing that is on my "I want that" list is a macro lens. Any suggestions for a T3i Canon? I've seen excellent work on Cambridge in macro work so it would be great fun to give it a try!

So here's my attempt!
1/60 - f/8.0 - ISO800 - 55mm

Bug On.......

[Craigie]

A great image of the dice Sandy, it looks like they are in mid air, well done.
I still think increase the shutter speed slightly on the bug if you are hand holding and your FL is set at 55mm.

[Cantab]

A great image of the dice Sandy, it looks like they are in mid air, well done.
I still think increase the shutter speed slightly on the bug if you are hand holding and your FL is set at 55mm.

Gary, I have a somewhat vague recollection of a "rule" from my 35mm pre-digital days that handheld shutter speeds should be double the focal length. Since a focal length of 55 mm on a crop sensor camera is very roughly, for the sake of argument, 80 mm in the 35mm format, that would generate a safe shutter speed of 1/160 – considerably more than your 1/60.

[Goldcoastgolfer]

I’ve seen the name Tamron pop up often. One item that really confuses me about the specs of Macro lenses are the distances that are listed. You mention that you’d rather have 180mm versus 90mm. I’d think the shorter distance would be more desirable? Closer is better? I haven’t understood that part yet at all.

So macro lenses generally are able to create a 1:1 magnification at super close distances. As an example, my pseduo "macro" lens that I use for my general photography, while allowing me to get to within 0.22m at 70mm and still focus, projects an image onto the camera sensor that is 1:5 or a fifth of the actual size of the subject. A true macro lens will allow you to project an image that is the full size onto the sensor.

The benefit of a 180mm lens is that it produces the 1:1 ratio onto the sensor so you don't need to get as close, or you can capture even more detail if you do want to get closer.

[skitterbug]

So macro lenses generally are able to create a 1:1 magnification at super close distances. As an example, my pseduo "macro" lens that I use for my general photography, while allowing me to get to within 0.22m at 70mm and still focus, projects an image onto the camera sensor that is 1:5 or a fifth of the actual size of the subject. A true macro lens will allow you to project an image that is the full size onto the sensor.

The benefit of a 180mm lens is that it produces the 1:1 ratio onto the sensor so you don't need to get as close, or you can capture even more detail if you do want to get closer.

So it is the magnification rate that needs to be considered and then the FL as well. I need to find the instructions that go with the lens I have and see what it actually says about it. Even though it says it is a MACRO I wonder if it really falls into that category. Depends on interpretation I bet.

Your information helps! Thank you!

[skitterbug]

Yes, Sandy, closer is better. But that only works if you can physically move close enough. Which is why I mentioned thinking very carefully about your intended subjects before actually purchasing a lens.

Using more zoom will always cause more difficulties than getting close with a lens using less magnification.

However when I'm photographing nervous insects for identification purposes I reckon I am doing well if I can get within 12 inches of the target and I need to see some very small areas for the identification. That is where a larger magnification lens becomes essential because when doing photographic insect surveys I need to photograph everything which comes my way.

If you can wait until a sleepy model strays your way the smaller lens is fine; but you will end up with a reduced total number of subjects photographed. It all depends on your reasons for taking the photograph.

For flowers and some fungi, I often prefer to use my 24-70 Tamron lens which works well.

You mentioned Tamron. Well at one time I associated them with budget lenses which were constructed chiefly to meet the low price but they have recently entered the quality end of the market with some very good lenses.

That bug and I could have been eye to eye! <chuckle> So a lens that picks up detail would have been great to have!

Sleepy bugs - now there is a thought. Maybe I ought to snap their pics at midnight! Seriously though, I probably ought to increase the shutter speed a bit, try and get that bug some place that decreases light bouncing off of it, and place it in an interesting setting. Could be interesting! We have snow starting tonight so I'll have plenty of time to try!

Maybe what I ought to do is pick out a few lenses and then create a thread in the equipment division of this website and see what people would think is a good fit for me! I've spotted a few but I really don't have a clue except now to remember to consider magnification values!

Thank you for being patient! And answering questions! I appreciate your help along with others that reply! It takes a bit to have info sink into my brain so that I understand it but once it is there, it will be utilized! <yep>

[skitterbug]

A great image of the dice Sandy, it looks like they are in mid air, well done.
Hi Gary ~ I still think increase the shutter speed slightly on the bug if you are hand holding and your FL is set at 55mm.

If increasing the shutter speed helps with a sharper pic, then I'm all for it. I'll have to keep experimenting with it.
Thank you for your encouragement! I did like the way the dice pic turned out! <grin>

Hi Bruce ~ I'll keep your suggestion in mind also. I really would like to see if I can get an even sharper focused bug!

[skitterbug]

Thank you very much Binnur! I do have plenty of "subjects" around here to use as models! <grin>

[Wavelength]

Excellent images of bug and dice......really well done

[skitterbug]

Excellent images of bug and dice......really well done

Thank you very much Nandakumar!

[Goldcoastgolfer]

So it is the magnification rate that needs to be considered and then the FL as well. I need to find the instructions that go with the lens I have and see what it actually says about it. Even though it says it is a MACRO I wonder if it really falls into that category. Depends on interpretation I bet.

Your information helps! Thank you!

Trust me - it won't be a true macro lens...