Macro Studio: a bold and possibly beautiful shot of the top of a tie pin

[Manfred M]

The looser crop is still much too tight. The last one is even tighter and works less well than the original.

Take a look at the robber fly that you posted in the March competition and look at how well you used negative space in that shot (in fact, I would say there is a bit too much).

[JBW]

The looser crop is still much too tight. The last one is even tighter and works less well than the original.

Take a look at the robber fly that you posted in the March competition and look at how well you used negative space in that shot (in fact, I would say there is a bit too much).

You must be a fan of Goldilocks. So how do I get more negative space and still maintain the detail?

[JBW]

I quit wearing ties over forty years ago. I have no idea where I got this tie pin but I have always packed it around with me. And that's a lot of packing. ISO 100 ~ Shutter Speed Twenty-five sec. ~ Light from one torch diffused through writing paper and some ceiling lights.

I went back and re-shot the tie pin trying for more negative space. I found it but I truly believe I lost a lot of power.

[billtils]

Brian

That's simply not as good an image because of your camera settings and/or what you did in post: for example the glare on on the jewels (or coloured glass), the background exposure, the colour and detail in the metal, and you didn't edit out the vertical element.

Could you please enlighten us as to why you re-shot and didn't just re-crop? Your APS-C sensor has an aspect ration of 3x2 and your original posted image is cropped to 2x1 (or thereabouts).

[JBW]

Brian

That's simply not as good an image because of your camera settings and/or what you did in post: for example the glare on on the jewels (or coloured glass), the background exposure, the colour and detail in the metal, and you didn't edit out the vertical element.

Could you please enlighten us as to why you re-shot and didn't just re-crop? Your APS-C sensor has an aspect ration of 3x2 and your original posted image is cropped to 2x1 (or thereabouts).

I re-shot (and all of your assessments are legit) because the two re-crops I did (take a look at #'s 19 and 20) were displeasing to Manfred and no one else thought them worth commenting on.

I even went the 'add some canvas around the edges route'. The problem was the amount of time it would have taken me to do it properly to end up with a shot I could see that I would think inferior to the first.

So I think I've pretty much done what was suggested. Hence the new shot. And yes the new shot was not done the way the first was but then that was kind of the idea cause no one much liked the first shot.

[billtils]

... that was kind of the idea cause no one much liked the first shot.

I liked it! Which is not to say that there were no opportunities for improvement, however small

[JBW]

I liked it! Which is not to say that there were no opportunities for improvement, however small

there is always room for improvement

[Manfred M]

Brian - the lighting and editing of the image in #23 is inferior to your earlier image. The metal piece along the top of the image was missing and it is much more subdued in the interior of the tie clip and is a significant distraction.

I have not changed my mind about shot #1, but simply suggesting #23 is what I was suggesting is not correct.

Unfortunately, I am out of town right now and do not have my editing software and tools available on my tablet, so can't do a quick mockup. I'll take a crack at it once I get home in a few days.

[JBW]

Brian - the lighting and editing of the image in #23 is inferior to your earlier image. The metal piece along the top of the image was missing and it is much more subdued in the interior of the tie clip and is a significant distraction.

I have not changed my mind about shot #1, but simply suggesting #23 is what I was suggesting is not correct.

Unfortunately, I am out of town right now and do not have my editing software and tools available on my tablet, so can't do a quick mockup. I'll take a crack at it once I get home in a few days.

good deal. I know you won't think this has enough negative space but i did stretch the canvas just a tad. Consistency has never been my strong point which means whenever i cook it is an adventure for the taste buds.

[Manfred M]

g Consistency has never been my strong point which means whenever i cook it is an adventure for the taste buds.

A consistent workflow, both in capture and in post-processing give you a better chance of repeatability. That fits well into your view of only working on one variable at a time.

[billtils]

sorry, I wasn't being clear.

The two lenses I mentioned are high-magnification specialty macro lenses that go up to a magnification of 5:1. They have no focusing rings. Instead, they have rings that adjust the magnification. The ONLY way to focus is to move the camera. In contrast, 'normal' macro lenses, like my EF 100mm L and EF-S 60mm, have a regular focusing ring.

If you have a lens that focuses, it makes no difference whether you create a stack by moving the camera or by changing focus with the lens barrel. At high enough magnification, it may be hard to rotate the lens barrel accurately enough, but at 1:1 or even 2:1, rotating the barrel is fine. Re software: makes no difference. Zerene will handle it fine regardless.

I stack a lot, but I have almost always created the stack by changing the focus using the lens barrel. I've become adept at it and don't really have to think much about it. This simply won't work when I get one of those other two lenses, which I expect I will. That's what I meant by craft. What I have learned to do well won't work, and I will have to learn to control focus with my rail. (I'll have to figure out how much of a rotation of the adjustment screw corresponds to a the largest acceptable change in focus.)

Thanks Dan.