Perhaps i need to consider extreme macro ie 1x1.5 or maybe 1x2 mag

[JBW]

This is a macro of a peace Lilly. Until yesterday I didn't know these hidden flowers existed. Today I went out with the intent of getting good shot. Didn't work. Maybe it is time to get into extreme macro?

[Shadowman]

Brian,

Don't let the magnification rule your art, just be careful how you label the capture, anything less than 1: x will be met with swift ire if called macro.

[JBW]

Brian,

Don't let the magnification rule your art, just be careful how you label the capture, anything less than 1: x will be met with swift ire if called macro.

I went out one more time to check something. I simply cannot see these flowers with out the camera. 7x or 15x is required for a good look. With just my glasses they are invisible.

Magnification is not the be all and end all but it is a limitation

[Manfred M]

The problem with greater magnification is an ever shallower DoF, resulting in a soft and out of focus image. That is the key issue I see with the image you have posted.

[JBW]

The problem with greater magnification is an ever shallower DoF, resulting in a soft and out of focus image. That is the key issue I see with the image you have posted.

I was shooting at 1x1 at F/16 which usually results in a good DOF. But the flowers are seriously tiny. I can't even see them without the 7x focus mag in the camera. Could have been a whisper of a wind.

[rudi]

To my eye this image 'suffers' from motion blur, caused by slight movement off the flower, or camera shake, mirror slap....

A few question comes to my mind: Was this shot at 1x magnification? Do you use a remote shutter release cable ? Was the flower itself 'stabilized' during the shoot ? What shutter speed did you use ?....

It all depends on what you want in focus. I estimate that one small 'cone' has a total depth ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 mm, depending on the variety off peace lilly you have there.
The DOF at 1x magn and f16 is about 2.3 mm. At 2x magn and f16 the DOF is only 1.3 mm, with this setting, softening is induced from diffraction.
Focus stacking is a solution to solve this very shallow depth off field. HTH.

[JBW]

To my eye this image 'suffers' from motion blur, caused by slight movement off the flower, or camera shake, mirror slap....

A few question comes to my mind: Was this shot at 1x magnification? Do you use a remote shutter release cable ? Was the flower itself 'stabilized' during the shoot ? What shutter speed did you use ?....

It all depends on what you want in focus. I estimate that one small 'cone' has a total depth ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 mm, depending on the variety off peace lilly you have there.
The DOF at 1x magn and f16 is about 2.3 mm. At 2x magn and f16 the DOF is only 1.3 mm, with this setting, softening is induced from diffraction.
Focus stacking is a solution to solve this very shallow depth off field. HTH.

I do use a shutter release. I have yet to develop a good method of flower stabilization that doesn't hurt the flower. There were puffs of wind. I need a focus rail.

[xpatUSA]

It all depends on what you want in focus. I estimate that one small 'cone' has a total depth ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 mm, depending on the variety off peace lilly you have there.
The DOF at 1x magn and f16 is about 2.3 mm. At 2x magn and f16 the DOF is only 1.3 mm, with this setting, softening is induced from diffraction.
Focus stacking is a solution to solve this very shallow depth off field.

Agreed.

This gentleman shoots at well over 1:1 e.g. 1:7 and stacks 100's of images just for one subject:

https://500px.com/macrero

I use this occasionally ...:

http://www.tawbaware.com/tufusepro.htm

but, quite frankly, stacking is a royal PITA.

[Manfred M]

There were puffs of wind.

That is a likely explanation as to the cause. The photographer has a lot more leeway when shooting indoors where these conditions can be controlled.

[DanK]

This gentleman shoots at well over 1:1 e.g. 1:7

It's just convention, but to avoid confusion, I think the ratios are usually written in the other direction, e.g., 7:1 would be greater magnification than 1:1. Only noting this so that I don't confuse people with my note below.

The two big problems as magnification increases, as folks have already noted, are shallower DOF and greater susceptibility to motion of any kind, whether it is camera motion or subject motion (e.g., from wind). For more than 1.5:1, I stack virtually everything, and even at 1:1, I often end up stacking subjects like flowers that stay put.

I need a focus rail.

Maybe not, unless you go to very high magnifications. IMHO, an important advantage of a rail is that a good one makes it easier to make the very small changes in focus needed for stacking at high magnifications. other than that, I think it's more a matter of taste and convenience. I find one useful to help me frame images as I want, in that I can move the camera fore and back without changing anything else, but I never use one for stacking. All a matter of what's easier for you.

[xpatUSA]

It's just convention, but to avoid confusion, I think the ratios are usually written in the other direction, e.g., 7:1 would be greater magnification than 1:1. Only noting this so that I don't confuse people with my note below.

Pardon me, Dan, point taken.

Yet another variation on a theme: good old Sigma's 70mm macro (older model) has marks on it's extending barrel starting at 1:1 extended but increasing the right-hand value as the barrel is closed ...