Flowers Macro

[maloufn]

Taken with a Macro 100mm 2.8 with window light. C&C Please.

[Katy Noelle]

Oh, see, now, Nasseem, this just isn't fair! Here I am just struggling with post processing on the orchids in natural light that I shot to death, today, and I come here and - voila! - a gorgeous and artistic photo from you. I really like the soft sweep of the inner petals. They look like they're painted in watercolors but, there's still a lot of texture in the white petals. Really, really lovely!

[maloufn]

Oh, see, now, Nasseem, this just isn't fair! Here I am just struggling with post processing on the orchids in natural light that I shot to death, today, and I come here and - voila! - a gorgeous and artistic photo from you. I really like the soft sweep of the inner petals. They look like they're painted in watercolors but, there's still a lot of texture in the white petals. Really, really lovely!

THank you Katy. I must admit I was surprised also with just natural window light. I set the blue colour in the background by holding up a pair of blue rubber gloves that happened to be in the kitchen sink next to me. It worked out well. Ill post another for you.
Thanks Nasseem

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Nasseem,

It is a very nice composition - the sort I rarely see myself - I would be trying to get the nearest stamen in focus, but in this case, due to the colours and shape, just works.

If I have one suggestion, it is "over sharpened"; mainly with too wide a radius (I can see it). Can you see the false edges on the petal edge that goes almost vertically downwards.

I also see the effect on the border, so it must be the final sharpen after downsizing that is at fault.

I would downsize with bicubic (not bicubic sharper) and sharpen at no more than 0.3 pixels radius with an amount of 60 - 100% on this kind of shot.

... but I still like it.

HTH,

[maloufn]

Hi Nasseem,

It is a very nice composition - the sort I rarely see myself - I would be trying to get the nearest stamen in focus, but in this case, due to the colours and shape, just works.

If I have one suggestion, it is "over sharpened"; mainly with too wide a radius (I can see it). Can you see the false edges on the petal edge that goes almost vertically downwards.

I also see the effect on the border, so it must be the final sharpen after downsizing that is at fault.

I would downsize with bicubic (not bicubic sharper) and sharpen at no more than 0.3 pixels radius with an amount of 60 - 100% on this kind of shot.

... but I still like it.

HTH,

Dave,

Is this a little better.

[ilovelucydog]

Those are beautiful. The blue from kitchen gloves... crazy!

[Dave Humphries]

Dave,

Is this a little better.

Yes, that's it

[rob marshall]

Good colours, Nasseem, and the composition is interesting, but I'm not sure the focussing works. It doesn't seem obvious at first what parts are in focus, and which are not. Have you tried stacking? You should be able to do it in CS4. I use CS5, but it should be the same, I think. See here... A little bit of light stacking You don't have to stack the whole scene if you don't want to, but it enables you to get more of the scene in focus.

[maloufn]

Good colours, Nasseem, and the composition is interesting, but I'm not sure the focussing works. It doesn't seem obvious at first what parts are in focus, and which are not. Have you tried stacking? You should be able to do it in CS4. I use CS5, but it should be the same, I think. See here... A little bit of light stacking You don't have to stack the whole scene if you don't want to, but it enables you to get more of the scene in focus.

Rob,

You are right. With such a small aperature because of limited light and no flash (which I have since acquired) I have a very shallow depth of field and could only focus on different parts at any one time. I tried to focus stack once before but for ssopme reason my CS4 always warned me I did not have enough RAM????
Its a high powered laptop so I was very disappointed. I will try again with my next flower. Ill call on your expertise if I fail. Thank you.

[Katy Noelle]

Actually, Nasseem, I had just assumed that you had used a smaller aperture and that's what resulted. Now, I'm curious why you didn't you use more depth. Were they hand held? Just curious - I'm watching what you do and trying to learn from you a bit.

Also, I very much like the third one that you've shared!

[maloufn]

Actually, Nasseem, I had just assumed that you had used a smaller aperture and that's what resulted. Now, I'm curious why you didn't you use more depth. Were they hand held? Just curious - I'm watching what you do and trying to learn from you a bit.

Also, I very much like the third one that you've shared!

Katy I have just checked my EXIF file on that shot. It turns out it was f8 at 0.4 sec on a tripod. May be I should have tried f11 or f16. Its amazing how F8 didnt cover it. It must be that DOF is quite shallow at the short distance I am shooting from. May be I should, as Rob suggested, try stacking my shots in CS4 which I have had no success with so far!!! We'll just keep on trying. It can only get better.

Regards

Nasseem

[Dave Humphries]

HI Nasseem,

~ It turns out it was f8 at 0.4 sec on a tripod. May be I should have tried f11 or f16. Its amazing how F8 didnt cover it. It must be that DOF is quite shallow at the short distance I am shooting from.

I should check out the Understanding Depth of Field tutorial here at CiC and when you get to the bottom, have a 'play' with the calculator - I just dialled in the figures for a 50D with 100mm lens at f/8 and the DoF, assuming shot at 0.5m (19 inches) is just 6mm (1/4 inch), it doubles to 13mm (1/2") - which explains why Rob was suggesting focus stacking as it is often the only way to get what might be wanted.

In all photography where you are struggling to get everything you wantin focus, understanding hyperfocal distance is a skill, or knowledge worth having.

Cheers,

[maloufn]

HI Nasseem,



I should check out the Understanding Depth of Field tutorial here at CiC and when you get to the bottom, have a 'play' with the calculator - I just dialled in the figures for a 50D with 100mm lens at f/8 and the DoF, assuming shot at 0.5m (19 inches) is just 6mm (1/4 inch), it doubles to 13mm (1/2") - which explains why Rob was suggesting focus stacking as it is often the only way to get what might be wanted.

In all photography where you are struggling to get everything you wantin focus, understanding hyperfocal distance is a skill, or knowledge worth having.

Cheers,

Thank you Dave. Ill look into it.

Nasseem

[MiniChris]

That, or shoot 4x5 film on a good tilt camera.

[maloufn]

That, or shoot 4x5 film on a good tilt camera.

Sorry Chris but how does a larger format help in this regards and why a tilt camera?? I have no experience
with either. An explanation would be appreciated.

Thanks

Nasseem

[MiniChris]

Because with the tilt and swing options, you can adjust the bend of light in a manner that will get you the same effect as Rob gets in stacking images. It is essentially doing the same thing. I can take my Linhohf and everything on a 2 foot square table in dead center, spot on focus and with the bellows extended, tilts in high flex, the camera resembles a cat falling from a tree. this is the technical explanation:

The axis of the lens is normally perpendicular to the film (or sensor). Changing the angle between axis and film by tilting the lens standard backward or forward is called lens tilt or just tilt. Tilt is especially useful in landscape photography. By using the Scheimpflug principle, the “plane of sharp focus” can be changed so that any plane can be brought into sharp focus. When the film plane and lens plane are parallel as is the case for most 35 mm cameras, the plane of sharp focus will also be parallel to these two planes. If, however, the lens plane is tilted with respect to the film plane, the plane of sharp focus will also be tilted according to geometrical and optical properties. The three planes will intersect in a line below the camera for downward lens tilt. The tilted plane of sharp focus is very useful in that this plane can be made to coincide with a near and far object. Thus, both near and far objects on the plane will be in focus.

Tilting the lens stage forward or backward will extend the plane-of-focus far beyond the effects of using small lens aperture. This adjustment allows near and far objects to be in focus at the same time.

Swinging or rotating the front lens stage left or right will extend the plane-of-focus far beyond the effects of using small lens aperture. This adjustment allows near and far objects to be in focus at the same time.

Raising or lowering the front lens stage alters the camera lens' point-of-view. This movement effectively raises or lowers the positions of the image relative to the film without tilting the entire camera up or down. This adjust allows for the control of convergence of vertical lines within a scene and maintaining lines parallel in a photograph.
Or...
Left and right movements of the front lens stage alters the camera lens' point-of-view. This movement effectively repositions the image left or right relative to the film without moving the entire camera left or right. This adjustment allows for the control of convergence of vertical lines within a scene and maintaining lines parallel in a photograph.

[Peter Ryan]

Nice work Nasseem. Getting to grips with macro is a lot of fun. Have a look at any DOF calculator (the tutorials have one) and this will give you an idea of who small the DOF is in a macro lens when working so cloe and unlike other lenses it is split more 50/50 rather than onehtird in front and two thirds behind. The composition design and colours are great.

[maloufn]

Dear Chris,

Thanks for the physics lecture but I might have to do a lot more reading. The more I learn the more I know my limitations. Now I am not going to get a tilt camera so I might just have to do with my standard and improve my focus stacking technique. I just bought a Tarte au Fraise from my local patesserie and worked on focus stacking. I think Ive got it to work in CS4. Let me know what you think. How do people focus stack a live moving arthropod?



Nasseem

[maloufn]

Nice work Nasseem. Getting to grips with macro is a lot of fun. Have a look at any DOF calculator (the tutorials have one) and this will give you an idea of who small the DOF is in a macro lens when working so cloe and unlike other lenses it is split more 50/50 rather than onehtird in front and two thirds behind. The composition design and colours are great.

Dear Peter,
Yes I am finding out the limitations and difficulties of real macro. That very narrow DOF is a challenge. Has anyone had a look at THomas Shahans site on Flickr. God knows how he does it with moving jumping arthropods. Hes brilliant.

Nasseem

[rob marshall]

Dear Peter,
Yes I am finding out the limitations and difficulties of real macro. That very narrow DOF is a challenge. Has anyone had a look at THomas Shahans site on Flickr. God knows how he does it with moving jumping arthropods. Hes brilliant.

Nasseem

He tells you here http://thomasshahan.com/other He mentions stacking.