Macro improved

[maloufn]

Nasseem,

I definitely understand how you feel about your shots not being popular. I think that not a lot of people really like seeing bugs close up. I for one do like them. I'm a definite fan!

I was wondering - how much cropping do you do on these shots?

- Bill

Bill I do a lot of cropping but start out with a large raw file. Thats much easier than getting up even closer which I find impossible. I am about 20cms from the critter- sometimes closer.

Nasseem

[Dave Humphries]

Yes I can understand that Dave but people dont realize how hard it is technically to capture a little critter like this. It is easy to say this or that is not in focus but try and focus on something that is constantly moving jumping hand held. Id love people to try it. Its an experience.

Oh, absolutely Nasseem, I couldn't agree more

Neverthe less, I think we could be inspired by the colours and structures of such despised creatures like flies.

Difficult without going into micrscopy, but perhaps the answer is to present a colourful abstract, so they don't know what it is

[maloufn]

Oh, absolutely Nasseem, I couldn't agree more



Difficult without going into micrscopy, but perhaps the answer is to present a colourful abstract, so they don't know what it is

Dave please elaborate and enlighten me??? How do you do that? Why dont you try and do it with one of mine. Id love to see it.

Nasseem

[ktuli]

Yes I can understand that Dave but people dont realize how hard it is technically to capture a little critter like this. It is easy to say this or that is not in focus but try and focus on something that is constantly moving jumping hand held. Id love people to try it. Its an experience. Neverthe less, I think we could be inspired by the colours and structures of such despised creatures like flies.

I definitely feel the same way! When I nail a macro shot (and I swear I really will one of these days!) I get such a sense of accomplishment from it because I know how many I've gone through to get that one good one. When I see them in books, I just stare are them in awe and wonder exactly how they managed to get the shot. But I think a lot of people don't have that experience/knowledge to grasp how hard those shots are.

Plus, I think it takes a special kind of person to be able to be "inspired" by bugs! I'm one, you're one, but we're definitely in the minority! Unless you're presenting to a group of entimologists, a macro shot of a flower's stamen will always win out over a bug.

Yes Will I wish the eyes were in focus but then I probably would have lost focus in the lower part ie the legs which to me make this picture.

That is interesting that you say that. I honestly thought you were focusing on the back where the wings attach. I find myself often focusing on that on bugs, but in this case with a head-on shot, getting the "face" in focus is vital. It seems the plane of focus is about mid-thorax, and had your shot had more DoF, that would have been ok, but as it is, the face is just a blur.

Remember that the first thing humans (and just about every animal) look at are the eyes. It is a built in reflex. You can't resist it, and when the eyes are not the most defined thing in a shot, it usually makes the viewer feel uneasy. I have found that sometimes, you can get away with it, but only when the focal plane is in front of the eyes - but having someone focus past the eyes if tough.

Keep 'em coming!

- Bill

[Dave Humphries]

Dave please elaborate and enlighten me??? How do you do that? Why dont you try and do it with one of mine. Id love to see it.

Hi Nasseem,

It was more a hypothetical idea than a reality - and not really something I had in mind as a PP process either.

Just that if you/we could get close enough to something, with good resolution, and capture just a part of an 'unlovable' subject and present it as a colourful abstract, it might appeal to more people than if they could see "the full horror"



The magnification required would be more in the microscopy than macro range, hence the difficulty.

Still, it sounds like a challenge

[maloufn]

I definitely feel the same way! When I nail a macro shot (and I swear I really will one of these days!) I get such a sense of accomplishment from it because I know how many I've gone through to get that one good one. When I see them in books, I just stare are them in awe and wonder exactly how they managed to get the shot. But I think a lot of people don't have that experience/knowledge to grasp how hard those shots are.

Plus, I think it takes a special kind of person to be able to be "inspired" by bugs! I'm one, you're one, but we're definitely in the minority! Unless you're presenting to a group of entimologists, a macro shot of a flower's stamen will always win out over a bug.



That is interesting that you say that. I honestly thought you were focusing on the back where the wings attach. I find myself often focusing on that on bugs, but in this case with a head-on shot, getting the "face" in focus is vital. It seems the plane of focus is about mid-thorax, and had your shot had more DoF, that would have been ok, but as it is, the face is just a blur.

Remember that the first thing humans (and just about every animal) look at are the eyes. It is a built in reflex. You can't resist it, and when the eyes are not the most defined thing in a shot, it usually makes the viewer feel uneasy. I have found that sometimes, you can get away with it, but only when the focal plane is in front of the eyes - but having someone focus past the eyes if tough.

Keep 'em coming!

- Bill

So may be being a biologist (bachelors & Masters) helps me appreciate these compexities and the beauty in the ugliness of these creatures. You look at the colour combinations and one can only wonder how beautiful nature is. Is it any different appreciating the colours in a tropical fish or in a flower. To me they are all beautiful.

Bil,l yes I agree with you the eyes are what I go for usually but in this case the whole composition with those well defined legs made it in my mind worthwhile. It would have been great to have the eyes in focus. What amazes me is that good macro (something I havent achieved yet) like that produced by Thomas Shahan, the father of them all, gets a lot of hits. May be I just have to produce much better shots. Ive got to try and focus stack some of these shots. That might make a difference.

Nasseem

[maloufn]

Hi Nasseem,

It was more a hypothetical idea than a reality - and not really something I had in mind as a PP process either.

Just that if you/we could get close enough to something, with good resolution, and capture just a part of an 'unlovable' subject and present it as a colourful abstract, it might appeal to more people than if they could see "the full horror"



The magnification required would be more in the microscopy than macro range, hence the difficulty.

Still, it sounds like a challenge

I might try and disect parts of these flies and present that to see how people take to it!!!

Nasseem

[Jim B.]

Nasseem,

Very nice 1st attempt.A couple of suggestions.Stop the lens down more.I normally shoot insects at f/16 with a flash.
Get the flash off camera and close to the front of the lens.
Here's the rig I use.



For me,it makes working with a flash less frustrating.

[MiniChris]

Jim, I notice on your lens you have it set for autofocus...does this work better than manual?

[Jim B.]

Chris,
I shoot manual focus,but have the AF set on the back button.It takes the AF off the shutter button, so I hardly ever think to turn AF off on the lens.When I remember,I do shut it off.
I also shoot mainly handheld.I mounted the setup on a tripod to illustrate the flash position.
I read of a technique a couple of years ago and have used it ever since.
For insects I prefocus the lens and lean into the shot until I see sharp focus and fire the shutter.It took some practice but it raised my keepers a good deal.

[MiniChris]

I am about to obtain some discontinued or demo Sigma lenses from a dealer friend. I am getting a nasty big telephoto (well, for me, anyway - 120-300mm F2.8 EX DG APO HSM0) and a wide angle zoom 15-30, 12-24 or 10-20, not sure which but also want to get a good macro that is versatile for a variety of shots.

I can get a 50, 70 or 105 macro...http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/macro-lenses which would you suggest?

[Jim B.]

You can't go wrong with any macro lens.They all produce terrific IQ,but if you are going to be working with insects the longer FL is the way to go (lessens the spook factor).
I use a Sigma 150 now and I think working distance is 7".As you go down in FL the distance gets tighter.
For flowers and static subjects the 50 or the 70 will do fine.Nice for non-macro shots also.

[MiniChris]

I'll go with the 105 then, since it is the only long one of the three..the price is right and this allows me the time to save up for the better ones.

[Jim B.]

Just checked out the Sigma 120-300....looks really nice! 2.8 really adds some weight.I have the Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6 and it only weighs 3lbs.
Would love to hear your impressions after you have shot with it.
I think you will be happy with the 105 macro.I also own the 50 1.4 and the 12-24 Sigmas and really like them.
I'm going off topic,so I'll stop here.
Nasseem,I didn't intend to change the topic on your thread.My apologies.

[MiniChris]

Well, sorry Nasseem, as well but one more item...the 2X tele converter...getting that as well, but have to pay regular price for it but I think it will adda good dimension to the 120-300.

[maloufn]

Nasseem,

Very nice 1st attempt.A couple of suggestions.Stop the lens down more.I normally shoot insects at f/16 with a flash.
Get the flash off camera and close to the front of the lens.
Here's the rig I use. For me,it makes working with a flash less frustrating.

Thanks Jim. I have shot with the 100 mm 2.8 Macro with extension tubes (32mm). I still dont have the Flash off camera. I ordered a bracket 2 days ago and a cync cord to do exactly what you suggested. You must have read my mind. I want to get that flash up front then I might not need to use as much flash. As Chris suggested I seem to be poverpowering the shot with too much light from flash. Now I am using the diffuser but it is still not enough. I cant wait for my off camera flash bracket and sync cord. I also seem to shoot with a f stop of 4-8. I am going outside right now to try at f16. Jim please try and show us some of your macro shots.

Nasseem

[Jim B.]

A couple of images I'm very happy with.


5DII Sigma 150macro/25mm ET 580ex .I can't remember the other settings.



50D 100 macro f/14 ISO 400 1/200" M-14ex ringflash.

[maloufn]

A couple of images I'm very happy with.


5DII Sigma 150macro/25mm ET 580ex .I can't remember the other settings.



50D 100 macro f/14 ISO 400 1/200" M-14ex ringflash.

Bill they are great shots. The definition is great. I prefer the first composition. Well done. I would be very happy with those. So is that a canon ring flash??? I guess that would be ideal for macros but is so expensive!!!! I took this one today with a higher Fstop 11or 16.

[Jim B.]

Yes,Canon M-14ex ring lite.I haven't used it much because it's a liitle more difficult to work with as far as getting good exposures.I'm much more comfortable with the 580ex. The ringflash works well but the 580 is more versatile and it produces better contrast.
Your latest shot looks pretty good.Nice eye details.Try dialing in some negative FEC on your flash,it should tone down the hotspots some.
You are on the right path for macro work.Keep at it,it gets easier.
Jim

[maloufn]

Yes,Canon M-14ex ring lite.I haven't used it much because it's a liitle more difficult to work with as far as getting good exposures.I'm much more comfortable with the 580ex. The ringflash works well but the 580 is more versatile and it produces better contrast.
Your latest shot looks pretty good.Nice eye details.Try dialing in some negative FEC on your flash,it should tone down the hotspots some.
You are on the right path for macro work.Keep at it,it gets easier.
Jim

Thanks Jim. Ill try and tone down my flash next to get more definition in the highlights. Do you use any extension tubes with your macro lens? Have you ever used reverse lens (28 or 50mm ) on extension tubes like Thomas Shahan does?

What do you think of this one?/

Nasseem