Macro Feedback

[Beauty Through a Lens]

Using people feedback to my forum back in April I put them to the test and did lots of practice and research. What do you guys think now?

both are shot with these settings: ISO 1000 105mm f/5.6 1/500 sec






I'd just like to note that these are single shots they are not combined.

[dennybeall]

The hardest thing with macro work is getting enough DOF to cover the main subject of the photo. I think both of these could use more DOF.

[Beauty Through a Lens]

The hardest thing with macro work is getting enough DOF to cover the main subject of the photo. I think both of these could use more DOF.

Any suggestions on getting more DOF? I seem to be struggling with that.

[JohnRostron]

To get more DoF, you need a narrower aperture (but not too narrow). This would imply more light. I note your ISO is 1000 and your SS is 1/500, which suggests the light is not good. Could I suggest a couple of portable LED lights. These are cheap and match daylight quite well. Assuming that the subject is still, you could also use a slower shutter speed.

If you can use a tripod for your subject, then focus stacking is worth a try.

John

[Stagecoach]

Any suggestions on getting more DOF? I seem to be struggling with that.

Adrian,

The simple answer is to ensure you have enough light to enable you to stop down to a smaller aperture whilst retaining ISO and speed settings that are adequate for the situation. This light can be ambient or more easily provided by flash.

As a guideline for Canon shooters they generally use around f/14 and Nikon shooters around f/22, these apertures will give adequate DoF for the majority of popular subjects from bugs to flowers. There is no need to get all of the subject in sharp focus generally.

There is of course the option of stacking but I would suggest that until you are confident at being able to take a good image at reasonable ISOs and speeds to achieve correct exposures you do not worry about this yet.

Grahame

[jcuknz]

If your camera has a built in flash I suggest you use that and work in S/Tv or Manual and select the small aperture*. Starting at base ISO if the result is too dark then raise the ISO in two-stop steps until you have a over-exposed result and then come back on stop ... ie 100<400<1600 and then back to 800.
It is possible that the lens will cast a shadow so remove the lenshood and/or frame so that you can crop the shadow area in
editing.
*f/16 or f/22 if you have it .... if the camera is like mine it will choose a sync shutter speed and you rely on the short flash to avoid camera shake.
Alternatively use self control to pass up on the shot and select subjects which are flatter than this flower unless conditions are there to make it possible to do it properly ... this applies throughout photography such as all the shots I could have taken when I visited New York but didn't because I was shooting with a P&S with just a x2 zoom [ back in 2002 ]

[DanK]

I agree--you need a much smaller aperture, and that means you need more light. There is no way around this, as you are already at ISO 1000. If you want to get to Grahame's suggestion for Canon's of f/14 and you don't want to provide more light, you would have to shoot at around ISO 8000. I don't know what camera you are using, but with many bodies, that wouldn't look very good, and applying noise reduction would reduce detail.

My default for bugs with a Canon crop is f/13, but you can go higher. As you close the aperture down, you will start getting softening from diffraction, but in terms of an overall impression of sharpness, you might do better with more DOF and a bit of diffraction. Recently, a friend asked if I could print one of my photos for her office. The one she chose is one that I shot early in my macro work; I shot it at f/20 with a crop-sensor camera, so it definitely had some diffraction. It still looks nice and sharp printed at 8 x 10 (A4). I will post it below.

One other thing to consider is that the deeper your subject, and the less parallel the subject is to your sensor, the more DOF you need. Something roughly spherical, like your berry or a ladybug, is therefore tough--there is no way of positioning it so that the subject isn't deep.

[dasmith232]

...As a guideline for Canon shooters they generally use around f/14 and Nikon shooters around f/22, these apertures will give adequate DoF for the majority of popular subjects from bugs to flowers. There is no need to get all of the subject in sharp focus generally...

Hi Grahame,

I'm asking out of ignorance (on my part). I don't recognize why to use a different aperture for different systems. And does it also vary based on the focal length?

[dem]

As a guideline for Canon shooters they generally use around f/14 and Nikon shooters around f/22, these apertures will give adequate DoF for the majority of popular subjects from bugs to flowers.

The numbers look more like a crop body vs full frame.

[Geoff F]

Regarding more light required, Adrian.

The problem with this sort of scene is getting the 'right sort of light'. With your images, particularly #1 you already have some over exposed areas while other parts are dark and your aperture is too wide, as previously mentioned.

I find shooting insects/flowers in direct or partial sunshine to be particularly problematic.

Much easier, but never simple, is to work under 'studio conditions' where you can carefully control your lighting. Real life outdoor photography with this sort of shot is extremely trying, particularly on patience!

I often find that actually using some shading to reduce the brighter areas is required. Then expose for the midtones. Alternatively meter for the brightest spots and use some fill flash to lift the shadows. Or use some form of reflector to throw more light on the shadows; unless you actually want a high contrast image Experimentation is needed.

It won't be easy. I often shoot a scene with a variety of methods; and too often I still throw everything away!

Did you really need 1/500 for that shot? Shooting on a tripod on a calm day should work around 1/200 so you could put some of your 'spare capacity' into a narrower aperture. A slower shutter is possible but you need absolutely still subjects; like fungi for example.

One other suggestion is to spend a lot of time preparing your subject before shooting. Backgrounds, and any foreground elements which are blocking the view, need tidying up and anything which will cause unwanted reflection or over bright spots should be removed.

For example that leaf in #2 which is well out of focus and creates a distraction over nearly half of the image. It would have worked with no problem if that leaf had been in the background instead.

However, don't get discouraged if things aren't working out exactly as required. This is a complicated form of photography and there is so much to learn before you create perfect photos every time.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Grahame,

I'm asking out of ignorance (on my part). I don't recognize why to use a different aperture for different systems. And does it also vary based on the focal length?

Hi Dave,

Nikons using the Nikon 105VR that Adrian has (and I believe their other macros) indicate the 'effective' aperture on both the camera and in their Exif data, but Canon's indicate 'actual' aperture. As an example, my 105VR although specd as max aperture f/2.8 and min aperture f/32 when stopped right down and at minimum focusing distance indicates f/57.

The 'effective' aperture will also vary dependent upon focal length which alters considerably the closer you get to 1:1 magnification.

There's a very good description regarding this in the 'Macro Tutorials' here Dave, https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...cro-lenses.htm
it still confuses me somewhat and just one of those things I have picked up having been advised of it by others.

[Stagecoach]

The numbers look more like a crop body vs full frame.

As far as I'm aware Dem this would be applicable with either crop or full frame and simply due the difference in the way Nikon and Canons indicate aperture. I'm not sure about other manufacturers.

[chauncey]

If you're shooting outside, using portable lighting is sometimes a PITA.
Perhaps using mirrored wall tile might better serve your needs...better light quality as well.
If it's harsh...cover it with baking paper.

[jcuknz]

Like DEM I suspect the difference is crop and full frame rather than Canon/Nikon and would point out that way back I was introduced to the idea that my small P&S/Bridge camera had the equivalent of f/22 when working at f/8 and I last worked at I think it was f/13 with my MFT which is x2 v. the x1.5 or x1.6 of the usual crop camera. Roughly speaking it all seems to add up
With regard to diffraction I remember Colin Southern mentioning he thought other factors would contribute more softness to an image than diffraction in practice.

[Stagecoach]

Like DEM I suspect the difference is crop and full frame rather than Canon/Nikon and would point out that way back I was introduced to the idea that my small P&S/Bridge camera had the equivalent of f/22 when working at f/8 and I last worked at I think it was f/13 with my MFT which is x2 v. the x1.5 or x1.6 of the usual crop camera. Roughly speaking it all seems to add up

John, the fact that Canon DSLRs read/indicate 'actual' aperture whilst Nikon DSLRs read/indicate 'effective' aperture of which difference is significant at close macro focusing distances is well documented and also mentioned in the CiC tutorial. My comment had nothing to do with DoF for different sensor sizes.

From my understanding for the same DoF there will be around a 2 stop difference in indicated 'aperture' (f No) between Canon and Nikon at close focusing distances using the same FL lens/SD/framing.

As you mention diffraction, my views and trials undertaken concur with Colin's views.

[DanK]

As you mention diffraction, my views and trials undertaken concur with Colin's views.

That's my experience as well, and this is particularly true of macro if you don't stack. The reason is the shallow depth of field, which can make the image look unsharp even if the area in focus is optimally sharp. The image I posted above was f/20 on a Canon, so the effective f-stop was probably close to f/40, and it still looks very nice printed at A4 / 8 x 10. I am not certain about larger sizes, as I have never printed it larger than that.

[chauncey]

I'm really not sure of the relevancy of Nikon/Canon DOF differences in the real world as most of us
use but one system with their favorite macro lens and...it behooves us to determine what f/stop
gives us the best image IQ with that particular combination.

It is also incumbent on the shooter to make other adjustments to allow that particular f/stop to be
used...whether it be adding more light to the subject/using a tripod/shielding against wind/whatever
is necessary to enable that ideal f/stop/SS/ISO.

From a personal perspective, I have not figured out how to shoot a shallow DOF macro image, with
any degree of consistency, that does not end up looking terrible...stacking is easier for me.

[DanK]

From a personal perspective, I have not figured out how to shoot a shallow DOF macro image, with
any degree of consistency, that does not end up looking terrible...stacking is easier for me.

A key is the depth of the subject. Many bugs are just a few mm wide, so if you keep them reasonably close to parallel to the sensor, and you are shooting at 1:1 or not much more, you can often get enough DOF without stacking. Most flowers are much deeper.

[Stagecoach]

I'm really not sure of the relevancy of Nikon/Canon DOF differences in the real world

Chauncey, there are in fact no Nikon/Canon DoF differences, what there is are Nikon/Canon differences with respect to aperture indication as seen on the camera and image data.

Whilst it would be assumed that a competent and knowledgeable photographer is going to use the best settings (three variables) to achieve the results he wants with his equipment, knowledge of this Nikon/Canon (and I omit other cameras because I do not know which aperture indication system they use) difference is useful when it comes to understanding advice from others.

Often we see on forums comments such as; I shoot macro bugs generally at f/? and If you go above f/? you will suffer from diffraction it can confuse a beginner if he is not aware of these differences and that someone may be quoting figures that are not applicable/relevant to his make of camera.