Macro Shots

[JHzlwd]

I do a lot of macro. The bottom line ... no free lunch. Stop down for DOF and before long diffraction and/or the lower shutter speed is killing sharpness. Here are some things that work for me:

1 - Decide what is the most important part of the subject and get that sharp if nothing else. Things going out of focus in front of and behind this point can actually be attractive or help to isolate the theme. Typical things to get sharp are the eyes (bugs), the tips of stamens in flowers (as in your 3rd sample) and foreground textures. Forget about general, over-all sharpness as you will end up with an image lacking any sort of impact.

2 - Flash can help improve sharpness if you have to use low shutter speeds because of stopping down. I find it best to use two external units in combination with the built-in. With practice you can get the benefits without making it obvious flash was used.

3 - Consider focus stacking. With this method you take a series of shots from the same position while focusing on a different part of the subject with each one. A program like "Zerene Stacker" (my favorite) will then automatically combine the images, retaining the sharpest plane of each one in the final composition. In theory, you can get any DOF you want this way. You have to keep exposure the same throughout and, of course, be able to move the focus point around in the viewfinder as is easily done with most DSLRs. Works like a charm but somewhat tedious to set up and execute. Won't work with moving subjects.

The following link takes you to a place where you can find some of my macros under the index item "Bugs". I didn't succeed with every one but a few are good. The ladybug pics were all taken using flash with considerable stopping down:

http://www.wolfwillow.com/Photo/00-Main/index.html

When the linked page opens, click "Wildlife" at the top, then mouse over "Bugs" on the left and choose what you want from the pop-up menu.

Best wishes,
jh

[DanK]

Garth,

Some good suggestions.

I checked out a few of your bug shots. Your wrote on your bee page:

Not being an entymologist I will have included a number of insects that probably are not bees but all were observed hard at work in the garden as pollinators. A couple of specimens look like flies with stripes

I'm not an entomologist either, and I can't identify a lot of what I shoot. In fact, I was paging through two bug identification sites before I saw your note, trying to figure out a few identifications. However, I can help here. Most of yours are various species of hoverfly, not bees. Here are some ways to tell them apart:

--Bees have four wings, although it is not always easy to see them all. Flies have only two, hence the name of the order, diptera. The rear wings on flies have evolved into little globe-like structures called halteres.

--Many flies have paddle-shaped antennae called flagella. Bees don't.

--The eyes of bees and most flies are very different. Those of bees are usually long and narrow and don't cover the whole side of the head. They eyes of flies are more spherical and tend to cover the entire side of the head.

I will show a few examples:

Here is a small hoverfly. You can see the flagella in the front of the face. Note the wide eyes.



A much larger species of hoverfly. The flagella are more obvious, and the eyes are similar.



More obviously a fly. Note the similar eyes and antennae.



A small sweat bee. Note the completely different antennae and eye shape.



A honey bee. Similar flat head, long antennae, and long narrow eyes:



A very small fly. Here you can see one of the haleteres; it's the little yellow thing over the rear leg.



I can't identify much of what I catch, but there are a number of people on this site who know far more, in particular Geoff, so you may be able to get identifications some of the time if you want.

Dan

[JHzlwd]

Dan,

Thanks for the really helpful information and some great macros of your own.

These are amazing creatures with astonishing flying skills. Some even have little gyroscopes in the form of a short rod with a weight on the end sticking out of each side (visible in a couple of both our shots). These are set to vibrating in flight and help the insect orient itself during complex maneuvers. Well, at least that's what I read in a Scientific American article years ago.

I don't think ladybugs have these. They are terrible aviators as described in my introduction.

Best wishes,
Garth

[DanK]

Garth,

Yes, the rods with the weights are the halteres, I think.


I think some hoverflies are really beautiful, but I have a hard time catching them. Some of them are really skittish, and they are fast!

Dan

[joebranko]

I do a lot of macro. The bottom line ... no free lunch. Stop down for DOF and before long diffraction and/or the lower shutter speed is killing sharpness. Here are some things that work for me:

1 - Decide what is the most important part of the subject and get that sharp if nothing else. Things going out of focus in front of and behind this point can actually be attractive or help to isolate the theme. Typical things to get sharp are the eyes (bugs), the tips of stamens in flowers (as in your 3rd sample) and foreground textures. Forget about general, over-all sharpness as you will end up with an image lacking any sort of impact.

2 - Flash can help improve sharpness if you have to use low shutter speeds because of stopping down. I find it best to use two external units in combination with the built-in. With practice you can get the benefits without making it obvious flash was used.

3 - Consider focus stacking. With this method you take a series of shots from the same position while focusing on a different part of the subject with each one. A program like "Zerene Stacker" (my favorite) will then automatically combine the images, retaining the sharpest plane of each one in the final composition. In theory, you can get any DOF you want this way. You have to keep exposure the same throughout and, of course, be able to move the focus point around in the viewfinder as is easily done with most DSLRs. Works like a charm but somewhat tedious to set up and execute. Won't work with moving subjects.

The following link takes you to a place where you can find some of my macros under the index item "Bugs". I didn't succeed with every one but a few are good. The ladybug pics were all taken using flash with considerable stopping down:

http://www.wolfwillow.com/Photo/00-Main/index.html

When the linked page opens, click "Wildlife" at the top, then mouse over "Bugs" on the left and choose what you want from the pop-up menu.

Best wishes,
jh

Thanks Garth for the many very useful suggestions. I have had a look at Zerene Stacjer. It looks very interesting. I've also had a look at your website. Very impressive! Thanks for your comments and for sharing your pics.

[Geoff F]

What is your normal software, Joe? Adobe CS 5 and above, including CC, have their own stacking option which I found equally as good as the others. In fact when I need to do a bit of tweaking to part of an image which is causing stacking problems I find CC to be the better bet.

[joebranko]

What is your normal software, Joe? Adobe CS 5 and above, including CC, have their own stacking option which I found equally as good as the others. In fact when I need to do a bit of tweaking to part of an image which is causing stacking problems I find CC to be the better bet.

Thanks Geoff,
I use Lightroom version5. Any upgrade needs a 64 bit computer, and mine is a 32 bit. Currently looking to upgrade my computer first then the rest will follow....

[DanK]

What is your normal software, Joe? Adobe CS 5 and above, including CC, have their own stacking option which I found equally as good as the others. In fact when I need to do a bit of tweaking to part of an image which is causing stacking problems I find CC to be the better bet.

Geoff,

that's very interesting. What kind of tweaking do you mean? Manual alignment?

Dan