Macro Shots

[joebranko]

I rarely shoot Macro, but my latest lens ( Sigma 17-70 mm) advertises a macro capability at a minimum distance of 0.72 ft. (8.6") : So I thought I would try it. These are the results. All the shots were taken with the lens about 10 to 12" from the subject. They seem slightly blurred to me.
1 ISO 200. f 4, 1/1250"


2 ISO 200 f9, 1/200


3 ISO 200. f4, 1/1/1250


4 ISO 200, f4, 1/400


5 ISO 400, f4, 1/200



Any thoughts/recommendations?

[DanK]

Joe,

at that distance and at f/4, you have almost no depth of field. DOFmaster estimates 0.04 inches total! So, even if you get something sharp (you did--check the edge of the left petal in #3), most won't be. When I am shooting single-shot macro (no stacking), e.g., for bugs, I almost never go wider than f/13, and even with that, you can't get a whole bug in focus unless it is parallel to the sensor. Also, the slightest movement front-to-back will throw it out of focus entirely.

In a nutshell, dealing with inadequate DOF is one of the hard parts of macro.

Dan

[Geoff F]

Firstly, Joe, are you manual or auto focus? Auto often gives false focus problems with this sort of shot. I assume you are using a tripod.

Secondly, you are using a very open aperture for that sort of scene; which is going to give a rather short area of good focus. I normally use something around F11 to F16 for shots like this; unless I;m deliberately avoiding potential background issues. But then I usually do a merge of two or three shallow focus depth shots to bring me back to what F11 etc would have given, but without the background problems.

Alternatively, you need to be square on to your main subjects so they are well focused. For example, that angle on the caterpillar means one end of it is bound to be out of focus because it is simply longer than the available focus depth.

ps. I see Dan was typing a similar answer at the same time.

[xpatUSA]

Hello Joe,

I had the same lens (the orignal model) for quite a while for my Sigma DSLRs and it was quite sharp if I focused right. For many of your shots, you used f/4 which, for a close-up shot, is going to give a narrower DOF than I would like. Clearly visible in the caterpillar shot going from head to tail.

Your second shot, using f/9 has more DOF going from the stamens(?) to the lower petals but, at that short distance and the fore to rear depth of the flower, I might have gone f/16 or even higher.

Then, before someone screams "diffraction", I would have applied two stages of sharpening, one for micro-contrast and one for detail. Or, I would have used de-convolution sharpening to cancel out the blur. You can get some de-convolution sharpening in ACR by cranking the Detail slider well over to the right . . .

The main problem is the closeness of the subject which demands bigger f-numbers than you would probably like but that's life. If your camera has beaucoup MP, stepping back a bit would help considerably. I'll explain that:

For a given aperture setting, the further away from the subject you are, the more DOF you get but the smaller the subject is in your frame. All to do with angular measure which nobody here likes - too technical

So, if your cam can do 5472px wide and you only want to post here at 1280px wide you can step 4X further back and get 4X the DOF. Grossly over-simplified, but ya get the idea . .

[xpatUSA]

Always good when three different folks, typing at the same time, pretty much say the same thing !!

[DanK]

Can't all be wrong

I have very few flower macros that aren't stacked, but here is one as an example. I shot this at f/10, rather than the slightly smaller aperture I would usually have used, because I wanted to keep the background out of focus. I took this with a tripod and focused manually with live view, if I remember right. You can see that a lot of it is sharp as a tack, but even at f/10, the depth of field is not enough for the whole flower.



Re diffraction: I wouldn't worry about it unless you close down a lot, for two reasons. First, the effects at apertures like f13, even on a crop, are minor. Second, unless you are going to print large, the increase in DOF is likely to more than offset the diffraction in terms of the overall impression of sharpness. As an example, I usually use this photo, which I took with a Rebel XTi and a 60mm macro when I was first starting on macro. It looks quite sharp, and there is an 8 x 10 (A4) hanging on someone's wall. I shot it at f/20.



Dan

[joebranko]

Joe,

at that distance and at f/4, you have almost no depth of field. DOFmaster estimates 0.04 inches total! So, even if you get something sharp (you did--check the edge of the left petal in #3), most won't be. When I am shooting single-shot macro (no stacking), e.g., for bugs, I almost never go wider than f/13, and even with that, you can't get a whole bug in focus unless it is parallel to the sensor. Also, the slightest movement front-to-back will throw it out of focus entirely.

In a nutshell, dealing with inadequate DOF is one of the hard parts of macro.

Dan

Thanks Dan. I never realized that the dof would be that shallow! How is the DOF calculated? And how can you get the background blurred in macro?

PS. I googled DOFMaster and found a reference in CiC. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction!

[joebranko]

Firstly, Joe, are you manual or auto focus? Auto often gives false focus problems with this sort of shot. I assume you are using a tripod.

Secondly, you are using a very open aperture for that sort of scene; which is going to give a rather short area of good focus. I normally use something around F11 to F16 for shots like this; unless I;m deliberately avoiding potential background issues. But then I usually do a merge of two or three shallow focus depth shots to bring me back to what F11 etc would have given, but without the background problems.

Alternatively, you need to be square on to your main subjects so they are well focused. For example, that angle on the caterpillar means one end of it is bound to be out of focus because it is simply longer than the available focus depth.

ps. I see Dan was typing a similar answer at the same time.

Thanks Geoff. Yes I was in auto focus. I did not have my reading glass with me and could not rely on my eyes. Your point about not being square to the subject is really appreciated. I was not aware of this consideration. Your comments are greatly appreciated.

[joebranko]

Always good when three different folks, typing at the same time, pretty much say the same thing !!

Thanks for looking Ted!

[joebranko]

Can't all be wrong

I have very few flower macros that aren't stacked, but here is one as an example. I shot this at f/10, rather than the slightly smaller aperture I would usually have used, because I wanted to keep the background out of focus. I took this with a tripod and focused manually with live view, if I remember right. You can see that a lot of it is sharp as a tack, but even at f/10, the depth of field is not enough for the whole flower.



Re diffraction: I wouldn't worry about it unless you close down a lot, for two reasons. First, the effects at apertures like f13, even on a crop, are minor. Second, unless you are going to print large, the increase in DOF is likely to more than offset the diffraction in terms of the overall impression of sharpness. As an example, I usually use this photo, which I took with a Rebel XTi and a 60mm macro when I was first starting on macro. It looks quite sharp, and there is an 8 x 10 (A4) hanging on someone's wall. I shot it at f/20.



Dan

Thanks Dan. Your shots are quite beautiful.

[IzzieK]

Joe, it took me awhile to get into macro even though David (theTurk) and Grahame (Stagecoach)'s been pushing me since early last year because I got interested in it. I have been uploading some not-so-serious images and covering my inability to shoot macro by joking a lot because actually I was scared to try this genre until I got a really good one and got the approval of those two people above who got sick of encouraging me to get on with it...now I am hooked and wanted to be able to do more than what I had already submitted so far and cut the joke aside. I even bought myself a set extension tube...it helps.

I think those flowers above need to be shot not with stacking...but shot twice and photomerge in Photoshop. I've been experimenting on that and it helps too.

[DanK]

And how can you get the background blurred in macro?

Not a simple question.

The simplest way to get blur is to have physical distance between the subject and the background. Unfortunately, that isn't always possible in natural contexts. However, if you have a choice of several similar flowers, you can use the nature of the background (for example, how cluttered it is) and the distance to the background as one basis for choosing.

If you are shooting at close to minimum working distance (MWD), you can't use distance from the camera to control DOF. Similarly, if you are using macro lenses at MWD, the choice of focal length will only matter to the extent that MWD is a bit greater with longer lenses.

However, focal length helps in another way: longer lenses produce greater background blur, which is not the same as DOF. Longer lenses have a smaller angle of view, and so they have the effect of taking a smaller slice of the out-of-focus background and spreading it over the frame. The result is more blur. The article I usually suggest for understanding the difference between DOF and background blur is this one: http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html. If you look at it, be sure to search down to the heading "background blur."

If you get into stacking, there are more options. For example, you can stack images with very narrow DOF so that the rearmost image doesn't have the background fully in focus. You can also paint from the top image in the stack onto the composite to put back an out-of-focus background. I don't do that all that often, but I'll post an example where I did. I use Zerene for stacking, which has a retouching tool that makes this very easy to do.

[IzzieK]

Or you can do it via pp too.. What I do is do a quick select in Photoshop with a very small brush then inverse then select your selection then go for the gaussian blur tool. There are other ways but I cannot think at the moment...

[DanK]

Or you can do it via pp too.. What I do is do a quick select in Photoshop with a very small brush then inverse then select your selection then go for the gaussian blur tool. There are other ways but I cannot think at the moment...

Good point, and an important option to add to the list. Sometimes this works well. I do it sometimes, when I don't have a choice. However, I don't like to rely on it. At least with my level of skill, I sometimes have a hard time getting the border of the selection to look right, and it sometimes looks natural. At least for me, it works best when the area I want to blur does not abut the subject.

[rpcrowe]

The above comments are right on! DOF is very thin in close-up work. If you are shooting most insects, forget about focus merging because of movement. The same thing applies to most flowers shot outdoors. The slightest breeze will move the flowers.

I often cannot get the entire insect in focus when shooting a head on shot even when shooting at f/11 as I did in this shot. However, sometimes the entire insect doesn't need to be in focus to be a pleasing shot...



When faced with shooting an insect, especially a long bodied insect, I will try to shoot it from the side if I want the insect in focus.





This will hold true for virtually any shooting, close-up or otherwise. A wider subject is easier to keep within DOF than a deeper subject!

[Loose Canon]

Or you can make your own custom backgrounds by using a print. Shoot an out of focus shot of something cool, print it, and put it behind your subject.

[joebranko]

Joe, it took me awhile to get into macro even though David (theTurk) and Grahame (Stagecoach)'s been pushing me since early last year because I got interested in it. I have been uploading some not-so-serious images and covering my inability to shoot macro by joking a lot because actually I was scared to try this genre until I got a really good one and got the approval of those two people above who got sick of encouraging me to get on with it...now I am hooked and wanted to be able to do more than what I had already submitted so far and cut the joke aside. I even bought myself a set extension tube...it helps.

I think those flowers above need to be shot not with stacking...but shot twice and photomerge in Photoshop. I've been experimenting on that and it helps too.

I must try that.

[joebranko]

The above comments are right on! DOF is very thin in close-up work. If you are shooting most insects, forget about focus merging because of movement. The same thing applies to most flowers shot outdoors. The slightest breeze will move the flowers.

I often cannot get the entire insect in focus when shooting a head on shot even when shooting at f/11 as I did in this shot. However, sometimes the entire insect doesn't need to be in focus to be a pleasing shot...



When faced with shooting an insect, especially a long bodied insect, I will try to shoot it from the side if I want the insect in focus.





This will hold true for virtually any shooting, close-up or otherwise. A wider subject is easier to keep within DOF than a deeper subject!

Thanks Richard. Good advise. Your shots are beautiful!

[joebranko]

Or you can make your own custom backgrounds by using a print. Shoot an out of focus shot of something cool, print it, and put it behind your subject.

Thanks Terry!

[Geoff F]

But print on matte paper.

Very useful for those 'studio shots' where you want a real life effect.