Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: JohnKoerner on February 09, 2009, 03:50:47 pm
-
Here's what I like to shoot
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/ExoticOddities/sfence.jpg)
Southern Fence Lizard
Canon 100mm, f/5.6, 1/250, ISO 100, handheld, built-in flash
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/ExoticOddities/jumper.jpg)
Regal Jumping Spider
Canon 100mm, f/2.8, 1/50, ISO 100, Tripod, MT-24 MacroRinglight flash
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/ExoticOddities/daintyyellow.jpg)
Dainty Sulphur
Canon 100mm, f/4.5, 1/320, ISO 100, handheld, no flash
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/ExoticOddities/barredyellow.jpg)
Barred Yellow
Canon 100mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 100, handheld, no flash
.
-
In the deep of winter, I tend to not do outdoor macro. So, instead, I like to wander around the house looking for stuff. For example:
1. Frost on the patio door at sunrise. (100mm with full set of extension tubes)
(http://www.clements.on.ca/img/ll/20090124_07.jpg)
2. Stork with "Baby". Perhaps interesting is that the coloured background is actually provided by a portion of a large print of summer macro shot. (Lensbaby with +16 macro)
(http://www.clements.on.ca/img/ll/20090208_15.jpg)
3. Potentially Evil Baby (Lensbaby with macro, just +10 I think)
(http://www.clements.on.ca/img/ll/20090208_19.jpg)
4. A dried up leaf that fell off a fig tree and was lying on the floor. (100mm, no tubes)
(http://www.clements.on.ca/img/ll/20090208_26.jpg)
-
Very interesing!
I think the colors and lighting in your baby shot, and the frost pattern shot, are very nice.
The simple black & white shot of the leaf is something I haven't even thought about taking, but now that I have seen yours I've got plenty of leaves to see if I can come up with anything interesting also.
BTW, I added the shooting info on mine, underneather each shot, so that maybe I could get any corrective setting suggestions. I was also handholding mostly, except for the spider shot (that I took at night w/ a macro ringlight flash). I have just purchased a macro ringlight, as well as a remote switch, so I am going to take a little more time w/ some of my shots to see if I can't maximize the sharpness.
I just happened to see that lizard today sunning himsel today, and quick got my camera to try to get him, but because it was handheld I didn't quite nail it ... and then he ran off. After he split, I took my Giottos tripod out there right next to his perch on an old stump, and I contorted my tripod to the exact posture I will need if I see him again, and so I hope to be able to find him in the exact same spot again tomorrow. If I do, I am going to try my LiveView screen ultra-close manual focus, w/ mirror lock-up, and see if I can take a remote switch shot and really nail the focus this time.
Anyway, I appreciate your own shots and ideas. What kind of 100 mm lens did you use? Also, did you use Digimarc to add your name to the shots?
Thanks!
-
John, JD,
I'm a macro junkie too, and very much like your shots. For me the jumping spider is the real stand-out.
I mainly shoot critters and flowers. Here's some examples (only critters this time)
Fly portrait
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/316149622_LEz25-XL.jpg)
Swallowtail Catterpillar:
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/321315095_GCTd9-XL.jpg)
Moth
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/367432970_chEoh-XL.jpg)
Fly on rosemary
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/388967568_KcXRZ-XL.jpg)
All shot with Sony A700 + Minolta 100/2.8 macro lens
C&C welcome
-
Nice images Pegelli ... and glad to meet another macro junkie
I enjoyed them all, but the caterpillar and first fly most especially. The second fly his eyes and thorax were slightly blurred, but the first fly to me is classic macro, well-illuminated and with full detail in the eyes. Bravo!
Attached is my effort this morning with Mr. Lizard again. He complied with my hopes of getting another crack at him w/ a tripod. I find it very challenging to nail this guy perfectly. The extreme "sharpness" of the lizard's scales (all over his body) means that either his head is sharp, but the body comes out a little blurred, or that his body is sharp but that his head comes out slightly blurred. I was hoping to get every bit of him in focus, and I tried higher f/stops etc. to achieve that effect.
Ultimately, I abandoned AF and went manual, with ADep selected, so as to try to get the most of him in-focus that I could. The settings the camera chose were f/5.6, 250, and I had the ISO at 100. I feel I nailed his focus pretty well in the attached shot, and although the coloration is good, to me it isn't as rich or glowing as the first shot I took (which unfortunately wasn't quite focused ).
I will keep trying though
Thanks again & hope to see more!
Jack
-
I mainly shoot insect using a Canon MPE 65 macro and ringflash. We recently moved back into a city (from a 4 acre country property) and I have found it a little more difficult to find subjects in the yard.
-
Jack (or John )
Liked your shot. Color temperature maybe a tad cool but sharpness spot on over large parts of his body. You have figured out the deal, as much as possible parallel to the sensor.
Good thing about macro is that it's well manageble next to my busy job. I just go out in my garden and get started.
I almost never use AF, too unpredictable. What I usually do (if I'm doing stuff handheld) is put the lens at a fixed magnification and focus by moving my head (with camera) forward backward until the focus is where I want it. Works great for me. Sometimes I use a monopod using the same technique. Still need to get a ring flash but haven't found a good deal yet.
Here's another older flower shot with my KM5D and the Tamron 70-300LD (which has macro to 1:2).
Hope you like it as well.
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/330122096_fN3gN-XL.jpg)
-
I mainly shoot insect using a Canon MPE 65 macro and ringflash. We recently moved back into a city (from a 4 acre country property) and I have found it a little more difficult to find subjects in the yard.
I had to do a double-take on your name, as my brother's name is Scott also
Nice photo and thanks for sharing. The MP-E 65 is definitely on my list of things to get. In fact, I am going to construct an indoor macro studio just for this lens, because here in FL it is very windy all the time, which renders the delicate instrumentation almost obsolete for arthropods on flowers/leaves and such. For this reason, I think an indoor platform (with moss, leaves, etc. will allow me to collect interesting specimens outside and yet place them indoors so that I can really make the best use of the MP-E 65 at 5:1, and I too have the MT-24 ringlight which is terrific in indoor photography, as I am sure you know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jack (or John )
You can call me Jack ... just don't say "Hi Jack!" in a plane
Liked your shot. Color temperature maybe a tad cool but sharpness spot on over large parts of his body. You have figured out the deal, as much as possible parallel to the sensor.
I don't think it was the sensor so much as the extreme bright lighting and my not quite having my bearings straight in getting this camera to sing yet. I have a Canon polarizing filter, but it was just too bright at that spot, and I was experimenting with my flash also. In hindsight, it was a bad idea.
Good thing about macro is that it's well manageble next to my busy job. I just go out in my garden and get started.
I agree 100%! I live on 49 acres of Florida wilderness, and I don't have to travel anywhere to have a virtually unlimited "field day" enjoying myself. I can't wait until spring and summer roll around; my only fear is I will never sleep! All of the butterflies will be everywhere by day, and about 70% of all the other interesting critters here come out at night! My macro ringlight and I will be very busy
I almost never use AF, too unpredictable. What I usually do (if I'm doing stuff handheld) is put the lens at a fixed magnification and focus by moving my head (with camera) forward backward until the focus is where I want it. Works great for me. Sometimes I use a monopod using the same technique. Still need to get a ring flash but haven't found a good deal yet.
Thanks for the tip. I am realizing that AF is very limited to macrophotography also, as are auto settings. As I acclimate myself to my camera, I am beginning to find my very best shots are in 'M' mode ... or in 'Tv' mode ...
Here's another older flower shot with my KM5D and the Tamron 70-300LD (which has macro to 1:2).
Hope you like it as well.
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/330122096_fN3gN-XL.jpg)
Lovely! Beautiful coloration on both the flower and the background.
I am right now planning my "butterfly garden" for the springtime, and hope to have not just beautiful "flying flowers" everywhere, but stunning background coloration also, to make the best possible effect in my background bokehs. Right now, the background here is a little nasty, as everything is brown, reddish, or yellow. Come spring or summer, however, Florida is absolutely vibrant with greens everywhere and wonderful colors that I can't wait to take advantage of.
In closing for now, I *was* able to get some lizard shots I am well pleased with. I found another specimen on another stump that allowed me to get both an outstanding side shot, focus-wise and color-wise, and I was even able to get close enough to him to get a full head portrait shot. I kinda blew that one a bit by selecting f/2.8, which put his cheek slightly ablur, but his eyes and color were wonderful. The side shot was taken at f/3.5, 1/400, ISO 100 ... and the portrait was taken at f/2.8, 1/400, ISO 100.
Hope you like these,
Jack
EDIT: Both shots here were handheld, no flash. I was able to brace my fingertips from both hands, and the lens even, on the stump to steady the shot.
-
If you do it in a studio try cross-polarization by mounting polarized film on the ring flash heads and a regular polarizer on the lens. It does a great job of eliminating harsh reflective highlights off the little critters. Most all my shots are taken using this technique.
[blockquote][blockquote]
I had to do a double-take on your name, as my brother's name is Scott also
Nice photo and thanks for sharing. The MP-E 65 is definitely on my list of things to get. In fact, I am going to construct an indoor macro studio just for this lens, because here in FL it is very windy all the time, which renders the delicate instrumentation almost obsolete for arthropods on flowers/leaves and such. For this reason, I think an indoor platform (with moss, leaves, etc. will allow me to collect interesting specimens outside and yet place them indoors so that I can really make the best use of the MP-E 65 at 5:1, and I too have the MT-24 ringlight which is terrific in indoor photography, as I am sure you know
[/blockquote][/blockquote]
-
I just happened to see that lizard today sunning himsel today, and quick got my camera to try to get him, but because it was handheld I didn't quite nail it ... and then he ran off. After he split, I took my Giottos tripod out there right next to his perch on an old stump, and I contorted my tripod to the exact posture I will need if I see him again, and so I hope to be able to find him in the exact same spot again tomorrow. If I do, I am going to try my LiveView screen ultra-close manual focus, w/ mirror lock-up, and see if I can take a remote switch shot and really nail the focus this time.
Anyway, I appreciate your own shots and ideas. What kind of 100 mm lens did you use? Also, did you use Digimarc to add your name to the shots?
I am using the Canon 100 mm, same as yours. Nice piece of glass. I do not use Digimarc. I have Lightroom, and I use LR2/Mogrify (http://www.timothyarmes.com/lrmogrify.php) to get the watermark. (Which reminds me, now that I know it works like a charm, I need to flip Mr. Armes some moola.)
I have had no luck trying to use liveview with anything that can move. If your subject is frozen in position, I can see it working, but otherwise I find the "rocking method" the best: Set the lens where you want it, then move in to the rough focus, then rock back and forth while watching the point you want to be in focus. As you pass into the focus point, fire away!
Speaking of tripods, I had success in the summer using the tripod on just two legs, and I used that to rock in and out on the subject. That's how I got this ~14mm long grasshopper (100 mm w/ring flash, and I am pretty sure I had some tubes on there):
(http://www.clements.on.ca/img/ll/20080628_53.jpg)
Some nice shots in this thread!
P.S. the shot above provides the background in the stork shot.
-
Daniel, Jack, Scott,
Excellent shots from all of you. I like the lizzards very much (also probably because I never see one in Belgium)
I can't wait to go out with my 100 mm again when the weather improves a bit. Sofar I can only offer older pictures to the thread, but please keep yours coming as well. I'm a real junkie you know
A spider : if you look closeley you can see he's producing threads for his web:
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/308647507_FCc3d-XL.jpg)
KonicaMinolta 5D + 100/2.8 macto.
Hope you like em, if not no problem to give tips to improve. There's still a lot I need to learn.
-
Lovely work all you guys. You inspire me to learn how to make better use of my nice Canon 100 macro lens. I usually don't go hunting for things smaller than about 6 inches, but now I'm going to give it a try.
Pegelli: That spider with the subtle web threads is stunning!
Eric
-
I like the flower (I want a stamen's magazine joke here) and lizard (giecography?) photos. But the buggery ones are just icky. We're out of the Paleozoic so I don't need to see bugs that size.
-
Pegelli: That spider with the subtle web threads is stunning!
Thanks. It was taken before I got my 100 macro with the budget Tamron 70-300LD. Not a bad result for a 125 € lens I would think
I like the flower (I want a stamen's magazine joke here) and lizard (giecography?) photos. But the buggery ones are just icky. We're out of the Paleozoic so I don't need to see bugs that size.
How about a compromise:
Large flower and small fly. Taken with a trusty old Minolta beercan (70-210/4)
, the flower she's on is pretty too
-
Lovely work all you guys. You inspire me to learn how to make better use of my nice Canon 100 macro lens. I usually don't go hunting for things smaller than about 6 inches, but now I'm going to give it a try.
Pegelli: That spider with the subtle web threads is stunning!
Eric
That is what I had hoped would happen by starting this thread, is to have some folks blow off the dust on their macros
I thought it would be nice to see others' photos, and I feel I have also gotten some nice tips from Scott & JD (thanks guys!). And really, not just on some technical ideas, but creatively as well. Would never really have thought about taking a super-close-up of a porcelain figurine for example ... but I liked the effect. Would never have thought about polarizing the flashes either.
Some photo comments ... that is one YELLOW photo JD
Was the stalk the grasshopper was walking on staged or natural?
Nice shot of the brown house spider Pegelli (although I think he's supposed to be hanging upside-down). What did you use for a background, just the sky? The light background helps illuminate his hairs ..
Enjoyed the honeybee too ... but that rose photo really did it for me. Excellent! I like the colors, the textures, everything about that photo. In fact, it made me realize how flower-poor I am right now. I think I am going to get a few flowers down at the nursery tomorrow. I am planning a butterfly garden, but I think I will go ahead and just get a few flowers now to use as macro subjects themselves.
I am grateful for the ideas and suggestions from one and all, especially the ones through the photos themselves
-
Nice shot of the brown house spider Pegelli (although I think he's supposed to be hanging upside-down). What did you use for a background, just the sky? The light background helps illuminate his hairs ..
It was hanging this way up and most of them around my garden are when I see them. The light background is actually a white brick wall ~ 20 cm (8 inch) behind the web which why I had to shoot it from the belly side, since I couldn't get inbetween to shoot the nice white cross on the back of these species.
Enjoyed the honeybee too ... but that rose photo really did it for me. Excellent! I like the colors, the textures, everything about that photo. In fact, it made me realize how flower-poor I am right now. I think I am going to get a few flowers down at the nursery tomorrow. I am planning a butterfly garden, but I think I will go ahead and just get a few flowers now to use as macro subjects themselves.
I am grateful for the ideas and suggestions from one and all, especially the ones through the photos themselves
Jack, thanks for the compliment. I've posted this one on another forum in the past and got good comments back there as well. Some people even said they could smell it
Btw, you posted your reply past 2 pm your time. Are you a Night Junkie as well as a Macro Junkie ?
-
Some photo comments ... that is one YELLOW photo JD
Was the stalk the grasshopper was walking on staged or natural?
Completely natural. To the naked eye, it was not much more than a blade of grass running through the flower. I was actually taking pictures of the flowers, searching for a composition through the lens, and that's when I first saw the wee grasshopper.
-
Jack, Scott, JD, pegelli, et. al.,
These are really excelent shots. The lenses are more important than the camera body, but can you guys tell me what bodies you used?
I currently have a Canon Rebel XT but plan to upgrade to a 40d or 50d soon. I'm interested in doing macro work too, especially after seeing what you've produced.
Thanks,
zeke
-
Zeke,
The first batch I posted are taken with a Canon 5D MkII, the grasshopper pic is with a Rebel XTi.
-
Some of mine were taken with a rebel and some with a 1DsII.
-
Jack, Scott, JD, pegelli, et. al.,
These are really excelent shots. The lenses are more important than the camera body, but can you guys tell me what bodies you used?
Zeke, thanks for the compliment. Hope you get into macro and post some results here.
My camera bodies are Konica Minolta 5D (6MP) for the "punky" flower, spider and small flower. The rest are Sony A700 (12 MP) which with a good lens gives you a bit more leeway cropping w/o introducing unsharpness.
I also agree lenses are important, but don't stare yourself blind on that either. I have many "tack-sharp" macro shots with a 125 € Tamron 70-300LD (to 1:2 without extension tubes) and a 50$ second hand 50/1.7 with kenko extension tubes. My 100/2.8 Minolta macro lens is great, but not absolutely required. I'm sure also in Canon mount there are many more good lenses for this than only their 100 mm.
The other item that is of key importance is technique. I'm always frustrated when I get macro shots that are not tack sharp in the right place. So my strategy there is to either use a sturdy tripod (buy the most expensive one you can afford/justify, otherwise you'll ensd up buying it later anyway), use flash or when handholding put it on MF, focus by moving your head and do "bursts of 3-5 pictures and keep the sharpest. On many sessions I bin more than 90% of the shots (I do love digital, no way I could have done this in the film days)
-
Jack, Scott, JD, pegelli, et. al.,
These are really excelent shots. The lenses are more important than the camera body, but can you guys tell me what bodies you used?
I currently have a Canon Rebel XT but plan to upgrade to a 40d or 50d soon. I'm interested in doing macro work too, especially after seeing what you've produced.
Thanks,
zeke
Hi Zeke;
Here is the setup I am using:
)
I have found that the tripod works best with pre-planned shots, but that it is kind of a pain to run around the yard with. Sometimes I just pull out the centerpiece and loosen the ballhead a bit, and use this as a mini-monopod for ground shots. Sometimes handheld is simply easier. With my better lizard shots, all but 1 was handheld. I was able to get up close to the lizard and actually rest the lens hood on the tree stump itself for stabilization. This particular lizard clearly felt he was camoflaged and simply held still for me, even upon my close approach.
When the butterflies begin to get more active, I will probably do all "field identification shots" handheld, for ease and convenience, just to make sure I can document each species, so as not to miss any shots fiddling with adjustments (especially if it's a rare species for my area). On the more common butterfly species (where I know I will get a 2nd, 3rd chance, etc.), I will no doubt be taking tripod shots (with a remote shutter release and utilizing mirror lockup) to try to get the most clarity and detail possible in these photos.
BTW, I just bought a few flowers today to replant the garden. So I hope some early spring butterflies/critters come by to visit them, as I will be right there to capture it. I do agree with the above post that there is no way I could have afforded to practice like I am doing on film, so thank God for digital
Jack
-
Jack,
Impressive looking set-up !
My flash is slightly more "low budget", but until I get a ring flash it will have to do
(http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd43/pegelli/dyxum/lenstests/MacroD2.jpg)
(http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd43/pegelli/dyxum/lenstests/MacroD1.jpg)
Normally it stands on a Manfrotto 055DB with and 804RC2 head.
-
I love the setup! I'm short for buying gear for now and that actually is something I'm gonna try!! Spring is almost here!
any tips on how to get that simple rig working best? No use re-inventing the wheel (or the milk carton in this case)
-
I love the setup! I'm short for buying gear for now and that actually is something I'm gonna try!! Spring is almost here!
any tips on how to get that simple rig working best? No use re-inventing the wheel (or the milk carton in this case)
No specific help but I've found that strobist.com and the associated strobist flickr group to be a great resource for all things flash related.
-
any tips on how to get that simple rig working best? No use re-inventing the wheel (or the milk carton in this case)
Only tip on my "milk-rig" (it's actually a fruit juice carton) is that the diffuser tissue at the front has a big impact. When I'm shooting ~ 1:2 with this tissue I can get very soft light but I'll need f 5.6 at ISO 200 for a good exposure. Without the tissue I can easily go to f16 at ISO 100, more harsh light but still properly exposed. This spring/summer I'll start experimenting with thinner diffuser tissues to get something inbetween.
The strobist.com website is indeed a good resource to get much more creative with all kind of DIY diffusers. I think I've even seen a cardboard system to get a ring flash diffuser being fired from an external flash on the hot shoe. I would like to try and build something like that, but haven't had the time yet.
-
Interesting contraption Pegelli
Do you find that it casts a shadow over your subjects, when up real close? Also, doesn't the edge of the lid rub against your head/face? I find even my lens hood casts a shadow sometimes, which is one of the advantages of the macro ringlight: no shadows, even up real close. The ringlight doesn't do as much good in the day, but it is awesome for night/lowlight shots.
I got a few nice ones yesterday and today, but I think I need to shoot a little earlier in the morning, or later in the afternoon, as the really bright and direct sunlight seems a bit harsh when attempting to get a pleasing background. Anyway, here's what I came up with:
Jack
-
It's nice to see the setups you guys are using. Jack's looks like a character out of one of the Star Wars movies.
As for Pegelli's, I never knew Tropicana made flashes! And I can't even find them on the B&H website.
-
Here's what I like to shoot
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/ExoticOddities/sfence.jpg)
Southern Fence Lizard
Canon 100mm, f/5.6, 1/250, ISO 100, handheld, built-in flash
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/ExoticOddities/jumper.jpg)
Regal Jumping Spider
Canon 100mm, f/2.8, 1/50, ISO 100, Tripod, MT-24 MacroRinglight flash
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/ExoticOddities/daintyyellow.jpg)
Dainty Sulphur
Canon 100mm, f/4.5, 1/320, ISO 100, handheld, no flash
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/ExoticOddities/barredyellow.jpg)
Barred Yellow
Canon 100mm, f/5.6, 1/200, ISO 100, handheld, no flash
.
And you had the cheek to make derogatory comments about one of my pictures? I would have thrown all of those away. Those images are soft, with ugly backgrounds, poor lighting and poor composition. Try aligning the subject with the camera back. With butterflies that will get the subject in focus. A longer focal length will give you smoother backgrounds. The softness might be the processing, or it might be in the image. Also try stopping down a lot more. F8 to F16 is more appropriate for butterflies. In the Dainty Yellow image the eyes are out of focus. Even if you do not get the entire insect in focus, you must get the eyes in focus.
-
And you had the cheek to make derogatory comments about one of my pictures?
Yes, I honestly thought it wasn't much of a shot. You keep taking this as an insult, and you continuously try to be insulting to me, but I don't see why you can't just man-up and let it go.
I would have thrown all of those away.
Well, the thing about it is I am not you, nor do I have any desire to be
I have to admit, several of the shots I posted kinda suck too, but I think a few of them are pretty good.
Those images are soft, with ugly backgrounds, poor lighting and poor composition.
I agree that many of the backgrounds are nasty. I can't help it at this time, my entire lawn and surrounding area which comprises the background is kind of a dry, brown/yellow now because it's winter. Some of the images are soft, I agree also, I was just posting what I had taken to start the ball rolling for macro shots. I am not trying to pass them off as the best shots ever taken in the history of photography; I am just trying to have fun and see some of the shots others have taken
A longer focal length will give you smoother backgrounds. The softness might be the processing, or it might be in the image.
Thanks for the tips. I am working on improving "everything" really, as I have only been using this camera for about a month. I am not sure which images you are referring to regarding smoothness. I do realize a few were smooth, but I also think a couple of those lizard shots hit the bullseye.
Also try stopping down a lot more. F8 to F16 is more appropriate for butterflies. In the Dainty Yellow image the eyes are out of focus. Even if you do not get the entire insect in focus, you must get the eyes in focus.
With the Dainty Yellow, I had it on f/2.8 I believe, and you are right I should have had it stopped down a lot more. I was just playing around with the different effects. The background color also makes me want to puke, but the was where the lil' feller landed and so I didn't have much control over that
I also agree with you 100% on the eyes. If an insect's eyes are not in focus, I likewise consider it a blown shot.
Anyway, thanks for your comments. Even though they started off rude, you did give me some good advice, which is appreciated. Hopefully, we can keep things more civil in the future, and if you have any shots you'd like to share, I'd like to see them
Jack
.
-
geez, was that a thread jump? I can't find this "derogatory comment" he speaks of. Actually he hasn't posted in this topic i think... anyways, JK: inspiring shots! I had forgot the bar when it comes to macro. Time to raise the bar!
So, do you use an extension tube? I've never had my 100mm macro give me shots like that!
cheers!
KT
-
Yes, I honestly thought it wasn't much of a shot. You keep taking this as an insult, and you continuously try to be insulting to me, but I don't see why you can't just man-up and let it go.
Actually is was technically very competent though you do not recognise that. But as to whether or not you like it, that is another issue. Clearly you didn't, which is fine. Only fools and idiots agree all the time. Many images online and in books are not to my taste. But I mean, describing it as yuck and like vomit ... I recall you once said you are someone who goes into a bar and gets into fights, so why am I not surprised?
Well, the thing about it is I am not you, nor do I have any desire to be
I have to admit, several of the shots I posted kinda suck too, but I think a few of them are pretty good.
I agree that many of the backgrounds are nasty. I can't help it at this time, my entire lawn and surrounding area which comprises the background is kind of a dry, brown/yellow now because it's winter. Some of the images are soft, I agree also, I was just posting what I had taken to start the ball rolling for macro shots. I am not trying to pass them off as the best shots ever taken in the history of photography; I am just trying to have fun and see some of the shots others have taken
Okay, that's fair enough, you gave the impression in another thread that you thought you were an expert on macro photography, given the way you dismissed everything I said about macro photography. (I have more than a decade of experience. You might disagree with my subjective comments, but I like to think I know a bit about the technical side.) You might wish to read about effective and real aperture, and also about reversing lenses, though that is not really relevant to the Canon system.
Thanks for the tips. I am working on improving "everything" really, as I have only been using this camera for about a month. I am not sure which images you are referring to regarding smoothness. I do realize a few were smooth, but I also think a couple of those lizard shots hit the bullseye.
With the Dainty Yellow, I had it on f/2.8 I believe, and you are right I should have had it stopped down a lot more. I was just playing around with the different effects. The background color also makes me want to puke, but the was where the lil' feller landed and so I didn't have much control over that
I also agree with you 100% on the eyes. If an insect's eyes are not in focus, I likewise consider it a blown shot.
Anyway, thanks for your comments. Even though they started off rude, you did give me some good advice, which is appreciated. Hopefully, we can keep things more civil in the future, and if you have any shots you'd like to share, I'd like to see them
Jack
.
You can easily see my photos given a tiny bit of effort and thought on your part, though they clearly are not to your taste so I do not recommend it. I am sure you can find examples more to your taste elsewhere, especially in books by John Shaw, and others. I cannot recommend a very recent book to you as I do not know any. Most of mine date from the pre-digital age.
By the way you are using a calibrated monitor aren't you? If not, the chances are that your images have a strong colour cast, and the brightness will be way off. You really do need to calibrate.
I see you have the Canon macro flash (excellent kit) so I am sure you can find insects on bushes and shrubs. As I say, try F11 or even F16 for the small ones, though I suspect you can only set the effective aperture on your camera. (I might be mistaken.) If you find out how much light your lens loses at 1:1, you can figure out how to compensate.
-
Jack and Slough, I'm glad you guys made up, I really enjoyed the fun spirit of this thread. I'm posting and reading to learn and it seems we're back to that.
I actually think in most pictures there is something to like and usually something to learn as well.
Let me try to do that on Jack's latest batch. Pls. take in a positive spirit and I would very much appreciate similar comments on the pictures I post here. These are obviously not my worst, but there is always room to improve and somehow I have more difficulty critiqueing my own shots vs. those of someone else. Probably too emotionally attached to my own shots.
Southern lizard : a bit too contrasty and especially too dark under the chin. However I very much like the pose and the shiny blue parts on his head.
Sulphur in Verbain : pretty good and nice colors. Just a minor knit is that the oof flowers in front distract a bit.
Honeybee : I think the worst of the crop. Sharpness lies too far back. I'd like to see a sharper bee and more blurred flowers
Skipper nectaring in same : I think the best of the crop. I like the way you used the narrow dof and sharp where it needs to be. Minor knit: a bit of levels adjustment (bring white point up) will probably give the shot a bit more "punch"
Tampa Verbain : nice shot. Background "getting there"but not entirely yet.
So now some more from me:
Mirror fly (you can see my own reflection)
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/352358673_tAFT7-XL.jpg)
Flower (single dahlia ?)
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/350371228_4ZSUf-XL.jpg)
Look me in the eyes baby (cropped quite a bit):
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/351173307_XoxWW-XL.jpg)
Another hoverfly. You cann see the hairs growing out of its eyes : no surface that can catch pollen is waisted:
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/353418037_Tr9MC-XL.jpg)
As I said C&C very welcome, especially the kind that makes me learn.
Btw since Slough mentioned the books from John Shaw. I learned very much from his book "Closeups in Nature", ISBN 0-8174-4052-6.
About 15% is dedicated to film so hardly relevant anymore, however the bulk is still fully applicable for DSLR's.
I keep reading and rereading it every once in a while. Highly recommended
-
Jack and Slough, I'm glad you guys made up, I really enjoyed the fun spirit of this thread. I'm posting and reading to learn and it seems we're back to that.
I actually think in most pictures there is something to like and usually something to learn as well.
Let me try to do that on Jack's latest batch. Pls. take in a positive spirit and I would very much appreciate similar comments on the pictures I post here. These are obviously not my worst, but there is always room to improve and somehow I have more difficulty critiqueing my own shots vs. those of someone else. Probably too emotionally attached to my own shots.
Southern lizard : a bit too contrasty and especially too dark under the chin. However I very much like the pose and the shiny blue parts on his head.
Sulphur in Verbain : pretty good and nice colors. Just a minor knit is that the oof flowers in front distract a bit.
Honeybee : I think the worst of the crop. Sharpness lies too far back. I'd like to see a sharper bee and more blurred flowers
Skipper nectaring in same : I think the best of the crop. I like the way you used the narrow dof and sharp where it needs to be. Minor knit: a bit of levels adjustment (bring white point up) will probably give the shot a bit more "punch"
Tampa Verbain : nice shot. Background "getting there"but not entirely yet.
So now some more from me:
Mirror fly (you can see my own reflection)
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/352358673_tAFT7-XL.jpg)
Flower (single dahlia ?)
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/350371228_4ZSUf-XL.jpg)
Look me in the eyes baby (cropped quite a bit):
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/351173307_XoxWW-XL.jpg)
Another hoverfly. You cann see the hairs growing out of its eyes : no surface that can catch pollen is waisted:
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/353418037_Tr9MC-XL.jpg)
As I said C&C very welcome, especially the kind that makes me learn.
Btw since Slough mentioned the books from John Shaw. I learned very much from his book "Closeups in Nature", ISBN 0-8174-4052-6.
About 15% is dedicated to film so hardly relevant anymore, however the bulk is still fully applicable for DSLR's.
I keep reading and rereading it every once in a while. Highly recommended
I think the above images are very nice indeed. I like the fly with the hairy backside the most! You obviously have developed your skills well so I see nothing to criticise. All I can say is carry on, and produce more pictures of a wider range of subjects and try and find out the species. I know from my experience with fungi that adding the species name adds a lot of value.
It looks like you are using natural light.
-
I think the above images are very nice indeed. I like the fly with the hairy backside the most! You obviously have developed your skills well so I see nothing to criticise. All I can say is carry on, and produce more pictures of a wider range of subjects and try and find out the species. I know from my experience with fungi that adding the species name adds a lot of value.
It looks like you are using natural light.
Thanks Leif, After making my post I checked out your website and I was stunned at the rich content and nice images you have on there. I see what you are saying that knowing the species adds a lot of value and really rounds out the hobby more (or is it your profession ?). Only comment I have is that some of your pictures (but not all) look oversharpened to my taste, but I know it's a matter of taste. I try to go very easy on that, and in hindsight even find my shot "look me in the eyes baby" too crunchy.
I saw that in your bibliography you recommend John Shaw's books. I have four of them and even though they're old they are still very relevant in the DSLR age. I learned a lot from them.
Also like your vast collection of fungi. I've shot a fair amount of those as well (but not determined what they exactly are ) and will post some here after some others have posted some images again. I don't want to take over the whole thread, that would be too boring.
Last remark, you're right, I mostly work with natural light. I don't have a ring flash yet and use my Tropicana flash diffuser (see one of my previous posts) very sparingly.
Thanks for your comment, and now I'm going to check out your website a bit more. Very inspirational
-
Actually is was technically very competent though you do not recognise that. But as to whether or not you like it, that is another issue. Clearly you didn't, which is fine. Only fools and idiots agree all the time.
I can't even remember what it was, to be honest with you. I had thought I had apologized for hurting your feelings on the previous thread (that got locked) and you came back at me with another zinger. Then you did again here. I just couldn't see any reason to drag it out at length like you did. It wasn't that big a deal.
Many images online and in books are not to my taste. But I mean, describing it as yuck and like vomit ... I recall you once said you are someone who goes into a bar and gets into fights, so why am I not surprised?
Hell, I described a few of my own shots that way too (look on my last post above). I think you took it too personal. I am just blunt by nature, but this is not the same as being unfriendly. If the background of one of my own shots makes me sick, I will say so too. I guess it's in my makeup. I am German/Irish. The German keeps me grounded and organized, the Irish gets me in trouble all the time. But hey, it's also the fun side to me too
Okay, that's fair enough, you gave the impression in another thread that you thought you were an expert on macro photography, given the way you dismissed everything I said about macro photography. (I have more than a decade of experience. You might disagree with my subjective comments, but I like to think I know a bit about the technical side.) You might wish to read about effective and real aperture, and also about reversing lenses, though that is not really relevant to the Canon system.
Nope, I am a rank beginner. If I can remember the gist of that other thread right, I had dismissed many of the photos I saw because too much of the subject was ablur. I hadn't acquired a "true macro" taste yet in a photo. It just seemed to me that my G9 had everything in focus and that these super high $ lenses did not. I later learned about the subject of "bokeh," versus depth of field, so I have been fiddling with the aperture to get "bokeh" effects here and there, just kinda experimenting to see which level does what, and trying to figure out the best combinations for each purpose. As a matter of fact, I am reading a few books right now. In a way, I like the smoother bokeh and blurred background effect, but in a way the G9 was a lot easier to use and had more of the subject in focus for field identification. It might not have presented the best overall effect, but it was easy to use and did the job.
You can easily see my photos given a tiny bit of effort and thought on your part, though they clearly are not to your taste so I do not recommend it. I am sure you can find examples more to your taste elsewhere, especially in books by John Shaw, and others. I cannot recommend a very recent book to you as I do not know any. Most of mine date from the pre-digital age.
Again, I don't remember the specific photo I commented on that sent you into a tailspin. I looked at your site and actually liked most of your photos. As with any group of photos from a given person, some are going to be better than others. I like shooting butterflies also, and noticed you had several that were absolutely razor sharp and very colorful. A few had that muave background I don't like, but I felt most of your photos were outstanding! That background is the story with many of mine here too. 90% of the butterflies available for me to shoot now are tiny and yellow, and the only time they land is on old dead grass. Doesn't make for the best shot, but it's something to practice on. When spring rolls around though, Florida is poppin' with butterlies (and almost everything else), all enshrouded in lovely greens and other colors, so I expect to be taking some really nice images not too long from now
Thanks for the reference on the book. I am going through my second one right now, and will soon be back on Amazon.com.
By the way you are using a calibrated monitor aren't you? If not, the chances are that your images have a strong colour cast, and the brightness will be way off. You really do need to calibrate.
LOL, well, that was another problem. I had a $199 budget monitor on my PC. I do most of my work on my PC and I get on the internet via a laptop. I had only realized maybe a month ago that there were some pretty sophisticated monitors out there ... with color calibration ... and (as a matter of fact) last night my brand new NEC LCD2690WUXi2 finally rolled in, and by 3am I had finally got the thing properly installed and calibrated, LOL. So having a cheap monitor wasn't helping my remedial skill level all that much either. Hopefully this new camera and this new monitor will make my images come out better, by enabling me to use top equipment and (at last) actually see the true coloration of my images
I see you have the Canon macro flash (excellent kit) so I am sure you can find insects on bushes and shrubs. As I say, try F11 or even F16 for the small ones, though I suspect you can only set the effective aperture on your camera. (I might be mistaken.) If you find out how much light your lens loses at 1:1, you can figure out how to compensate.
Thanks for the tip. I am learning that, yes, stopping down gives greater full-subject focus. I still like using f/2.8 and f/3.5 (I guess simply because it's new to me), but also because in certain situations it produces a pleasing effect. The macro ringlight, from what I have read and experimented with, allows you to set (fix) the shutter speed ... and you can manually-adjust the rest (except the f/stop and flash, which the camera adjusts) ... or you can set (fix) the f/stop ... and you can manually-adjust the rest (except for the shutter speed and flash, which the camera adjusts). You don't have to leave the rest manual, though, as you can further automate by selecting AWB and ISO at Auto too.
However, you can make all of these things full manual too, as well as adjust each flash in a wide variety of positions and brightnesses. It really is a tremendously capable piece of equipment ... unfortunately way beyond my ability at this point ... but I'll get there
Jack
.
-
Jack and Slough, I'm glad you guys made up, I really enjoyed the fun spirit of this thread. I'm posting and reading to learn and it seems we're back to that.
I agree. No need to keep bickering over trivialities. Actually, Slough and I have more in common than differences. I looked at his site and we both like to shoot many of the same things
I actually think in most pictures there is something to like and usually something to learn as well.
Let me try to do that on Jack's latest batch. Pls. take in a positive spirit and I would very much appreciate similar comments on the pictures I post here. These are obviously not my worst, but there is always room to improve and somehow I have more difficulty critiqueing my own shots vs. those of someone else. Probably too emotionally attached to my own shots.
I really appreciate the comments, actually, so fire away.
Southern lizard : a bit too contrasty and especially too dark under the chin. However I very much like the pose and the shiny blue parts on his head.
Sulphur in Verbain : pretty good and nice colors. Just a minor knit is that the oof flowers in front distract a bit.
Honeybee : I think the worst of the crop. Sharpness lies too far back. I'd like to see a sharper bee and more blurred flowers
Skipper nectaring in same : I think the best of the crop. I like the way you used the narrow dof and sharp where it needs to be. Minor knit: a bit of levels adjustment (bring white point up) will probably give the shot a bit more "punch"
Tampa Verbain : nice shot. Background "getting there"but not entirely yet.
Thanks for taking the time to comment
I like the sharpness of the southern lizard, and the belly, and most especially the pose. But I agree, it was kinda faded in parts too.
The sulphur looked alot better (perfect) in my camera than it did on my computer. Of course, I just have Adobe 7.1 and I had a problem transferring the data from my bundled software to a workable (old) Adobe format. I may try to re-do this one on my new monitor (and having figured out what I was doing wrong in-process), but it looked great in RAW format ... but so-so after I got through with it
The honeybee: agreed.
The skipper: clairty-wise, I thought it was the best too. Color-wise, the background and overall "cast" made me sick.
You're being too kind on the Tampa Verbain. Sub-mediocre at best, but I just wanted to throw-in a flower shot
So now some more from me:
Mirror fly (you can see my own reflection)
Flower (single dahlia ?)
Look me in the eyes baby (cropped quite a bit):
Another hoverfly. You cann see the hairs growing out of its eyes : no surface that can catch pollen is waisted:
As I said C&C very welcome, especially the kind that makes me learn.
All right, here are my comments as a professional rank beginner
Mirror Fly: Excellent natural color and focus; unfortunately the subject is of no real interest. To me, the only photo of a common fly that could generate true interest and wonder would be a 5:1 type shot of nothing but his eyes and face;
Flower: Wonderful! Fantastic! Best in show. Nice coloration that is very interesting and complex, if looked at closely. Excellent focus makes it look almost real and life-like;
HoverFly Face: Good clear shot; interesting angle; unfortunately another so-so background (like almost all of mine --- can't wait till it gets green again ); background doesn't allow subject to stand out.;
HoverFly Side: Almost. Good focus on side-hairs and wing, but face and eyes seem just slightly oof IMO;
Btw since Slough mentioned the books from John Shaw. I learned very much from his book "Closeups in Nature", ISBN 0-8174-4052-6.
About 15% is dedicated to film so hardly relevant anymore, however the bulk is still fully applicable for DSLR's.
I keep reading and rereading it every once in a while. Highly recommended
Thanks for the further recommendation. I will be ordering a copy when I am finished with this second book I am on. I'll post some more photos tomorrow, and thanks for sharing yours
Jack
EDIT: I am now looking at everything through my new monitor, and wow, I can see I have got a long way to go to catch up to you fellas!
.
-
Mirror Fly: Excellent natural color and focus; unfortunately the subject is of no real interest. To me, the only photo of a common fly that could generate true interest and wonder would be a 5:1 type shot of nothing but his eyes and face;
Flower: Wonderful! Fantastic! Best in show. Nice coloration that is very interesting and complex, if looked at closely. Excellent focus makes it look almost real and life-like;
HoverFly Face: Good clear shot; interesting angle; unfortunately another so-so background (like almost all of mine --- can't wait till it gets green again ); background doesn't allow subject to stand out.;
HoverFly Side: Almost. Good focus on side-hairs and wing, but face and eyes seem just slightly oof IMO;
Thanks for the further recommendation. I will be ordering a copy when I am finished with this second book I am on. I'll post some more photos tomorrow, and thanks for sharing yours
Jack
Thanks for taking the time to comment. Helpful to look at my shots in a different perspective and very much has to do with taste and chosen subjects also.
Case in point is the mirror fly, I like to shoot common subjects with a bit more environment around them. Also the hoverfly face background, I like a more brownish but even background better than a more uneven bright green one. Those are just things where our taste (and things we shoot) differ. Would be a pretty boring world if it wasn't the case. Your perspectives are opening my eyes to see how others react to my pictures.
With the last hoverfly I agree dof is too shallow to have all in focus, so some parts of the eye are in focus and some not. If I would have stopped down more probably the whole shot would be blurred due to motion blur. Sometimes you just cannot get it all.
Last question, what book are you reading, any good so you can recommend it to others?
-
Hello again Pegelli;
Yes, from a technique perspective, the fly shot was very good. From a "subject" perspective, its potential for positive impact is limited. This is nobody's fault, it's just the way it is. As an extreme example of what I mean, recognizing my own limitations as a photographer, I could commission one of the great masters to come take a photo for me. They might utilize the best photographic equipment and technique, but if my chosen subject is a macrophoto of a hemorrhoid ... no one is going to derive pleasure looking at it ... depite the finest techniques in focus, DR, lighting, color rendition, etc.
At the end of the day, no one would hang a 40" x 30" print of a hemorrhoid on their wall, not because the best tools and talent weren't featured to their best, but simply because I have chosen the wrong subject to photograph
One of the things I am learning about, concerning the whole point of photography in general (and macrophotography in particular), as I read and watch, is that the best photos either seem to capture something beautiful, dramatic, or they make the common uncommon. For instance, some flies really do have beautiful coloration, as the specimen you photographed did. So while not as drastic an example as the hemorrhoid (LOL), I guess my point was (in the end) common flies are generally considered an annoyance to most people, and almost no one has developed an appreciation for them. Therefore, regardless of any excellent technique, it is going to be hard for most people to to find a common fly pleasant to look at for long. However, not everyone knows what a fly looks like at 5x magnification! Therefore, this type of unusual photo can be dramatic, because it makes a common bottle fly look like a monster from another world. Therefore a 5:1 macro shot would probably be the most fascinating way to photograph a fly, because it makes the common uncommon. (However, I don't think even this would help a hemorrhoid )
Butterflies and flowers, on the other hand, while commonplace also, are the exact opposite of "pests" ... they are pleasures for one and all to look at and behold. Rather than trying to get rid of them (as with flies), millions of people try to cultivate and attract these subjects. Therefore, a wonderful photograph of either flowers or butterflies makes people stop and admire them automatically, by default. I think this is why any clear shot of a butterfly or flower is appreciated by one and all, even if the technique isn't perfect. People simply enjoy the beauty of these creatures.
Another thing I have been reading, and noticing in many people's work and comments, is the subject of "capturing light." One person even broke down the meaning of "photography" on her website as "photo=light" and "graphy=style/paint." I think that is what made your dahlia photo was so compelling (for me at least). It was a wonderful subject; the colors were very subtle and expansive in gradation; the focus was excellent; and the entire background was neutralized so that only the beauty of the flower remained. It just stood out, in perfect focus, to be appreciated by itself, and it was well-illuminated so that it could be appreciated in-and-of-itself.
Anyway, with the topic of "subject vs. technique" clarified (at least the way I see it), I hope you enjoy my subects below ... even if my technique isn't quite there yet
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Exhibition/a.jpg)
1/1000, f/5.0, ISO 400, No Flash
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Exhibition/b.JPG)
1/80, f/6.3, ISO 100, Built-In Flash
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Exhibition/c.JPG)
1/200, f/5.0, ISO 100, No Flash
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Exhibition/d.JPG)
1/250, f/8.0, ISO 400, Built-In Flash
Jack
PS: The book I am reading is, The Magic of Digital Nature Photography, by Rob Sheppard. It is not indepth so much as it gives a broad overview of nature photography in general, the basic tools and techniques for achieving various ends, and of course some really wonderful photographs to make you really want to get out there and start shooting!
-
I must say I'm enjoying this thread. Even the bickering, which has been kept fairly civil. The photos are absolutely amazing! All of them!
However, I have a big question. How the heck do you get these photos of insects without them flying away just when you want to take the shot? I've tried to take photos of butterflies and just when I've got it framed, it flies away. Same with bees--they'll move on to another flower. Because of that, I have very few with the insect in the frame and lots of out-of-focus flowers. Any tips from you all? Thanks in advance!
Donna
-
I dunno about the rest of you guys, but for insect shots (like bees), I go to a patch of flowers seeing some action and choose a flower I like. I just hover and wait (after shooting what I can think of about the flower). With time a bee usually goes for the flower I'm waiting over and I snap away. Patience.
Another thing is that the waiting will acutally cause you to do things you normally wouldn't have done. You see things you normally would overlook and your creativeness begins to flare, just because you have nothing better to do while you wait =)
So, go find a patch of flowrs. Choose one, exaust your ideas of how to shoot that flower while you wait for a visitor =)
just my $0.02
KT
-
I must say I'm enjoying this thread. Even the bickering, which has been kept fairly civil. The photos are absolutely amazing! All of them!
However, I have a big question. How the heck do you get these photos of insects without them flying away just when you want to take the shot? I've tried to take photos of butterflies and just when I've got it framed, it flies away. Same with bees--they'll move on to another flower. Because of that, I have very few with the insect in the frame and lots of out-of-focus flowers. Any tips from you all? Thanks in advance!
Donna
Hi Donna;
Your question is pretty much all that makes macrophotography such a challenge: you have only a very small window to capture a very tiny creature---who's likely terrified of your presence. Add to this another element to the equation: wind. Even if you have a subject who is willing to sit still, at least here in Florida there is almost always a perpetual breeze. So not only do you have a very limited window of opportunity to capture something like a butterfly, but even if you have nice equipment all set upon a tripod, your subject is still swaying in the breeze!
So while you're trying to get the perfect shot in the wind, at any moment your subject might fly away also (or never stops crawling). It tends to make a person want to gnash his teeth together and consider using his equipment like a club
Compare this to landscape, model, or building photography. Landscapes and buildings aren't going anywhere, and a paid model is trying her best to cooperate with your photographic efforts, rather than do everything possible to avoid them. Therefore, a photographer of these subjects essentially has all the time in the world to compose the best possible shot.
Macrophotograpy is exactly the opposite. You have a very limited window of opportunity to get your shot at all, let alone to get everything perfect. Yet, the flipside is, you don't have to spend thousands of dollars setting up, paying someone, or travel thousands of miles to get out into the middle of nowhere to get what you're after either. You just open the door and go outside.
I don't feel qualified to give you any technical tips, all I can say is enjoy the fact the opportunity to improve is all around you. No need to travel, no need for any great expense passed your camera and lens; the only limit to your interesting subject matter is your own imagination. This is why I am grateful to those who have posted, as they have taken photos of subjects I myelf would have never thought of. One of these days, I will get my technique down and I hope to be able to contribute some really nice shots
BTW, Donna, what equipment do you use, and do you have any photos to share?
Jack
-
Macrophotograpy is exactly the opposite. You have a very limited window of opportunity to get your shot at all, let alone to get everything perfect. Yet, the flipside is, you don't have to spend thousands of dollars setting up, paying someone, or travel thousands of miles to get out into the middle of nowhere to get what you're after either. You just open the door and go outside.
It sounds like the challenge of this type of photography is the draw to it! If it ever gets to be spring here (Wisconsin), I'll have to do just that--go outside and work on it. I gather that to some extent, luck is involved, and more so, just taking LOTS of photographs to get a few keepers. I think this is a new area for me that I'll have to explore more!
BTW, Donna, what equipment do you use, and do you have any photos to share?
Jack
I don't have too much online right now but have been working on a new website:
http://web.me.com/dmanderson/photography/Home.html (http://web.me.com/dmanderson/photography/Home.html)
The screen quality of some of the photos isn't that great--it's what iWeb did with iPhoto. I'm not a pro but somebody who just enjoys getting out and taking pictures. Good or bad. The more I do, though, the better I seem to get.
Equipment-wise, I've been using a 5D for about 3 1/2 years or so but just bought a 50D at the Circuit City liquidation sale. It's quite the camera! I wanted a cropped-frame camera to give me some extra "reach" for my eagle photography. I haven't had much of a chance to use it yet, tho, since I've been sick the last couple weeks. I did take the obligatory cat photo, though, so as not to disappoint folks on the internet.
http://spoiled-brat.com/50Dtest/ (http://spoiled-brat.com/50Dtest/)
I printed it out at 13 x 19 and it's really quite amazing.
Donna
-
Nice website!
I looked around but didn't find any macro shots though
I did like some of your country landscape shots
Can you post some your close-ups if you get the chance?
-
Nice website!
I looked around but didn't find any macro shots though
I did like some of your country landscape shots
Can you post some your close-ups if you get the chance?
I honestly don't have any worth sharing! Well, there is one. But it's not a true macro shot like you all are doing, just a close up of a bee on a flower I did a few years ago. The focus isn't great, but I was just glad to actually get the bee in the shot!
http://spoiled-brat.com/flower-bee.jpg (http://spoiled-brat.com/flower-bee.jpg)
Donna
-
I honestly don't have any worth sharing! Well, there is one. But it's not a true macro shot like you all are doing, just a close up of a bee on a flower I did a few years ago. The focus isn't great, but I was just glad to actually get the bee in the shot!
http://spoiled-brat.com/flower-bee.jpg (http://spoiled-brat.com/flower-bee.jpg)
Donna
Overall, that was a nice clear shot of the whole flower and the bumble bee on it.
My only (friendly) criticism would be that the entire shot has a yellow "wash" to it that I would try to take out. I know this is hard to do, as the flower is bright yellow, and the shot appears to have been taken in the middle of a bright sunlight, but I would try to somehow edit the photo to where everything in it retains its natural color.
Some folks have been helping me understand color management, monitor calibration, etc., and I am in the process of trying to do a better job of that myself. It seems to me that shots taken in the middle of the daytime and strong sunlight (especially on such a dramatically-bright object as a bright flower) are very problematic to correct to the point where they look completely natural.
I have found that overcast days seem to be the best for capturing the true colors of all the subjects in the photograph.
Just my $0.02
Jack
-
Overall, that was a nice clear shot of the whole flower and the bumble bee on it.
My only (friendly) criticism would be that the entire shot has a yellow "wash" to it that I would try to take out. I know this is hard to do, as the flower is bright yellow, and the shot appears to have been taken in the middle of a bright sunlight, but I would try to somehow edit the photo to where everything in it retains its natural color.
Some folks have been helping me understand color management, monitor calibration, etc., and I am in the process of trying to do a better job of that myself. It seems to me that shots taken in the middle of the daytime and strong sunlight (especially on such a dramatically-bright object as a bright flower) are very problematic to correct to the point where they look completely natural.
I have found that overcast days seem to be the best for capturing the true colors of all the subjects in the photograph.
Just my $0.02
Jack
Hey, I never said it was a good image. You're right about the yellow wash--it's just an image I had on this computer that I used as my desktop at one point. I think I took it on vacation (Agawa Canyon train tour north of Sault Ste. Marie, ON), so it was the middle of the day. I've been using a color managed workflow for quite a while. It's essential if you print your own images.
I did put the image into photoshop and removed some of the yellow cast and it looked a lot better. Thanks!
Anyways, I, too, have found that in taking photos such as flower images an overcast day works much better. Or if I'm deep in the woods where it's really shady. But then you sometimes get a blue cast that needs to be taken out later.
Donna
-
Hi Donna,
Glad you joined the gang here. Don't be shy and post some macro pics once you get the hang of it. Believe it or not, I think on a typical shoot I bin >95% of my shots for the exact reason you mention. Insect blurry (focus error or motion blur) or even totally gone. The way I maximise my low chances is put the lens on MF and at a fixed magnification and then frame/focus by moving my head. Then when you're near just fire 3 or 5 frames and pick the sharpest (if there is one ).
This one I got lucky, I was playing with my cam sitting on the terrace last summer with the family and this yellow ladybug started crawling on my hand. On this one I actually held my cam still and focussed by slowly moving my hand. It's the only one I did that way, but I like the result.
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/200804/i-jsVwVQ4/0/O/PEG_A700_00756_20080426_LR-L.jpg) (http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/200804/5113157_2N6L2C#!i=308635677&k=jsVwVQ4&lb=1&s=A)
Greetings
-
Hey, I never said it was a good image. You're right about the yellow wash--it's just an image I had on this computer that I used as my desktop at one point. I think I took it on vacation (Agawa Canyon train tour north of Sault Ste. Marie, ON), so it was the middle of the day. I've been using a color managed workflow for quite a while. It's essential if you print your own images.
I did put the image into photoshop and removed some of the yellow cast and it looked a lot better. Thanks!
Anyways, I, too, have found that in taking photos such as flower images an overcast day works much better. Or if I'm deep in the woods where it's really shady. But then you sometimes get a blue cast that needs to be taken out later.
Donna
Wow, it does look better!
Not only did you do a good job with the yellow, but I am looking at it on my new monitor now (rather than my cheap laptop), and there really is a difference. One thing you might want to take a look at, I took the liberty of saving the image and rotating it clockwise 90 degrees, and to me it make the image look better still. Instead of looking like he's slipping off a downward-pointing flower, he looks like he's secure atop an upward-pointing one
Jack
-
Hey, I never said it was a good image. You're right about the yellow wash--it's just an image I had on this computer that I used as my desktop at one point. I think I took it on vacation (Agawa Canyon train tour north of Sault Ste. Marie, ON), so it was the middle of the day. I've been using a color managed workflow for quite a while. It's essential if you print your own images.
I did put the image into photoshop and removed some of the yellow cast and it looked a lot better. Thanks!
Anyways, I, too, have found that in taking photos such as flower images an overcast day works much better. Or if I'm deep in the woods where it's really shady. But then you sometimes get a blue cast that needs to be taken out later.
Donna
I think that is a cucumber beetle not a yellow ladybug.
-
I think that is a cucumber beetle not a yellow ladybug.
peteh, you might be right but I'm not sure. see here, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotted_cucumber_beetle)a cucumber beetle looks more elongated and has long antennae. This one looks more short and stocky w/o antennae . On the other hand I've never seen a yellow ladybug either so it's probably something else.
Any more specialists here ?
-
Thanks Leif, After making my post I checked out your website and I was stunned at the rich content and nice images you have on there. I see what you are saying that knowing the species adds a lot of value and really rounds out the hobby more (or is it your profession ?). Only comment I have is that some of your pictures (but not all) look oversharpened to my taste, but I know it's a matter of taste. I try to go very easy on that, and in hindsight even find my shot "look me in the eyes baby" too crunchy.
That is an interesting comment. Could you give a specific example? Now that you have made this observation, I will check out online images from the greats such as John Shaw, and see how the sharpening compares.
The thumbnails do look oversharpened, and that is because they are automatically generated by .NET from the larger already sharpened images, using my web site generation tool, and the resize algorithm is a bit poo-ey. I am not prepared to go back and manually create thumbnails for all of the images. It is too much hard work for too little gain.
I saw that in your bibliography you recommend John Shaw's books. I have four of them and even though they're old they are still very relevant in the DSLR age. I learned a lot from them.
Also like your vast collection of fungi. I've shot a fair amount of those as well (but not determined what they exactly are ) and will post some here after some others have posted some images again. I don't want to take over the whole thread, that would be too boring.
Last remark, you're right, I mostly work with natural light. I don't have a ring flash yet and use my Tropicana flash diffuser (see one of my previous posts) very sparingly.
Thanks for your comment, and now I'm going to check out your website a bit more. Very inspirational
Fungi is just a hobby. I am not trained in botany, sadly.
-
Nope, I am a rank beginner.
Jack/John
I responded to you in a head on manner because you dismissed my post containing some technical points as "all wrong" suggesting that you considered yourself an expert, whereas you clearly were unaware of many issues. Anyway, enough of this nonsense. There's better things to do before one pegs out.
-
This one I got lucky, I was playing with my cam sitting on the terrace last summer with the family and this yellow ladybug started crawling on my hand. On this one I actually held my cam still and focussed by slowly moving my hand. It's the only one I did that way, but I like the result.
I love that picture! I've never seen a yellow ladybug before.
Btw, I like you cat picture.
You probably know this one : dogs have masters, cats have staff
Oh, I am definitely the staff to my two cats. My cockatiel, though, thinks I'm the greatest thing in the world! One out of three ain't bad.
Donna
-
Wow, it does look better!
Not only did you do a good job with the yellow, but I am looking at it on my new monitor now (rather than my cheap laptop), and there really is a difference. One thing you might want to take a look at, I took the liberty of saving the image and rotating it clockwise 90 degrees, and to me it make the image look better still. Instead of looking like he's slipping off a downward-pointing flower, he looks like he's secure atop an upward-pointing one
Jack
I hate to tell you this, but I didn't upload my re-worked photo. I think you looking at on your new monitor made the difference!
Donna
-
Jack/John
I responded to you in a head on manner because you dismissed my post containing some technical points as "all wrong" suggesting that you considered yourself an expert, whereas you clearly were unaware of many issues. Anyway, enough of this nonsense. There's better things to do before one pegs out.
Gosh Slough, I guess you just don't want to man-up let it go, do you? I have apologized to you once, and I won't do it again. Since you won't let it go, I would like to call you to task on your new claim that I alleged myself to be an expert or that I gave you corrective comments as to your technique. Could you please display the link to any post I have made here on this forum, where I have proclaimed myself an expert? If you can't show this, then I am calling you a liar.
How many times do you want to go over this? I merely gave my subjective view of one of your photographs, nothing more, and I have since been complimentary about others. You came at me in a head-on manner originally (and you still are) because you were butt-hurt, nothing more. Like I said, I apologized to you once, and I will not do it again. That you continue to attack after this fact makes you an ass IMO. If you can't get over it and move on, then kindly cry somewhere else okay? In the meantime, I will be waiting for you to provide the link to where I claimed to be an expert, or for you to admit to being a liar and exaggerator.
Thanks.
-
I hate to tell you this, but I didn't upload my re-worked photo. I think you looking at on your new monitor made the difference!
Donna
LOL! That is too funny.
It is amazing the difference when what you take for granted to be "the way things are" gets a paradigm shift
I guess from now on, I will reserve any and all comments until I am looking through the right window
-
Anyway, with the topic of "subject vs. technique" clarified (at least the way I see it), I hope you enjoy my subects below ... even if my technique isn't quite there yet
PS: The book I am reading is, The Magic of Digital Nature Photography, by Rob Sheppard. It is not indepth so much as it gives a broad overview of nature photography in general, the basic tools and techniques for achieving various ends, and of course some really wonderful photographs to make you really want to get out there and start shooting!
I think your technique is getting there. I see improved sharpness and exposure in every shot you're posting so just go on !
From this batch I like the frog eye best.
One comment is that you might consider to varying your composition a bit more. All your main subjects are very central in the frame. Maybe try some "golden rule" compositions where you try to put the point of main attention (maybe the eyes or some other strong point in your subject) on one ofe the intersections of the 2 vertical and 2 horizontal lines that would devide the frame in three equal parts horizontally and vertically.
Just a thought that might improve the impact of the pictures you take.
Thanks for the reference on the book. I'll check it out.
-
Hi. This has been such an interesting thread with some really very good photos. I don't shoot a lot of macro, in fact I haven't even got a macro lens, I just screw a 500d filter with a step-down ring on the end of my 70-200 f4 (using a Canon 40D). So I'm really only out hunting butterflies and such when birds are not to be found, and then shooting hand held with a flash:
[attachment=11613:_MG_7984SpIlSHMPer.jpg]
Or on the ground with a beanbag:
[attachment=11614:__54SpIlSHMRel.jpg]
The depth of field with this set up is miniscule. Most insects stay around long enough to get one or two shots in, and I've bought a monopod to increase my keeper rate with the flash, but I was wondering if anyone knew whether the depth of field is better with a dedicated macro lens? I can think of no reason why it should be, but then again have never tested it.
Well you images here have encouraged me to get out and do more. Cheers, David
-
but I was wondering if anyone knew whether the depth of field is better with a dedicated macro lens? I can think of no reason why it should be, but then again have never tested it.
Well you images here have encouraged me to get out and do more. Cheers, David
Hey David, good shots, especially like the butterfly !
As far as I know dof is set by optical formulas depending on aperture and magnification (and thus indirectly focal lenth and sensor size). So there's no dof difference between using a dedicated macro lens or a non-macro lens with a close-up diopter and/or extension tubes.
Take a look here on this site, it has a wealth of theoretical knowledge (as well as a dof calculator) that will help you understand better how it all hangs together. Michael Hohner Optical Formulas (http://www.mhohner.de/formulas.php).
This site is more dedicated to Minolta - Sony equipment but this section is really independent from any specific brand.
-
I think your technique is getting there. I see improved sharpness and exposure in every shot you're posting so just go on !
From this batch I like the frog eye best.
Thank you. I am trying to work on (quite literally) everything, from being more patient with my shots, to lighting, to really every aspect, including processing.
I'd like to post a couple more today, but it's raining cats and dogs ... and I just stepped on a poodle
One comment is that you might consider to varying your composition a bit more. All your main subjects are very central in the frame. Maybe try some "golden rule" compositions where you try to put the point of main attention (maybe the eyes or some other strong point in your subject) on one ofe the intersections of the 2 vertical and 2 horizontal lines that would devide the frame in three equal parts horizontally and vertically.
Just a thought that might improve the impact of the pictures you take.
Thanks for the reference on the book. I'll check it out.
No prob. Yes, from a photographer's view, you are right, I should look to vary my composition (and probably shoot something besides bugs and critters too). However, I am trying to get as many butterfly photos as I can (reptiles, amphibians, etc.) eventually to make my own "field guide," not for commercial purposes so much as for just a personal goal. So getting as much as I can get in the frame, centered, is what my goal is for the time being.
But I do appreciate the message, and I think I will start to try to diversify a little, just to mix things up a bit. I am saving for the 100-400mmm telephoto, as well as the 10-22 ultrawide zoom, the latter of which I think will create some real possibilities in the direction you suggest. As a matter of fact, I have been reading that ultra-wides (with converters) make excellent macro lenses that offer unique perspective, like for instance getting as close as possible to a leaf and yet still be able to get the whole subject in view. Or, as you suggest, perhaps (say) have a close-up of a lizard in one quadrant, with his approaching prey in another. Just thinking out loud
Jack
-
Hi. This has been such an interesting thread with some really very good photos. I don't shoot a lot of macro, in fact I haven't even got a macro lens, I just screw a 500d filter with a step-down ring on the end of my 70-200 f4 (using a Canon 40D). So I'm really only out hunting butterflies and such when birds are not to be found, and then shooting hand held with a flash:
[attachment=11613:_MG_7984SpIlSHMPer.jpg]
Or on the ground with a beanbag:
[attachment=11614:__54SpIlSHMRel.jpg]
The depth of field with this set up is miniscule. Most insects stay around long enough to get one or two shots in, and I've bought a monopod to increase my keeper rate with the flash, but I was wondering if anyone knew whether the depth of field is better with a dedicated macro lens? I can think of no reason why it should be, but then again have never tested it.
Well you images here have encouraged me to get out and do more. Cheers, David
Hey David, nice shots.
The desire to take butterfly photos is what got me into photography, and yours was nice. But I liked the flower shot most, as it had almost a Jack-In-The-Beanstalk effect, ascending up into the clouds ... and it didn't hurt that there was a color match too, between flower and sky
Dedicated macro lenses are actually renowned for shallow depth of field, that is what I have myself recently learned. I too have been trying to get used to such a shallow depth of field, as my G9 point-n-shoot had a such vast depth of field, that in many ways I still prefer, but yet also see its limitations. Slough here has pointed out that if you stop way down to f11 to f16 you can get much greater depth of field and have much more of your subject in-focus. But this also gives the subject more of a chance to move and so blow the shot.
But I suppose that's what makes "the perfect shot" feel so good when you get it, because you had to throw so many others into the recycle bin first in order to get the "one"
Jack
-
OK, I promised some more after others had posted.
Here's some of my fungus, which is another subject I enjoy shooting.
a fly agaric:
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/397585161_3Uzqu-XL.jpg)
a similar one, but now "aged":
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/407115453_PE46d-XL-1.jpg)
and one unknown (to me):
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/424392504_8Ctqf-XL.jpg)
All 3 are with a Sony A700 + Minolta 100/2.8 macro lens from a tripod with natural light
As always, C&C welcome
-
I liked all of those shots Pegelli, numero uno especially!
Speaking of compostion, the main story (the top) of the mushoom was up high, but also varied, and I thought the color and lighting were all excellent.
#2 was so close ... the subject, the color, and the outer-edge focus were all nice ... but the main subject (the cutout) was ablur
#3 again had great color, and a perfect angle, but unfortunately too much of the fungi were oof.
I will try to contribute something tomorrow
-
Hey David, nice shots.
The desire to take butterfly photos is what got me into photography, and yours was nice. But I liked the flower shot most, as it had almost a Jack-In-The-Beanstalk effect, ascending up into the clouds ... and it didn't hurt that there was a color match too, between flower and sky
Dedicated macro lenses are actually renowned for shallow depth of field, that is what I have myself recently learned. I too have been trying to get used to such a shallow depth of field, as my G9 point-n-shoot had a such vast depth of field, that in many ways I still prefer, but yet also see its limitations. Slough here has pointed out that if you stop way down to f11 to f16 you can get much greater depth of field and have much more of your subject in-focus. But this also gives the subject more of a chance to move and so blow the shot.
But I suppose that's what makes "the perfect shot" feel so good when you get it, because you had to throw so many others into the recycle bin first in order to get the "one"
Jack
Thanks for the comments. As you say, the problem with f11 or f16 and little creatures is they move. One solution is shooting early on a cold morning. Another is using flash, which is what I usually do. It also allows me to hand hold, though the rig can get a bit cumbersome, which is why I've invested in a monopod. The main problem I see is that the flash is not easy to control being so close, and it can become a bit obvious in the image, and often needs more post processing to deal with small blown areas. I prefer the look of natural lighting, but would have missed a lot of stuff if I'd relied on it:
[attachment=11634:__93.jpg]
F14 and about 2 or so feet away. I used to use a Sigma 17-70 which was quite nice close up, but I often ended up with the lens virtually touching the subject. The zoom allows some leeway as far as moving back a bit from a nervous sitter, but hand held usually means I'm relying on the camera's autofocus. Live view is the only way I can be sure what's exactly in focus.
Nice photos Pegelli. I particularly like the third, as you can see the light through the gills. I always want to get fungi from underneath, but most of the time find I can't get the camera low enough.
David
-
What a nice shot David!
I am jealous that you have critters in your back yard (in New Zealand) that the rest of us have to travel to go see. That is an enormous butterfly(moth?) that the gecko is devouring. I too prefer natural-looking light, although with the ringlight flash if you adjust it right it looks very natural also. Both allow you to get those f/10s etc., and your suggestion of morning shots is excellent. Here are a few I took, 2 with no flash and 1 with a macro ringlight:
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Exhibition/e.jpg)
f/9, 1/3rd sec., ISO 100, tripod, no flash
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Exhibition/g.jpg)
f/11, 1/100, ISO 100, handheld, MT-24 Ringlight flash
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Exhibition/f.jpg)
f/10, 1/5th sec, ISO 100, tripod, no flash
crop
The spider really needs to be viewed at 2000-4000 mpx to be appreciated fully.
Jack
.
-
Not quite my backyard Jack! I was in a butterfly house down south to practise my macro technique. In the two hours there I really started to get an idea of what was going to work and what wasn't when hand holding the camera, worth a month in my backyard from that point of view. Anyway, I was photographing this butterfly when the gecko darted down the tree and did some snapping of its own.
The ringlight seems to be giving you quite a natural looking light when there is not too much foreground. I've been using a Canon flash on a Kirk bracket to get it off to the side, but the rig is clumsy and the bracket won't fold flat for travelling, so I intend to get a RRS bracket, which I should have done in the first place. I photograph a lot at historical events, and am looking for gear that will do both jobs.
David
BTW, the butterfly did a Houdini and survived another day.
-
John, thanks a lot for taking time to comment. I really appreciate it.
The limited dof on the 2nd and 3rd pic was intentional, trying to get something between a documentary photograph and a pleasing picture. It apparently didn't work for you.
Your jumping spider is amazing, I love all the detail in the facial hair. Probably want to print this big and frame it. At a large size it will have quite an impact !
Taquin, amazing the butterfly survived that, must have had bad breath or something , great capture.
Two old ones from when I just got my 100 mm macro:
An Inky Top covered with dew (again intentional limited dof, not sure It worked here either):
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/316646724_nrMvr-XL.jpg)
At home I saw a little critter was hanging from the rim, 100% crop:
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/316646695_dd5TK-XL.jpg)
And the last one, I was photographing fungus and got lucky when this ugly beast landed and decided to pose for me:
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/photos/408279833_TQRhN-XL.jpg)
-
I think your "ugly beast" is a fine shot. Can I make a suggestion about framing? He is looking to the left but placed in the middle of the frame. What about adding a little more space to his left like this:
[attachment=11674:copy.jpg]
Hope you don't mind me messing with your image.
Here's one from a hour ago:
[attachment=11675:_MG_9914.jpg]
I was trying out the Manfrotto 685B monopod with my macro filter on a 70-200 lens. Sometimes I don't want to use a tripod as by the time I'm ready the subject has gone. The Manfrotto is very fast to adjust but useless for this type of work because the quick release grip has play in it, and by the time I add the extra weight of a flash and bracket there is a lot of wobble. I have a Feisol here which will be a little slower to adjust, and though lighter is built like a tank. David
-
Pegelli,
I am going to have to start paying more attention to fungi--they make interesting subjects
I love the bottom detail in the mushroom, but I think more DOF would have nailed it. What was that on the bottom rim, an ahphid? The fruitfly shot was yet another classic macro shot, bra-vo! Excellent detail.
Taquin;
Your bee shot was the kind of clarity I was trying to get with mine, but didn't quite make it
Here are some more from me:
(Note: The first shot was with my 50D, the last two were taken in summer with my PowerShot G9):
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Exhibition/h.jpg)
f/11, 1/80, ISO 500, handheld, built-in flash
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Exhibition/i.jpg)
f/3.2, 1/60, ISO 80, handheld, built-in flash
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Exhibition/j.jpg)
f/3.2, 1/20, ISO 60, handheld, built-in flash
Enjoy,
Jack
.
-
How the heck do you get these photos of insects without them flying away just when you want to take the shot? I've tried to take photos of butterflies and just when I've got it framed, it flies away. Same with bees--they'll move on to another flower.
Kingtutt had some good advice about just hanging out where you think they'll land. This is especially true for most dragonflies, who tend to fly a circuit and come back to the same spots each time.
Another tip is to move real slooooow. And I do mean slow. Come in in ultra-slow motion, and many bugs just won't notice. Of course, if you take too long, they might finish up what they are doing and fly off!
For these wasp shots, I waited until *they* were the ones moving slowly, that is, in the cool of evening. (But when one made a slight move toward me, I moved real fast... into the house.)
1.
(http://www.clements.on.ca/img/ll/wasp1.jpg)
2.
(http://www.clements.on.ca/img/ll/wasp2.jpg)
3.
(http://www.clements.on.ca/img/ll/wasp3.jpg)
4.
(http://www.clements.on.ca/img/ll/wasp4.jpg)
-
Wow! Those are scary!
I'd need a 20000 mm macro lens to get shots like that (and a can of bug spray handy just in case.)
-
Very nice, with very nice color. When it warms up, there are all kinds of mud wasps around here.
In the meantime, here is one of a baby grasshopper (about the size of the first joint on your pinky finger). Not much coloration, but he sure blends in with the sand!
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Exhibition/l.jpg)
.
-
Here is one where I blew the focus totally (handheld in low light), but I still liked the colors and the shapes so much, I fiddled with it and made it look like a drawing
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Exhibition/m.jpg)
-
Good shots Jack. You are doing some really interesting stuff. David
-
Thank you.
-
Here is a more natural rendition of the same flower ... and then one of a butterfly:
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Exhibition/111.jpg)
Same Flower
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Exhibition/hairstreak.jpg)
Red-Banded Hairstreak
I tried to follow Slough's advice and stop down more for closer shots, but could never seem to do it right as the photos would come out either very dark or very blurry due to a very low SS.
So I have been synchronizing my ringlight flash for daytime use, in order to get the SS up and achieve the results I have been wanting to get. Well, I was getting the focus right, but I was having trouble getting the lighting to look natural. I think I have finally found the right balance between my ringlight flash and using f/9-f/16, which seems to be giving me more natural lighting results in daylight flash use, as well as more of my subject in focus.
.
-
Bumble Bee nectaring on Aubutilon Pink
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Exhibition/bumblebee.jpg)
ISO 100, f/9, 1/100, MacroRinglight Flash
Skippers Mating on edge of Tulip
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Exhibition/skippers.jpg)
ISO 100, f/9, 1/200, MacroRinglight Flash
Giant Swallowtail nectaring on Pentas
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Exhibition/giant.jpg)
ISO 100, f/11, 1/100, MacroRinglight Flash
.
-
Time to revive this thread (I think). We had good fun and excellent pictures by many here in the past
I got a new Macro lens recently (Sigma 180/3.5) and sofar I like the results.
Tested it again yesterday when this little bug started to enjoy the sunshine on our clean laundry in the garden.
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/201409/i-ptLHDsR/0/O/PEG_A850_2_06529_20140917-L.jpg) (http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/201409/44128278_xp4GsH#!i=3543417763&k=ptLHDsR&lb=1&s=A)
(with a Sony A850 and handheld)
-
With my kit lense
(http://)
-
John Koerner: Good old fence lizards! I don't generally like the ring flash effect due to harsh shadows, but I have to say it really brings out the belly coloration in a way that I have not seen from my natural light fence lizard shots. (I am not sure if Missouri S. undulatus hyacinthus subspecies has more or less blue-green belly color than the S. undulatus undulatus subspecies).
-
Dan Clements: I particularly like the last wasp shot where the adult and the three larvae in the nest are all in focus. It tells the "whole story".
-
Time to revive this thread (I think). We had good fun and excellent pictures by many here in the past
I got a new Macro lens recently (Sigma 180/3.5) and sofar I like the results.
Tested it again yesterday when this little bug started to enjoy the sunshine on our clean laundry in the garden.
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/201409/i-ptLHDsR/0/O/PEG_A850_2_06529_20140917-L.jpg) (http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/201409/44128278_xp4GsH#!i=3543417763&k=ptLHDsR&lb=1&s=A)
(with a Sony A850 and handheld)
Wow, this is kind of cool, reviving this thread :)
I started this a long time ago, and almost never use flash anymore.
I also switched servers on my website, so most of the images I originally posted are not on here (which is probably a good thing, lol), but I definitely have a lot of cool shots to share and will try to do so.
How do you like your new Sigma, Pegeli?
On that particular shot, above, honestly the shadow across the background kinda makes it a "meh, okay" shot ... but I still think the Dahlia on p. 2 is a terrific, terrific shot :)
Will try to post a couple ...
Jack
-
(http://www.macrophotopro.com/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000217_large.jpg)
Blue Curl
(Trichostema dichotomum)
(http://www.macrophotopro.com/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000232_large.jpg)
Swift Crab Spider ♀
(Mecaphesa celer)
(http://www.macrophotopro.com/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000219_large.jpg)
Scarlet Milkweed
(Asclepias curassavica)
(http://www.macrophotopro.com/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000306_large.jpg)
White-Banded Crab Spider ♂
(Misumenoides formosipes)
All shots in natural light. All shots with the EOS 7D + either 180 mm Canon L or the MP-E 65mm.
(BTW, the drop on that Scarlet Milkweed is natural. I was up to my knees in a Florida swamp, taking that in situ ... I was not doing the "fake water misting bs" in the comfort of a studio, lol.)
Jack
-
John, I like the Sigma a lot, very sharp and still "hand-holdable" when setting up a tripod is not practical (for time/space considerations).
I agree on the shadow but the little bugger didn't want to cooperate and go ans sit in a better place :)
Since I know you are a sucker for "quiet" backgrounds, how about this orchid (but granted, it's not taken in a swamp, but the comfort of our living room)
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/201404/i-qfCFkP9/0/O/PEG_A850_2_06003_20140410-L.jpg) (http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/201404/38219289_cx89JR#!i=3172033309&k=qfCFkP9&lb=1&s=A)
Btw, I like your swift crabspider a lot, lovely colours and rendering in that picture.
-
Great shots! I really like the long macro lenses for isolating your flower and invertebrate from the background.
-
Nice shot, Pieter. You can almost feel the texture of the petals (I am sure doubly-so at full size)!
Here is one of a tiny jumping spider, no more than 2mm long, taken with natural light (and .05/sec exposure) with a remote switch and 7D + MP-65mm combo ... it's a little soft, as she was very tough to get her to sit still! But I dig the pastel colors and the angle.
(http://www.macrophotopro.com/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000409_large.jpg)
No Common Name ♀
(Beata wickhami)
Cheers,
Jack
-
The natural environment and colours work very well Jack, and at web size posting the lack of sharpness is hardly visible.
I only have very few jumping spider shots, and mostly in our bathroom.
This one was sitting on the curtain:
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/200908/i-Zwdnhvs/0/O/PEG_A700_08023_20090815-L.jpg) (http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/200908/9191762_x6gJGc#!i=621130513&k=Zwdnhvs&lb=1&s=A)
-
I love making macro images, but mine are almost never of the type that have been posted in the previous pages of this thread. Here are two - one I did for myself of one of the new Waverly tuners on my old Martin 00-17, and the other a detail of a titanium impeller fan blade from the inside of a Garrett turbocharger.
-
The natural environment and colours work very well Jack, and at web size posting the lack of sharpness is hardly visible.
Thanks! (My website is down temporarily, as they're upgrading servers, so my photos are gone, but should be back soon ...)
I only have very few jumping spider shots, and mostly in our bathroom.
This one was sitting on the curtain:
I have always liked jumpers, and statistically they've among the more interesting macro subjects.
They actually have more "mating stances and behaviors" than virtually all forms of living animals, up to primates ... and have also exhibited many key "hunting strategies" thought only to exist in higher animals also.
____________________________________________
I love making macro images, but mine are almost never of the type that have been posted in the previous pages of this thread. Here are two - one I did for myself of one of the new Waverly tuners on my old Martin 00-17, and the other a detail of a titanium impeller fan blade from the inside of a Garrett turbocharger.
Very nice!
I was never blessed with that kind of "creative eye" ... to see art in inanimate objects like that.
Nicely done :)
-
Love that impeller blade - great composition.
-
(http://www.macrophotopro.com/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000226_large.jpg) (http://www.macrophotopro.com/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000226_large.jpg)
Giant Wolf Spider ♂
(Hogna carolinensis)
Click image for larger view :)
-
(http://www.macrophotopro.com/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000220_large.jpg) (http://www.macrophotopro.com/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000220_large.jpg)
Scarlet Phlox
(Phlox drummondii)
Taken with Canon 50D + flash
Click image for larger view :)
-
@ pfigen, very nice images, both of them. Excellent composition and focus on the essentials
@ Jack, that wolf spider is made extra impressive by the harsh PP of the shot, very effective
Here's some "artsy" water drop macro's I shot in our garden, it's natural rain or dew, no artificial spray or something like that.
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/201205/i-FRPdsSw/0/O/PEG_A700_15012_20120518-L.jpg) (http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/201205/22740070_Hgjj76#!i=1853687043&k=FRPdsSw&lb=1&s=A)
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/201205/i-pH4pJSR/0/O/PEG_A700_15013_20120518-L.jpg) (http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/201205/22740070_Hgjj76#!i=1853687051&k=pH4pJSR&lb=1&s=A)
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/201205/i-KKjhWg7/0/O/PEG_A700_15014_20120518-L.jpg) (http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/201205/22740070_Hgjj76#!i=1853687048&k=KKjhWg7&lb=1&s=A)
All 3 Sony A700 + KM 100/2.8 macro D
-
105mm f2.8 AIS
(http://)
-
@ Pieter, I like the middle image most (color/shape); the others have a little too much background, too little of anything else.
@ Ajoy, I am sorry, but I like neither the shapes, colors, composition, nor the harsh flash-lighting, which renders the background black.
-
Couple more ...
(http://www.macrophotopro.com/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000222_large.jpg) (http://www.macrophotopro.com/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000222_large.jpg)
Pink Purselane
(Portulaca pilosa) Canon EOS 7D + 100mm f/2.8L
(http://www.macrophotopro.com/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000403_large.jpg) (http://www.macrophotopro.com/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000403_large.jpg)
Basilica Orb Spider ♀
(Mecynogea lemniscata) Canon EOS 7D + 180mm f/3.5L
(Click images for larger)
.
-
Does a macro from a compact count?
PS. don't know what it is but it does eat lots of trees in this area (SW Michigan)
-
Some nice pictures!
Best regards
Erik
-
I guess I must like shooting metal. I've been lugging four of these White Bros. titanium bicycle crank bolts around for the last fifteen years. Love the way they feel in the hand and love the precision in how they're machined, but it wasn't until more recently that the tools and techniques existed to make the image I wanted. I think there were something like 38 focus slices here put together with Helicon and then a LOT of work to clean up the defects in the metal.