MF Macro examples

[EricWHiss]

Erik
I knew you couldn't resist!    
but wished you would have! 

btw - the 2 dollar bill in my image is at 45 degree angle to the lens axis - but you saw that right?  That's also why I have the ruler there - so I can quantitatively see the DOF.  My image is as 3D as needed.

My images show clearly diffraction losses with the 120, and they aren't as bad as you might guess.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Eric,

Yes but your 2$ bill is not anywhere close to macro.

I was a bit surprised that my macro images held up so well at f/16. But I was also surprised how little DoF it would give on a true macro shot (I guess mine is around 1:3, still a bit from true macro).

But yes, I admit that I just glanced at your images. On the other hand I don't think you have checked mine, else I don't understand while you would comment as you did.

Getting back to the question the OP asked, I would say what is needed is exact focus, elimination of vibration. From the images I posted I would say that f/16 is OK f/32 I don't think so. If more DoF is needed I would try stacking.

I added two images, on left P45+ at f/32 and right P45+ at f/11 and stacking, full image and actual crops. Unstacked image on left, stacked on right.

Best regards
Erik

Erik
I knew you couldn't resist!    
but wished you would have!  

btw - the 2 dollar bill in my image is at 45 degree angle to the lens axis - but you saw that right?  That's also why I have the ruler there - so I can quantitatively see the DOF.  My image is as 3D as needed.

My images show clearly diffraction losses with the 120, and they aren't as bad as you might guess.

[EricWHiss]

Yes, Erik,  my suggestion sometimes is to back away so you can get the whole subject in DOF even if cropping is required in post. It gets the job done whatever you want to call it. More of a practical tip.

Btw - this is the type of photography that multishot backs excel at.   Static subject needing DOF.   My tests show that you can stop down two full stops more with multi-shot than you can with singles shot.

ps. no never saw your images ( I only look at images taken with Rolleiflex cameras - just kidding! )  but every time I have posted images you make 4 or 5 posts about unrelated IQ issues.  I expected you to be pointing out the moire or find some false detail or something like that you've been digging into lately. More of a joke really since you are all over this forum.  

[Justinr]

Phew!

Well I can certainly see a few areas of where I was going wrong and heartfelt thanks to the all who have suggested where matters might be improved. The question of aperture had never occurred to me as in my innocence I was thinking that the smaller the aperture the better the DOF without even realising that this created another set of problems with a digital sensor.

As yet I haven't had the time to put it into practice but seeing the results that can be achieved with photo stacking, plus improved technique and some purchase of appropriate software I think I will be getting a lot closer to what I want to achieve.

[Doug Peterson]

Well I can certainly see a few areas of where I was going wrong and heartfelt thanks to the all who have suggested where matters might be improved. The question of aperture had never occurred to me as in my innocence I was thinking that the smaller the aperture the better the DOF without even realising that this created another set of problems with a digital sensor.

Diffraction softness due to too small an aperture opening affects film - it's not limited to digital sensors.

Digital sensors do make evaluation of sharpness against a known standard ("crisp at 100% pixel magnification") easier. Thereby it is easier to find that you have an issue with diffraction.

If you shot a 4x5 at f/64 and compared it side by side with a strong loupe to (or large print of) the same image at f/22 you'd find the same softening of fine detail.

There are many image-quality issues that digital makes easier to find. In my opinion there are two equally important lessons to take from that:
1) To be technically perfect on a medium requires greater skill/effort/control as you increase the quality of the medium.
2) The aesthetic, business, emotional, practical value of an image do not necessarily depend on technical perfection. Part of film's gift was that there was less "pixel-peeping" (or in this case "high-magnification loupe analysis").

Don't get be wrong on #2; I work as a technician at a high-end camera dealer because I understand and appreciate the nuance (and minutia) of the technical side of imaging. There are several genres where technical perfection is often a prerequisite to the image's efficacy: grand landscape, architecture, product/still-life, medical/scientific, art-reproduction, cultural heritage imaging, film scanning, aerial and many more. In such genres the raw capture nearly always needs to be sharp, well exposed, and properly color managed ("proper" might include a non-neutral WB). It goes without saying that these technical merits are only the pre-requisite; the image must also be visually compelling, tell a story etc.

In other genres the image itself does not necessarily need to exhibit any technical perfection to be an effective image ("effective" could mean visually appealing, monetarily successful, making it's creator personally proud or anything else). But even in these genres having a good understanding of the technical "rules" of photography make it easier to control/guide the creation of the image, and to break the rules with purpose rather than depending entirely on happy accidents.

[Wim van Velzen]

I recently posted some macro work here. Plants taken with my Rollei and 90mm and 120mm lenses.

MLU and a sturdy tripod were necessary and even then I take  second or even third shot to be sure not some accidental movement caused blurring. In other words, the MF macro path isn't easy but in my eyes the rewards can be great.

[Justinr]

Progress so far -

Taken at 100th, f16, iso50 with mirror up and the camera on timer mode to allow it all to settle before shooting.

On my screen the magnification is about X10.

[EricWHiss]

Justinr,
Looks better definitely but I'm still wondering if you can't get even sharper.  I posted the 2 dollar bill examples to show what sharpness is possible with the 120mm lens, and how aperture settings will affect it.  I often will use a small flash for macro work positioned close to the subject as the flash duration is quite short with the small flash units - much shorter than with a studio type strobe. With a flash speed of 1/5000 or faster you don't have to worry much about vibration or movement.  If you can eliminate the vibration and movement, and have the aperture and focus set well, then what's left to check is the lens itself.  But DOF will be very small when you are focusing up that close, perhaps only a centimeter.

[Justinr]

Justinr,
Looks better definitely but I'm still wondering if you can't get even sharper.  I posted the 2 dollar bill examples to show what sharpness is possible with the 120mm lens, and how aperture settings will affect it.  I often will use a small flash for macro work positioned close to the subject as the flash duration is quite short with the small flash units - much shorter than with a studio type strobe. With a flash speed of 1/5000 or faster you don't have to worry much about vibration or movement.  If you can eliminate the vibration and movement, and have the aperture and focus set well, then what's left to check is the lens itself.  But DOF will be very small when you are focusing up that close, perhaps only a centimeter.

Two items that spring to mind are the UV filter on the lens and the IR filter over the sensor. Could they be making the difference?

[EricWHiss]

I wouldn't expect either of those to cause you problems. 
Do you get sharper images with the camera & back with other lenses?

[Justinr]

I wouldn't expect either of those to cause you problems. 
Do you get sharper images with the camera & back with other lenses?

It would appear so yes.

This was taken with the 80mm standard lens -

[Dragomir Spassov]

These also looks soft for me. Are they with applied sharpening?

[Justinr]

This particular shot was focused manually as I wasn't too sure as to what auto focus was latching on to. The subject appears quite small in the viewfinder and trying to focus on an object (one of the circular structures) of about 1mm in width from a distance of two feet through an 80mm lens is a challenge to say the least, so yes I might have missed the desired focal plane but the AF shot (not shown) was no better. 

I have not applied any sharpening but upon further enlargement the structures appear to have as clear, if not clearer, delineation with the 80mm lens.

[synn]

Why don't you try tethered shooting to ensure precise manual focus?

[Justinr]

Why don't you try tethered shooting to ensure precise manual focus?

Two reasons.

1. This was only a test for lens sharpness rather than an exercise in precision of focusing.
2. I've mislaid the software for the Mamiya  and I'm not sure that it would work with windows 7 anyway.

[Justinr]

Just to give an idea of scale, I have a problem with lens sharpness rather than DOF it seems.

[EricWHiss]

I think you're onto something with the 120 lens as the 80mm shot did look better.  I'm not sure your 120 is up to spec.  However you might want to take a series of shots with the 120 while focus bracketing just to rule out any possible focusing issues.  Just find the place on the lens you think is correctly focused, back up a bit and take about 10 shots moving the focus in tiny steps.  If you don't get any shots as sharp as with the 80 then you'll know for sure. 

[Pics2]

I think you're onto something with the 120 lens as the 80mm shot did look better.  I'm not sure your 120 is up to spec.  However you might want to take a series of shots with the 120 while focus bracketing just to rule out any possible focusing issues.  Just find the place on the lens you think is correctly focused, back up a bit and take about 10 shots moving the focus in tiny steps.  If you don't get any shots as sharp as with the 80 then you'll know for sure. 

But, shoot at f8 or f11 this time. I think even f16 is too much.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

What I would do is a step by step study:

1) Shoot outdoors in sunlight using f/5.6, are your results sharp? If so your lens is OK! Else check your focusing.
2) Shoot indoors, still at aperture f/5.6. Are your images sharp? If so do you have a well defined plane of sharpness where you intended to be? If not investigate! You can have bad focus or vibrations.
3) Shoot with MLU and cable release. Hold a stead hand on the front of your lens during exposure? If holding hand on lens improves sharpness you have a vibration problem.
4) Now you can start stopping down, and see how aperture affect sharpness.

My take is really that I rather don't stop down beyond f/16. Keep also in mind that if you use extension, it makes the real aperture smaller. So f/16 at 1:1 is usually f/32.

I posted a diffraction test a while ago, it shows how image quality varies when stopping down with different amount of defocus. It was done on an APS-C camera but laws of optics are the same for all formats, but larger formats need less magnification. http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/49-dof-in-digital-pictures?start=1

Best regards
Erik

Just to give an idea of scale, I have a problem with lens sharpness rather than DOF it seems.

[Justinr]

I think you're onto something with the 120 lens as the 80mm shot did look better.  I'm not sure your 120 is up to spec.  However you might want to take a series of shots with the 120 while focus bracketing just to rule out any possible focusing issues.  Just find the place on the lens you think is correctly focused, back up a bit and take about 10 shots moving the focus in tiny steps.  If you don't get any shots as sharp as with the 80 then you'll know for sure.  

I went to do as you suggested using the ruler as a subject and lo and behold I was getting much sharper images. To explore this further I then chose a 'geometric' subject, ie, one with a defined shape and sharp edges, the dial on the old Pentax ESII in fact. Leaving the camera as it was I then replaced the Pentax with the twig and suddenly I was was back to the blur. However, note how much sharper the alloy mount (a hot shoe adapter) for the twig is compared to the mushy lichen.

NB, both are crops of a much larger image.