# please help macro



## shootnride (Sep 14, 2011)

macro - The Photo Forum Photo Gallery can i improve on the pic,  is it ok,Thank you


----------



## Overread (Sep 14, 2011)

If you click and copy the "Medium image" line below your photo you can paste it into the forum posts to show your pic in threads : like this






As for the photo first tell us what you did and used to get the photo. An idea of what equipment and settings gives us the best idea what you have to work with


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 14, 2011)

looks like dual flash.. probably nikon sb-200s on an R1 setup based on the angle of the reflections.

I went ahead and checked the Exif data in the photo... D3100, Nikon 105 micro, F20, ISO 6400, aperture priority, no noise reduction. If you are running two SB-200's.. you don't need to set your ISO that high, try 100 to 400... that should be fine. Focus looks pretty good... just get your ISO down, and make sure the shots are exposed properly.

can you give us other details?


----------



## shootnride (Sep 15, 2011)

Thank you Overread for the tip on posting pictures.
I am new at this and tring to learn or if not make friends.
Cgipson1 you are good!
Well guys 
I used  a d3100 set on close up a 105 micro and R1c1 light.  (sb200 x 2 ) 
------and one spider. 
F/20
1/60 sec.
Shooting a d 3100 using closeup mode my iso is automatic .   Yes? 
I'll take all the help I can get soon.
My spider want to leave!
Ty.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 15, 2011)

you need to manually set the ISO in between 100 and 400 for a shot like this... maybe 800 at the most (the lower the better!)

Aperture F16 to F25 should be ok... if you start getting diffraction softness... back off the F25 to F22, which should be fine.

Flashes - either set manually... or use TTL with the SU-800 commander.

Shutter speed 60 up to whatever the max sync speed is on the D3100. I usually set my sync speed to the highest it will go.

Don't use CLOSEUP MODE! Use either M or A with the setting I listed, and you should be fine. You might have to play with it to get it perfect... but that should get you on the right track.


----------



## shootnride (Sep 15, 2011)

cgipson1 said:


> you need to manually set the ISO in between 100 and 400 for a shot like this... maybe 800 at the most (the lower the better!)Aperture F16 to F25 should be ok... if you start getting diffraction softness... back off the F25 to F22, which should be fine.Flashes - either set manually... or use TTL with the SU-800 commander.Shutter speed 60 up to whatever the max sync speed is on the D3100. I usually set my sync speed to the highest it will go.Don't use CLOSEUP MODE! Use either M or A with the setting I listed, and you should be fine. You might have to play with it to get it perfect... but that should get you on the right track.


Awesome! This is great help. I can't wait to try again.Thank you cgipson1


----------



## jrice12 (Sep 15, 2011)

Image looks fair with the original view size but when you blow it up you see the high ISO.   I would also consider cropping - put the spider at 1/3rd in from right, and cut out a little of the bottom, that will make it look bigger and more menacing. Color balance?  Maybe a bit too red? I might have tried playing with gamma curver to boost up the darks and exand the mid-tone a bit, but with the high ISO that may just make them look noisy.


----------



## shootnride (Sep 15, 2011)

jrice12 said:
			
		

> Image looks fair with the original view size but when you blow it up you see the high ISO.   I would also consider cropping - put the spider at 1/3rd in from right, and cut out a little of the bottom, that will make it look bigger and more menacing. Color balance?  Maybe a bit too red? I might have tried playing with gamma curver to boost up the darks and exand the mid-tone a bit, but with the high ISO that may just make them look noisy.



How about the DOF?


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 15, 2011)

DOF is good... I usually shoot F16 to F32 depending on the subject, and how the shot looks. My Tokina doesn't seem to get visible diffraction until after F32 (assuming it is showing an accurate F-Stop, and my lighting is good!).. so I can shoot that way. Not sure about the 105 though.. I have used one, but not extensively. Do a variety of shots on your next subject and increment the F-Stop up until you aren't getting good exposures.... and they will give you some gauge of the best area for your lens. You could test it on a coin, etc.. doesn't have to be a bug!


----------



## shootnride (Sep 15, 2011)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> DOF is good... I usually shoot F16 to F32 depending on the subject, and how the shot looks. My Tokina doesn't seem to get visible diffraction until after F32 (assuming it is showing an accurate F-Stop, and my lighting is good!).. so I can shoot that way. Not sure about the 105 though.. I have used one, but not extensively. Do a variety of shots on your next subject and increment the F-Stop up until you aren't getting good exposures.... and they will give you some gauge of the best area for your lens. You could test it on a coin, etc.. doesn't have to be a bug!



Thanks for the info. I will give it a shot!

P/S
Bug got away need to find coin
Ty


----------



## Overread (Sep 15, 2011)

Too add to the above points:

1) Shift into manual mode for taking this kind of photo, handheld and with typical macro settings the lighting is dominantly controlled by the flash itsef, with ambient lighting not being a major factor. So manual mode on the camera combined with either auto or manual on the flash units.
For further guidance on settings I strongly recommend the book "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson, its pretty much the textbook for beginners getting used to the exposure triangle and getting out of the auto scene modes (which are very limiting). 

2) As a go-to start for settings f13, ISO 100 and 1/200sec are where I start for handheld flash based macro photography. Now if you want the ambient lighting to be more of a contributing factor you can either slow the shutter speed (risk of motion blur/handshake); widen the aperture (smaller and smaller depth of field) or raise the ISO - and because the flash is pushing out most of the light you should be able to get a good exposure without much trouble (so even at higher ISOs noise will be minimal, save for in the shadows).

3) The shot you've posted looks a little underexposed and the reason for that is simply that the camera/flash has seen all that while and tried to make it grey (the book above will explain in more detail). For this kind of work you'd use flash exposure compensation to slightly overexpose (ie push out more light) so as to get that from a grey to a white, but without actually overexpsing the whites to the point where they lose details. 



Note on aperture and camera brands: I shoot canon and you nikon which means that you can typically use an aperture about one stop smaller than canon can before diffraction softening becomes a problem. This is because of how they report to the camera, Nikon macro lenses typically reporting around a maximum aperture of f5.6 when focused as close as they can; whilst canon don't report the aperture change and still report f2.8.
The actual apertures are the same, but its a difference in how the companies report to the user. This is why nikon macro shooters can never shoot at f2.8; but can also shoot about one stop smaller in aperture than canon shooters - it makes no real difference in the real world, just a difference in how they report to you. 


cgipson1 - I'd actually like to see some test shots between f32 and f22, f25 - I'm surprised that you can go as small as f32 without seeing noticeable diffraction kicking in on any macro lens.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 15, 2011)

Overread said:


> cgipson1 - I'd actually like to see some test shots between f32 and f22, f25 - I'm surprised that you can go as small as f32 without seeing noticeable diffraction kicking in on any macro lens.



Sure.. no problem! I left the Exif data in so that settings can be verified.....   you can also check out larger images of same at on my Flickr if you would like.   Flickr: CGipson Photography's Photostream

Shot at F29







Shot at F32


----------



## Overread (Sep 15, 2011)

Hmm I can't see the full 100% size, but the f29 photo does look noticeably sharper/clearer on the details (mostly focusing on the legs rather than the eyes, because the eye areas are mostly showing more detail because of the shift in distances between the two photos). Granted at websize the diffraction limits are lesser (esp if you use a good sharpening process), though I'd say that, whilst usable, that f32 is looking somewhat softer on the details.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 15, 2011)

Overread said:


> Hmm I can't see the full 100% size, but the f29 photo does look noticeably sharper/clearer on the details (mostly focusing on the legs rather than the eyes, because the eye areas are mostly showing more detail because of the shift in distances between the two photos). Granted at websize the diffraction limits are lesser (esp if you use a good sharpening process), though I'd say that, whilst usable, that f32 is looking somewhat softer on the details.



I am not saying there isn't some diffraction softness... but more that it is minimal considering my results at these apertures with other lenses. I don't normally shoot that high an aperture.. these pics were from the first day I took that lens out, and I shoot the extremes when testing a new lens.  I consider the images usable.. although admittedly they would be somewhat sharper if taken at a more reasonable aperture.

I did some 100% crops of three images.. the f29 and f32 from above, and a F40 shot also... just for comparison purposes.

F29





F32





F40


----------



## Overread (Sep 15, 2011)

Aye I totally agree that there is a big divide between "usable" photos and "unusable" photos, which is why the diffraction limits are always a bit of a grey playground with regard to where different photographers place the limits on their work. The 100% crops help a lot though as they do clearly show that the finer details are starting to be lost in the f32 photo, details that I'd, personally, prefer to keep; but that other photographers might feel no need to preserve (they might not show up in their regular medium of presentation such as web photos or prints) .


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 15, 2011)

Overread said:


> Aye I totally agree that there is a big divide between "usable" photos and "unusable" photos, which is why the diffraction limits are always a bit of a grey playground with regard to where different photographers place the limits on their work. The 100% crops help a lot though as they do clearly show that the finer details are starting to be lost in the f32 photo, details that I'd, personally, prefer to keep; but that other photographers might feel no need to preserve (they might not show up in their regular medium of presentation such as web photos or prints) .



Yessir.. there is always a tradeoff.. more diffraction vs more DOF.... more noise vs. light sensitivity... etc.... I am still waiting for camera that will have no DOF limitations, and will give full color, razor sharp shots in the dark! lol! (and that I will be able to afford it!)


----------



## jrice12 (Sep 15, 2011)

Not sure we can do diffraction limit tests with shots of bugs . Too much variation between shots, don't have high res areas in same focal plane, etc. etc. Need a resolution chart and so forth. Would also need to compare to lower f-numbers, etc. I have found that my Canon EF 100mm/f2.8 begins to drop off above f11 and becomes noticable in the field after f16. By f22 it becomes objectionable with tripod mount with still subjects with lots of HF content. Remember, diffraction limits are not a hard cutoff but a gradual degradation of the image HF content. So how it effects the image depends on the image itself and whether or not other factors (motion blur, etc.) are over-riding it. It would be good to do a limit test for each lens you have so you know where you stand, but the decision to go higher on f-stop should be made on the DOF needs of the subject rather than solely on diffraction limits.

For the shot at hand (spider) I thought the DOF looked fine but may have been over-riden by the high ISO and graininess.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 15, 2011)

jrice12 said:


> Not sure we can do diffraction limit tests with shots of bugs . Too much variation between shots, don't have high res areas in same focal plane, etc. etc. Need a resolution chart and so forth. Would also need to compare to lower f-numbers, etc. I have found that my Canon EF 100mm/f2.8 begins to drop off above f11 and becomes noticable in the field after f16. By f22 it becomes objectionable with tripod mount with still subjects with lots of HF content. Remember, diffraction limits are not a hard cutoff but a gradual degradation of the image HF content. So how it effects the image depends on the image itself and whether or not other factors (motion blur, etc.) are over-riding it. It would be good to do a limit test for each lens you have so you know where you stand, but the decision to go higher on f-stop should be made on the DOF needs of the subject rather than solely on diffraction limits.
> 
> For the shot at hand (spider) I thought the DOF looked fine but may have been over-riden by the high ISO and graininess.



Can't argue with you there!  As I said, these were just some test shots with a new lens. Not meant for serious comparison purposes... just responding to Overread!

I seriously do agree that ISO is the primary issue with the OP's spider....


----------



## shootnride (Sep 15, 2011)

Thank you very much for all that information and then some.
Those pictures are sick! I hope with some R&D i can have my pictures looking this good.
You guy's been great and give me hope. 
I will post more in the near future once i learn a little more.
Again guy's Big thanks

Shootnride,,,,,,,


----------

