# First Attempt at Ultra Macro!



## dmanning11 (May 23, 2013)

Just got a 4 way focusing rail slider with fine adjustment, and a reverse macro adaptor for my camera.
Camera is a Sony a65 24MP, lens was a reversed Tamron 17-50mm F2.8.

These are two insects I found dead in a mud wasp nest, I managed to prop them up on a needle and took 10 x 4 sec exposure shots at F32, ISO 100, each shot was advanced 0.05mm and then focus stacked in Photoshop. 

Please tell me what you think. C&C


1. Ant 4mm long.







2. Jumping spider 3mm long


----------



## DGMPhotography (May 24, 2013)

That second one is hypnotic! I like it!  I would say maybe try different angles! They're also a tad blurry.


----------



## 480sparky (May 24, 2013)

Why 4 seconds at f/32? I would think diffraction would really kick in.  Why not try 1 sec @ f/11?


----------



## dmanning11 (May 24, 2013)

DOF was too small at anything less than F20, I find 10 images is the upper limit for accurate stacking.
Better to go long exposure ...


----------



## cgipson1 (May 24, 2013)

dmanning11 said:


> DOF was too small at anything less than F20, I find 10 images is the upper limit for accurate stacking.
> Better to go long exposure ...



I have stacked up to 75 images... and when stacking, I usually use F11 (f16 MAX). 

like this (I think I did about 45 images in the stack on this one, don't remember for sure):







This one was about 60 images or so




Red Poppy on Orange by CGipson Photography, on Flickr
YellowJacket by CGipson Photography, on Flickr


----------



## 480sparky (May 24, 2013)

dmanning11 said:


> DOF was too small at anything less than F20, I find 10 images is the upper limit for accurate stacking.
> Better to go long exposure ...



Take more images closer together.


----------



## Overread (May 24, 2013)

I second the others, whilst the depth of field is tiny using a wider aperture will lessen the diffraction softening. That means you'll get significantly sharper shots so that when you stack you get a great result. Even with stacking f32 is just too small an aperture and the diffraction hurts every shot. 

Sometimes its also beneficial to mount the subject on the focusing rail instead of the camera - then move the subject closer by tiny increments (since you're subjects are dead and spiked you can really take your time to get the shots)


----------



## 480sparky (May 24, 2013)

Overread said:


> I second the others, whilst the depth of field is tiny using a wider aperture will lessen the diffraction softening. That means you'll get significantly sharper shots so that when you stack you get a great result. Even with stacking f32 is just too small an aperture and the diffraction hurts every shot.
> 
> Sometimes its also beneficial to mount the subject on the focusing rail instead of the camera - then move the subject closer by tiny increments (since you're subjects are dead and spiked you can really take your time to get the shots)



I know for a fact that f/8 is the sweet spot when I reverse my 28mm Nikkor.  At f/11, the diffraction is noticable, and beyond that it renders the images (at least to me) totally useless.


----------



## dmanning11 (May 28, 2013)

Will give it a go at F8, maybe its my PC that isn't capable of stacking more that 10 * 24MB raw files at a time.
Every time I try the image creates with out of focus areas, or it bugs out and hangs.

You think I should lower the Res and convert to .jpg first before building the stack and auto blending?


----------



## 480sparky (May 28, 2013)

dmanning11 said:


> Will give it a go at F8, maybe its my PC that isn't capable of stacking more that 10 * 24MB raw files at a time.
> Every time I try the image creates with out of focus areas, or it bugs out and hangs.
> 
> You think I should lower the Res and convert to .jpg first before building the stack and auto blending?



That's the way I roll... edit the raw images. Edit one then batch edit the rest. Then convert to JPEG and do the stack from them.


----------



## cgipson1 (May 28, 2013)

^ This! Stack JPEGs... I do use the full size JPEGs for stacking... at max res. Works well even with my D800 images.


----------



## Photographiend (May 28, 2013)

Well... it's a start... but shall I point out... ahem... *whispers* your equipment is showing


----------



## dmanning11 (May 30, 2013)

Photographiend said:


> Well... it's a start... but shall I point out... ahem... *whispers* your equipment is showing




Hey don't start on my $800.00 worth of used ebay gear. I have what i have cause its cheap :hugs:


----------



## HughGuessWho (May 30, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


>



Amazing!!


----------



## cgipson1 (May 30, 2013)

HughGuessWho said:


> Amazing!!



Thanks... but it WAS a really big Yellow Jacket... first time I ever did focus Stacking with a wide angle lens!   http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ser-giant-wasp-eats-denver-2.html#post2661628


----------



## Photographiend (May 30, 2013)

dmanning11 said:


> Photographiend said:
> 
> 
> > Well... it's a start... but shall I point out... ahem... *whispers* your equipment is showing
> ...



I have cheap gear too but I was refering to your flash. Usually it isn't so prominent in the shot and you have it the reflection of it in the bugs eyes big time.


----------



## cgipson1 (May 30, 2013)

Photographiend said:


> dmanning11 said:
> 
> 
> > Photographiend said:
> ...



Ringlights do that... it is almost like a signature! lol!


----------



## Photographiend (May 30, 2013)

Ah, learn something new every day.


----------



## dmanning11 (May 31, 2013)

Ok I'm now on attempt number 2 at Ultra macro. This time a 5mm long house fly's head.

I have taken a sets of pics (Shot in 24Mp RAW, ISO 100, F6.3, 1/40s)(Batch converted to jpg after fine tuning) 

The pic is a angled side on with 67 images. So that's one slice every 0.045mm

My PC has failed twice due to the scratch pad filling up (requires 37gb of free space to load the stack of 67 jpg's)
Took 27min to load the stack and blend.(550mb/s SSD hard drive, 8GB DDR3 Ram, and 3.4Ghz quad core CPU)

The output in the end is pretty rubbish. Large areas are out of focus some images weren't even included in the stack (masked out of existence).

Adobe Photoshop (67 image stack)





Next I will try a trial of Zerene Stacker..


----------



## dmanning11 (May 31, 2013)

Zerene just did the same thing used no Hard drive space, used 3Gb ram, and took 10min
I will try a few different settings to see if I can further improve the results


Here is the Zerene output.


----------



## cgipson1 (May 31, 2013)

I use Zerene.. and like it. I have never had any problems with it. Looks like you are getting it down!


----------



## Photographiend (Jun 1, 2013)

They both look good, understandably you would want to go with the processing that doesn't make you want to pull your hair out though. The only difference I see is in the first you lost definition towards the bottom of the shot and in the second, around the nose.

Edit: Actually aftuer further inspection... the first one is really messed up at the bottom, the edge isn't even straight. Def the second is better.


----------



## flow (Jun 1, 2013)

There looks like sort of a 'halo' around its face on the second one ... was that deliberate? Or an artifact of the different processor you used, since it's not in the first one?
But I like how he came out. And the eyes on your spider were great!


----------



## dmanning11 (Jun 1, 2013)

The second has an issue with what looks like lens flaring from the shiny surfaces.
Any ideas how to clean this up?


----------



## dmanning11 (Jun 1, 2013)

flow said:


> There looks like sort of a 'halo' around its face on the second one ... was that deliberate? Or an artifact of the different processor you used, since it's not in the first one?
> But I like how he came out. And the eyes on your spider were great!




Its a Zerene artefact...wish i could find a way to remove it...


----------



## dmanning11 (Jun 1, 2013)

Ok I rebuilt the stack into 50 images, stacked in Photoshop, stacked in Zerene, and then stacked together the results in photoshop.

what do you think?


----------



## Photographiend (Jun 1, 2013)

There ya go. :thumbup:


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 1, 2013)

Definitely looking better!


----------

