# new to macro and this forum



## cakkarudie (Nov 20, 2009)

just got into macro a week ago, appreciate any comments.


----------



## delizo23 (Nov 20, 2009)

nice detail and color. it would be cool if you got the whole fly in focus tho. but still a great shot


----------



## cakkarudie (Nov 20, 2009)

delizo23 said:


> nice detail and color. it would be cool if you got the whole fly in focus tho. but still a great shot


 
thank you for the comment, shot was taken with aperture F8, will try with at least F16. 

cakka


----------



## mishele (Nov 20, 2009)

Amazing detail.....love it!! I also enjoyed the background and composition!


----------



## icassell (Nov 20, 2009)

I agree that full-focus would be nice, but it certainly is not necessary.  What IS important (and you achieved this very well) is having the eyes/face in focus. Shifting your POV so you put the whole body parallel to the front of the lens would have achieved full-body focus but also, in this case, have changed your composition in a way that I don't believe would have been as effective. Somtimes going to too-small an aperture adds  artifact that doesn't look as good as keeping your aperture in the f/11'ish range (depends on your lens, of course)  I think yours in an excellent image.  My only thought (and I'm not convinced it helps) would be to crop a bit off the top and off the left side. I'm curious how you lighted this one.  The lighting is right-on and not too harsh. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## PatrickHMS (Nov 20, 2009)

If you cannot get a fly fully focused, talk about a shallow DOF.


----------



## icassell (Nov 20, 2009)

PatrickHMS said:


> If you cannot get a fly fully focused, talk about a shallow DOF.



This is actually not so uncommon with a true 1:1 macro lens.


----------



## cakkarudie (Nov 20, 2009)

icassell said:


> I agree that full-focus would be nice, but it certainly is not necessary. What IS important (and you achieved this very well) is having the eyes/face in focus. Shifting your POV so you put the whole body parallel to the front of the lens would have achieved full-body focus but also, in this case, have changed your composition in a way that I don't believe would have been as effective. Somtimes going to too-small an aperture adds artifact that doesn't look as good as keeping your aperture in the f/11'ish range (depends on your lens, of course) I think yours in an excellent image. My only thought (and I'm not convinced it helps) would be to crop a bit off the top and off the left side. I'm curious how you lighted this one. The lighting is right-on and not too harsh. Thanks for sharing.


 
Ian, thank you for the comments. I will be experimenting with diff POV and aperture. For lighting Im using the Metz Ring Flash - Mecablitz 15 MS-1 Digital.

cakka


----------



## cakkarudie (Nov 20, 2009)

mishele said:


> Amazing detail.....love it!! I also enjoyed the background and composition!


 


PatrickHMS said:


> If you cannot get a fly fully focused, talk about a shallow DOF.


 


icassell said:


> PatrickHMS said:
> 
> 
> > If you cannot get a fly fully focused, talk about a shallow DOF.
> ...


 
Thank you all, im working to improve, all your comments helps.


----------



## Overread (Nov 20, 2009)

First macro shots? Phew well done!
As said lighting in this shot is very good, focus is dead on where you want it and composition is not weak either (its often the case that many people end up very central even when doing macro and not using the AF). As for the depth of field aspects, the depth of field to my eyes looks good in this shot - sure the whole insect is not in focus, but it does not need to be. The eyes and face are in focus and a good portion of the body is also captured - something that (if one looks at widlife images in general) is not often achived even outside the macro world when the animal is not side on to the camera. 
Also the wider aperture has given you a far more creamy background blur - the downside to smaller apertures is that this can be a little more tricky to achive when working at say f13. Myself I would not great for f16 unless I really wanted to maximise depth of field and f13 is where I normally work. This is because on most lenses and with many camera bodies diffraction will start to affect shot sharpness at f16 and from then on the smaller apertures will result in softer and softer shots. 


Looking foward to seeing more of your macro work - keep at it!


----------



## cakkarudie (Nov 20, 2009)

Overread said:


> First macro shots? Phew well done!
> As said lighting in this shot is very good, focus is dead on where you want it and composition is not weak either (its often the case that many people end up very central even when doing macro and not using the AF). As for the depth of field aspects, the depth of field to my eyes looks good in this shot - sure the whole insect is not in focus, but it does not need to be. The eyes and face are in focus and a good portion of the body is also captured - something that (if one looks at widlife images in general) is not often achived even outside the macro world when the animal is not side on to the camera.
> Also the wider aperture has given you a far more creamy background blur - the downside to smaller apertures is that this can be a little more tricky to achive when working at say f13. Myself I would not great for f16 unless I really wanted to maximise depth of field and f13 is where I normally work. This is because on most lenses and with many camera bodies diffraction will start to affect shot sharpness at f16 and from then on the smaller apertures will result in softer and softer shots.
> 
> Looking foward to seeing more of your macro work - keep at it!


 
thank you for the comments and tips. i will sure try with F13, i find macro rather tricky and a totally diff game, however i am enjoying it. Perhaps i shud try more on static subject.


----------



## Overread (Nov 20, 2009)

Get up early in the morning or head out after a rainstorm - insects will be cold and slow then - bees will especailly get caught out by a quick rainshower and will be very sluggish and resting on flowers. Moths are also good as they sleep during the day


----------



## wescobts (Nov 20, 2009)

Great shot ! what gear did you use ?


----------



## Inst!nct (Nov 20, 2009)

wescobts said:


> Great shot ! what gear did you use ?


+1


----------



## cakkarudie (Nov 20, 2009)

wescobts said:


> Great shot ! what gear did you use ?





Inst!nct said:


> wescobts said:
> 
> 
> > Great shot ! what gear did you use ?
> ...



Gents, thank you for viewing. For this shot my gears;
Canon EOS7D
EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS
Metz Ring Flash
Monopod - it really amaze me that lots of macro photos ive seen were hand held, i can never make it even for static object. perhaps its my age or Beer guzzling hands.

cakka


----------



## chip (Nov 21, 2009)

I am surprised at F8 you got such deep DOF. I have the exact same lens but on a 5D2. The DOF is much shallower at F8. I think you have a great shot there - not easy to get a fly to hold still for you!!!


----------



## cakkarudie (Nov 21, 2009)

chip said:


> I am surprised at F8 you got such deep DOF. I have the exact same lens but on a 5D2. The DOF is much shallower at F8. I think you have a great shot there - not easy to get a fly to hold still for you!!!


 
thanks Chip, it was a lucky shot as the subject stayed still for few seconds. I am now experimenting with various apertures as advised in this thread. and getting used to Flash which i have been resisting since i started to hold a DSLR.

cakka


----------



## JLEphoto (Nov 21, 2009)

Just up your shutter speed to the flash sync speed.  You could probably hand hold a 1/250.  I would still use a tripod when possible though.  They can help a lot with proper composition anyway.


----------



## Overread (Nov 21, 2009)

chip said:


> I am surprised at F8 you got such deep DOF. I have the exact same lens but on a 5D2. The DOF is much shallower at F8. I think you have a great shot there - not easy to get a fly to hold still for you!!!



That is because the size of the camera sensor also affects the depth of field you get at a fixed aperture. On  fullframe DSRL you will get a smaller depth of field than a crop sensor camera will - but you get the advantage that you get more in a frame at 1:1 (since you have the larger sensor). Its the same reason for why point and shoot cameras are actually quite good at macro since they have even smaller sensors than DSLRs and so give even bigger depths of field.


----------

