# Beginner Macro



## St3phaniex3

I'm extremely new to macro but would love some constructive criticism. I don't have a whole bunch of equipment to work with and I'm on a VERY tight budget. Currently I have a Nikon D5200 with a Tamron 60mm macro F2. I just recently got some raynox 2x and 4x lenses but have been having trouble with focusing while using them. I try photographing handheld as it's easier to get certain angles but apparently I'm a little too shakey for that. I do not have a decent tripod but have been searching for a really good deal on a decent sturdy one. I also believe I should invest in a remote shutter release lol. 

Here are two photographs I recently took with the Tamron 60mm macro


----------



## jake337

Do you have a flash?


----------



## St3phaniex3

jake337 said:


> Do you have a flash?


I have an Ultimax slave flash that came with a kit. Not sure how good it is. Is there a certain type of flash you recommend for pretty cheap?


----------



## jake337

I just used my sb600 with a DIY softbox.

 




Here's an example.


----------



## St3phaniex3

jake337 said:


> I just used my sb600 with a DIY softbox.View attachment 115590 View attachment 115591
> 
> 
> Here's an example. View attachment 115592



That is an awesome pic! What lens did you use? 
What type of material should be used for diffusion? 
I'm very new to all of this so I will have LOTS of annoying questions lol


----------



## jake337

I use a Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro.   You're macro should be just fine.   Pretty much all macro lenses are sharp and work well. 

I've used toilet paper, paper towels, etc.  Whatever works.   Just experiment and have fun.


----------



## St3phaniex3

jake337 said:


> I use a Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro.   You're macro should be just fine.   Pretty much all macro lenses are sharp and work well.
> 
> I've used toilet paper, paper towels, etc.  Whatever works.   Just experiment and have fun.



Does your lens have image stabilization?


----------



## jake337

St3phaniex3 said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I use a Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro.   You're macro should be just fine.   Pretty much all macro lenses are sharp and work well.
> 
> I've used toilet paper, paper towels, etc.  Whatever works.   Just experiment and have fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does your lens have image stabilization?
Click to expand...


No.   None of my lenses have that.   With the addition of flash you shouldn't need to worry about that.   The flash will freeze your subject.


----------



## St3phaniex3

jake337 said:


> St3phaniex3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I use a Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro.   You're macro should be just fine.   Pretty much all macro lenses are sharp and work well.
> 
> I've used toilet paper, paper towels, etc.  Whatever works.   Just experiment and have fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does your lens have image stabilization?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.   None of my lenses have that.   With the addition of flash you shouldn't need to worry about that.   The flash will freeze your subject.
Click to expand...


ohh ok awesome thank you soo much!!


----------



## Peeb

Do those LED macro light rings do any good?


----------



## jake337

Peeb said:


> Do those LED macro light rings do any good?



Sorry,  never used a ring light.  Guess it would come down to what shutter speeds you could get while using it.   I think it would have to be pretty strong if you wanted to shoot at 1/200 and f11-22.  Then how your camera handles ISO comes into play. 

Using the Df was the first time I could shoot macro at 1:1, @f8-16 without needing flash.   Being able to shoot at ISO 5000-12,800.


----------



## St3phaniex3

Ok I just made my softbox!! Not the prettiest thing but I can't wait to try it out tomorrow!! Thank you so much for suggesting it to me!


----------



## nf1

Peeb said:


> Do those LED macro light rings do any good?


Most LED macro ring lights can give you 1-2 stops of additional light - they are quite under powered. There are better ones but I would really suggest a true xenon flash. Either you can use a standard one with a reflector - there are some very good suggestions in the thread or get Yongnuo YN-14EX - a ring macro flash at a reasonable price..


----------



## Peakapot

jake337 what type of paper did you use? ordinary A4 printer paper?


----------



## St3phaniex3

I tried using the softbox today. I don't feel it is bright enough though so I'll have to search for a better flash.


nf1 said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do those LED macro light rings do any good?
> 
> 
> 
> Most LED macro ring lights can give you 1-2 stops of additional light - they are quite under powered. There are better ones but I would really suggest a true xenon flash. Either you can use a standard one with a reflector - there are some very good suggestions in the thread or get Yongnuo YN-14EX - a ring macro flash at a reasonable price..
Click to expand...


I actually just ordered two xenon hot shoes and a circular bracket


----------



## jake337

Peakapot said:


> jake337 what type of paper did you use? ordinary A4 printer paper?



I had purchased a pop-up flash diffuser for my d90 and never used it.  I've used toilet paper, paper towels, etc.


----------



## St3phaniex3

Ok so I finally got my altura slave flashes in but my bracket still hasn't arrived. Here are a few photos I took with one of the new flashes. Please let me know what you think. I would really like some constructive criticism for taking better macro pics.


----------



## St3phaniex3

Really?? No one has any constructive criticism? No tips for better macro shots? Nothing?


----------



## nf1

ok - let's start a bit unusual - would you share what was end goal that you had in mind when taking them and what do you like the most in the end results?


----------



## Peakapot

I think you sort of answered your own question. Decent macro requires a tripod and remote shutter as a good foundation.


----------



## Overread

Peakapot said:


> I think you sort of answered your own question. Decent macro requires a tripod and remote shutter as a good foundation.



Slow macro of static subjects or cold insects works with a tripod; anything more active won't work at all and sometimes macro subjects are in darn tricky spots to get a tripod into position. 



Your photos look good, but what you need is a bracket to hold those flashes and then something to diffuse the light. A little softbox like a Lumiquest soft box might fit your flashes (I don't know what shape your flashes are so have a look to see if they might fit); or you can make your own with some cardboard and white paper. Increasing the size of the light source relative to the subject should help avoid some of the harshness you're getting with light at present


----------



## davholla

Peakapot said:


> I think you sort of answered your own question. Decent macro requires a tripod and remote shutter as a good foundation.


I don't agree you can take good macro without a tripod, but it is a good idea to rest against something.
Although I got this without any support and one handed (my wife refused to hold it)



IMG_7414Beetlelarva by davholla2002, on Flickr
I just wish I had got all of its legs in.


----------



## jake337

Peakapot said:


> I think you sort of answered your own question. Decent macro requires a tripod and remote shutter as a good foundation.



I've never used a tripod for macro yet.


----------



## St3phaniex3

nf1 said:


> ok - let's start a bit unusual - would you share what was end goal that you had in mind when taking them and what do you like the most in the end results?



My goal is to get sharp detailed images with macro. I am going to be purchasing a new camera hopefully soon. I will be doing a slight upgrade to the D5500 which I'm hoping will help with getting sharper images since it doesn't have the anti aliasing filter. My images seem to lack detail which I try to make up for with editing but I feel it makes them look even worse. So I'm hoping the upgrade will help with taking sharper more detailed photographs.


----------



## St3phaniex3

Overread said:


> Peakapot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you sort of answered your own question. Decent macro requires a tripod and remote shutter as a good foundation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slow macro of static subjects or cold insects works with a tripod; anything more active won't work at all and sometimes macro subjects are in darn tricky spots to get a tripod into position.
> 
> 
> 
> Your photos look good, but what you need is a bracket to hold those flashes and then something to diffuse the light. A little softbox like a Lumiquest soft box might fit your flashes (I don't know what shape your flashes are so have a look to see if they might fit); or you can make your own with some cardboard and white paper. Increasing the size of the light source relative to the subject should help avoid some of the harshness you're getting with light at present
Click to expand...


I have a bracket to hold my flashes and they came with soft boxes which I added a piece of drafting film to because the softboxes didn't seem to diffuse the flashes very well.


----------



## St3phaniex3

davholla said:


> Peakapot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you sort of answered your own question. Decent macro requires a tripod and remote shutter as a good foundation.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree you can take good macro without a tripod, but it is a good idea to rest against something.
> Although I got this without any support and one handed (my wife refused to hold it)
> 
> 
> 
> IMG_7414Beetlelarva by davholla2002, on Flickr
> I just wish I had got all of its legs in.
Click to expand...


I haven't used a tripod for any of mine and it seems having the two slave flashes help with faster shutter speed but also give blown out highlights.


----------



## jake337

St3phaniex3 said:


> nf1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok - let's start a bit unusual - would you share what was end goal that you had in mind when taking them and what do you like the most in the end results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My goal is to get sharp detailed images with macro. I am going to be purchasing a new camera hopefully soon. I will be doing a slight upgrade to the D5500 which I'm hoping will help with getting sharper images since it doesn't have the anti aliasing filter. My images seem to lack detail which I try to make up for with editing but I feel it makes them look even worse. So I'm hoping the upgrade will help with taking sharper more detailed photographs.
Click to expand...


It's not the camera.  The D5500 is fine.   All my macro was with a D90 which is much older.


----------



## nf1

St3phaniex3 said:


> nf1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok - let's start a bit unusual - would you share what was end goal that you had in mind when taking them and what do you like the most in the end results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My goal is to get sharp detailed images with macro. I am going to be purchasing a new camera hopefully soon. I will be doing a slight upgrade to the D5500 which I'm hoping will help with getting sharper images since it doesn't have the anti aliasing filter. My images seem to lack detail which I try to make up for with editing but I feel it makes them look even worse. So I'm hoping the upgrade will help with taking sharper more detailed photographs.
Click to expand...


As @jake337 pointed out your camera is fine. You can go and purchase better one if would like but D5500 is perfectly capable of taking tak-sharp photos. From your photos actually - the photo of the butterfly is really sharp (maybe not perfect but close to). However it has too much per-pixel contrast due to flash pointed directly at the object.

If you want to take really sharp images take into account that in macro photography even if you shoot at f16 you still get very shallow DoF. This means you can't use techniques such as focus lock and recompose. You need to take the photo as soon as your AF locks in or use manual focus and this will bring more challenge to your composition. Even if you move a millimeter since your focus locked before you take the image - the end result will be blurry.

In order to increase DoF - try shooting with closed down apertures - start f5.6 which is the sweet spot for crop sensor cameras before diffraction starts to kick in and then go to f8, f11, f16 - you can compare the difference between DoF and picture sharpness as you go down.

Next is your shutter speed - as you are shooting with flash use your max sync speed with the flash - it's usually between 1/200 and 1/320 sec depending on the camera (not sure which is it for D5500 but you should know of consult your camera manual). If your surrounding is dark enough and you're using f8 or even more closed down aperture your exposure will effectively be the duration of your flash. Lower down the power of the flash and you'll get shorter duration - which will help in taking sharp focus without "motion blur". If you're shooting without flash consider that your shutter speed when shooting macro should be at least twice as high as your lens focal length. So for a 100mm lens on 1.5 crop body (D5500) you get a focal distance of 150mm - make sure your camera shutter speed when shooting macro without flash is at least 1/300 sec.

If your lens has IS - use it, it can make the difference between perfect image and a ruined one.

Practice your shooting technique and steady shooting - try to lean on something sturdy (e.g. a wall) when you shoot - this will minimise any shake on your end. If this isn't work - try shooting with tripod at least in the beginning until you get more comfortable.

With these tips in mind - go ahead and try some more photos and share the result with us.


----------



## St3phaniex3

nf1 said:


> St3phaniex3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nf1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok - let's start a bit unusual - would you share what was end goal that you had in mind when taking them and what do you like the most in the end results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My goal is to get sharp detailed images with macro. I am going to be purchasing a new camera hopefully soon. I will be doing a slight upgrade to the D5500 which I'm hoping will help with getting sharper images since it doesn't have the anti aliasing filter. My images seem to lack detail which I try to make up for with editing but I feel it makes them look even worse. So I'm hoping the upgrade will help with taking sharper more detailed photographs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As @jake337 pointed out your camera is fine. You can go and purchase better one if would like but D5500 is perfectly capable of taking tak-sharp photos. From your photos actually - the photo of the butterfly is really sharp (maybe not perfect but close to). However it has too much per-pixel contrast due to flash pointed directly at the object.
> 
> If you want to take really sharp images take into account that in macro photography even if you shoot at f16 you still get very shallow DoF. This means you can't use techniques such as focus lock and recompose. You need to take the photo as soon as your AF locks in or use manual focus and this will bring more challenge to your composition. Even if you move a millimeter since your focus locked before you take the image - the end result will be blurry.
> 
> In order to increase DoF - try shooting with closed down apertures - start f5.6 which is the sweet spot for crop sensor cameras before diffraction starts to kick in and then go to f8, f11, f16 - you can compare the difference between DoF and picture sharpness as you go down.
> 
> Next is your shutter speed - as you are shooting with flash use your max sync speed with the flash - it's usually between 1/200 and 1/320 sec depending on the camera (not sure which is it for D5500 but you should know of consult your camera manual). If your surrounding is dark enough and you're using f8 or even more closed down aperture your exposure will effectively be the duration of your flash. Lower down the power of the flash and you'll get shorter duration - which will help in taking sharp focus without "motion blur". If you're shooting without flash consider that your shutter speed when shooting macro should be at least twice as high as your lens focal length. So for a 100mm lens on 1.5 crop body (D5500) you get a focal distance of 150mm - make sure your camera shutter speed when shooting macro without flash is at least 1/300 sec.
> 
> If your lens has IS - use it, it can make the difference between perfect image and a ruined one.
> 
> Practice your shooting technique and steady shooting - try to lean on something sturdy (e.g. a wall) when you shoot - this will minimise any shake on your end. If this isn't work - try shooting with tripod at least in the beginning until you get more comfortable.
> 
> With these tips in mind - go ahead and try some more photos and share the result with us.
Click to expand...


Thank you for all of that. I currently am using the D5200 but want to upgrade to the d5500. I have researched and learned that the d5200(which I am current using) has the anti aliasing filter but the d5500 does not which will result in sharper images. I've mainly been shooting at f/24 ish range or smaller when the setting allow it. I was using the flashes at their most powerful which was probably why I was getting blown out highlights but I wanted a faster shutter speed. I'll have to try a slower shutter speed but that was the problem in the beginning because my lens does not have image stabilization. I'll also look into getting a tripod but I'm not sure I'll use it much if at all for macro it seems like more of a hassle to carry it around make sure it's set up right and in the right position to take a **** of the bug that has already flown away lol. I know I'm just starting out and eventually I'll find what's best for me but it's always great to learn tips and tricks to help learn along the way!

Thank you again!


----------



## jake337

St3phaniex3 said:


> nf1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> St3phaniex3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nf1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok - let's start a bit unusual - would you share what was end goal that you had in mind when taking them and what do you like the most in the end results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My goal is to get sharp detailed images with macro. I am going to be purchasing a new camera hopefully soon. I will be doing a slight upgrade to the D5500 which I'm hoping will help with getting sharper images since it doesn't have the anti aliasing filter. My images seem to lack detail which I try to make up for with editing but I feel it makes them look even worse. So I'm hoping the upgrade will help with taking sharper more detailed photographs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As @jake337 pointed out your camera is fine. You can go and purchase better one if would like but D5500 is perfectly capable of taking tak-sharp photos. From your photos actually - the photo of the butterfly is really sharp (maybe not perfect but close to). However it has too much per-pixel contrast due to flash pointed directly at the object.
> 
> If you want to take really sharp images take into account that in macro photography even if you shoot at f16 you still get very shallow DoF. This means you can't use techniques such as focus lock and recompose. You need to take the photo as soon as your AF locks in or use manual focus and this will bring more challenge to your composition. Even if you move a millimeter since your focus locked before you take the image - the end result will be blurry.
> 
> In order to increase DoF - try shooting with closed down apertures - start f5.6 which is the sweet spot for crop sensor cameras before diffraction starts to kick in and then go to f8, f11, f16 - you can compare the difference between DoF and picture sharpness as you go down.
> 
> Next is your shutter speed - as you are shooting with flash use your max sync speed with the flash - it's usually between 1/200 and 1/320 sec depending on the camera (not sure which is it for D5500 but you should know of consult your camera manual). If your surrounding is dark enough and you're using f8 or even more closed down aperture your exposure will effectively be the duration of your flash. Lower down the power of the flash and you'll get shorter duration - which will help in taking sharp focus without "motion blur". If you're shooting without flash consider that your shutter speed when shooting macro should be at least twice as high as your lens focal length. So for a 100mm lens on 1.5 crop body (D5500) you get a focal distance of 150mm - make sure your camera shutter speed when shooting macro without flash is at least 1/300 sec.
> 
> If your lens has IS - use it, it can make the difference between perfect image and a ruined one.
> 
> Practice your shooting technique and steady shooting - try to lean on something sturdy (e.g. a wall) when you shoot - this will minimise any shake on your end. If this isn't work - try shooting with tripod at least in the beginning until you get more comfortable.
> 
> With these tips in mind - go ahead and try some more photos and share the result with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for all of that. I currently am using the D5200 but want to upgrade to the d5500. I have researched and learned that the d5200(which I am current using) has the anti aliasing filter but the d5500 does not which will result in sharper images. I've mainly been shooting at f/24 ish range or smaller when the setting allow it. I was using the flashes at their most powerful which was probably why I was getting blown out highlights but I wanted a faster shutter speed. I'll have to try a slower shutter speed but that was the problem in the beginning because my lens does not have image stabilization. I'll also look into getting a tripod but I'm not sure I'll use it much if at all for macro it seems like more of a hassle to carry it around make sure it's set up right and in the right position to take a **** of the bug that has already flown away lol. I know I'm just starting out and eventually I'll find what's best for me but it's always great to learn tips and tricks to help learn along the way!
> 
> Thank you again!
Click to expand...


The D90 is older than a D5200 as well.   I've never used a tripod or a lens with IS/OS or whatever that's called.  Here are some images from the D90 and tokina 100mm f2.8 macro with a diffused sb600.


----------



## jake337

Here is a tutorial I recommend to someone getting into macro.

Macrophotography by LordV


----------



## St3phaniex3

jake337 said:


> St3phaniex3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nf1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> St3phaniex3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nf1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok - let's start a bit unusual - would you share what was end goal that you had in mind when taking them and what do you like the most in the end results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My goal is to get sharp detailed images with macro. I am going to be purchasing a new camera hopefully soon. I will be doing a slight upgrade to the D5500 which I'm hoping will help with getting sharper images since it doesn't have the anti aliasing filter. My images seem to lack detail which I try to make up for with editing but I feel it makes them look even worse. So I'm hoping the upgrade will help with taking sharper more detailed photographs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As @jake337 pointed out your camera is fine. You can go and purchase better one if would like but D5500 is perfectly capable of taking tak-sharp photos. From your photos actually - the photo of the butterfly is really sharp (maybe not perfect but close to). However it has too much per-pixel contrast due to flash pointed directly at the object.
> 
> If you want to take really sharp images take into account that in macro photography even if you shoot at f16 you still get very shallow DoF. This means you can't use techniques such as focus lock and recompose. You need to take the photo as soon as your AF locks in or use manual focus and this will bring more challenge to your composition. Even if you move a millimeter since your focus locked before you take the image - the end result will be blurry.
> 
> In order to increase DoF - try shooting with closed down apertures - start f5.6 which is the sweet spot for crop sensor cameras before diffraction starts to kick in and then go to f8, f11, f16 - you can compare the difference between DoF and picture sharpness as you go down.
> 
> Next is your shutter speed - as you are shooting with flash use your max sync speed with the flash - it's usually between 1/200 and 1/320 sec depending on the camera (not sure which is it for D5500 but you should know of consult your camera manual). If your surrounding is dark enough and you're using f8 or even more closed down aperture your exposure will effectively be the duration of your flash. Lower down the power of the flash and you'll get shorter duration - which will help in taking sharp focus without "motion blur". If you're shooting without flash consider that your shutter speed when shooting macro should be at least twice as high as your lens focal length. So for a 100mm lens on 1.5 crop body (D5500) you get a focal distance of 150mm - make sure your camera shutter speed when shooting macro without flash is at least 1/300 sec.
> 
> If your lens has IS - use it, it can make the difference between perfect image and a ruined one.
> 
> Practice your shooting technique and steady shooting - try to lean on something sturdy (e.g. a wall) when you shoot - this will minimise any shake on your end. If this isn't work - try shooting with tripod at least in the beginning until you get more comfortable.
> 
> With these tips in mind - go ahead and try some more photos and share the result with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for all of that. I currently am using the D5200 but want to upgrade to the d5500. I have researched and learned that the d5200(which I am current using) has the anti aliasing filter but the d5500 does not which will result in sharper images. I've mainly been shooting at f/24 ish range or smaller when the setting allow it. I was using the flashes at their most powerful which was probably why I was getting blown out highlights but I wanted a faster shutter speed. I'll have to try a slower shutter speed but that was the problem in the beginning because my lens does not have image stabilization. I'll also look into getting a tripod but I'm not sure I'll use it much if at all for macro it seems like more of a hassle to carry it around make sure it's set up right and in the right position to take a **** of the bug that has already flown away lol. I know I'm just starting out and eventually I'll find what's best for me but it's always great to learn tips and tricks to help learn along the way!
> 
> Thank you again!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The D90 is older than a D5200 as well.   I've never used a tripod or a lens with IS/OS or whatever that's called.  Here are some images from the D90 and tokina 100mm f2.8 macro with a diffused sb600.
> 
> 
> View attachment 116174 View attachment 116175 View attachment 116176
Click to expand...


Those are good photos. What do you use for your editing software? (If any) I'm not really sure what the problem with my photos could be other than I need more and more and MORE practice patience and better technique? I still want to get the d5500 (it was actually the camera I wanted instead of the d5200 but my budget just wouldn't allow it) and hopefully it will help even the tiniest bit!


----------



## jake337

Get your light diffused and you will see a big difference.  I processed those with CS5 but with a pretty basic workflow.


----------



## Overread

St3phaniex3 said:


> I've mainly been shooting at f/24 ish range or smaller when the setting allow it.



If you're looking for ultimate sharpness remember that using smaller apertures only increases the sharpness up to a point. Thereafter diffraction kicks in and will start to soften your results. Yes you get more depth of field, but you lose critical sharpness as a cost. 

Around f13-16 is the limit on most camera/lens setups - although the limit is really set by your standards and output size/medium. If you're only posting 1000pixels on the longest side images online you can likely use smaller apertures without much loss in sharpnes at the final size for display. 


Note also that for shutterspeeds where the flash is the dominant light source you'll mostly be at 1/200sec (the max sync speed of most cameras) because that's the fastest that the camera can expose for with flash being the dominant light source. Faster speeds and the flash has to pulse the light otherwise you get black lines in the shot - and pulsing light takes away power significantly.


----------



## St3phaniex3

Overread said:


> St3phaniex3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've mainly been shooting at f/24 ish range or smaller when the setting allow it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're looking for ultimate sharpness remember that using smaller apertures only increases the sharpness up to a point. Thereafter diffraction kicks in and will start to soften your results. Yes you get more depth of field, but you lose critical sharpness as a cost.
> 
> Around f13-16 is the limit on most camera/lens setups - although the limit is really set by your standards and output size/medium. If you're only posting 1000pixels on the longest side images online you can likely use smaller apertures without much loss in sharpnes at the final size for display.
> 
> 
> Note also that for shutterspeeds where the flash is the dominant light source you'll mostly be at 1/200sec (the max sync speed of most cameras) because that's the fastest that the camera can expose for with flash being the dominant light source. Faster speeds and the flash has to pulse the light otherwise you get black lines in the shot - and pulsing light takes away power significantly.
Click to expand...


Thank you! I guess using such a small aperture size was playing a big roll in my dislike for my image results! Sorry I'm such a beginner :/ 

Thank you ALL!!! You've all been very helpful! Once I get my new camera and use the RIGHT settings I'll be posting the results!!


----------



## davholla

St3phaniex3 said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> St3phaniex3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've mainly been shooting at f/24 ish range or smaller when the setting allow it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're looking for ultimate sharpness remember that using smaller apertures only increases the sharpness up to a point. Thereafter diffraction kicks in and will start to soften your results. Yes you get more depth of field, but you lose critical sharpness as a cost.
> 
> Around f13-16 is the limit on most camera/lens setups - although the limit is really set by your standards and output size/medium. If you're only posting 1000pixels on the longest side images online you can likely use smaller apertures without much loss in sharpnes at the final size for display.
> 
> 
> Note also that for shutterspeeds where the flash is the dominant light source you'll mostly be at 1/200sec (the max sync speed of most cameras) because that's the fastest that the camera can expose for with flash being the dominant light source. Faster speeds and the flash has to pulse the light otherwise you get black lines in the shot - and pulsing light takes away power significantly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you! I guess using such a small aperture size was playing a big roll in my dislike for my image results! Sorry I'm such a beginner :/
> 
> Thank you ALL!!! You've all been very helpful! Once I get my new camera and use the RIGHT settings I'll be posting the results!!
Click to expand...

Don't worry everyone makes that mistake.  I would suggest (and I wish I had done this) get something small and change the settings until you are happy.  I did that the other day with a stick insect (I will upload later) and realized that I have been using sub optimal settings for some time.


----------



## Overread

It's boring but you can setup a flat subject with detail (like a coin) at 45 degrees to the camera (so that you 100% will see the plane of focus) and can then take a shot at varying apertures; the only thing that need change is the flash distance/power (ISO low shutterspeed standard 1/200sec). That can give you a chance to compare different apertures in a controlled test.

Like I said its "dull" but it lets you see the actual comparison rather than having different lighting/subjects confusing the issue.


----------



## St3phaniex3

Finally got my new camera (D5500) and I love it!! Here are some new photos I took earlier today. Let me know what you think.


----------



## DogDaze

you guys pics look good, but with a macro lens or extension tubes, teleconverter or combination the Depth of Field is so shallow, it physically will not let you capture your whole image in focus unless your subject is flat and perpendicular to the camera. post processing (focus stacking) in photo shop is a requirement to get your whole image in focus at 1:1 or greater


----------



## St3phaniex3

DogDaze said:


> you guys pics look good, but with a macro lens or extension tubes, teleconverter or combination the Depth of Field is so shallow, it physically will not let you capture your whole image in focus unless your subject is flat and perpendicular to the camera. post processing (focus stacking) in photo shop is a requirement to get your whole image in focus at 1:1 or greater




I've never done focus stacking and wouldn't even know where to begin. I don't know how to do much in photoshop either. 

I guess even though I most likely won't get much (if any) feedback I'll post some new pics.


----------



## jcdeboever

Those are nice. #3/is my favorite

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## St3phaniex3

jcdeboever said:


> Those are nice. #3/is my favorite
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk




Well thank you!! I have no idea what it is but it didn't seem to mind me and the camera


----------



## Peeb

St3phaniex3 said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are nice. #3/is my favorite
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thank you!! I have no idea what it is but it didn't seem to mind me and the camera
Click to expand...

I have identified it.

It appears to be a bug.

Very fine set, there.


----------



## petrochemist

Peeb said:


> I have identified it.
> 
> It appears to be a bug.
> 
> Very fine set, there.



A rather vague identification but actually totally incorrect.
No 3 is a fly of some sort, I think a robber fly.

I don't think any of these are technically bugs, though two are probably close enough for the lay man.


----------



## davholla

Number 3 is quite good but if you had been parallel it would have looked better.  I like the fact that you can see the halteres.


----------



## Peeb

petrochemist said:


> I don't think any of these are* technically* bugs, though two are probably close enough for the lay man.


Didn't really know that 'bug' was a technical term, so I supposed I've learned something.

Bugs, critters, whatever- it's still a fine set.  Well done St3phaniex3


----------



## DogDaze

St3phaniex3 said:


> DogDaze said:
> 
> 
> 
> you guys pics look good, but with a macro lens or extension tubes, teleconverter or combination the Depth of Field is so shallow, it physically will not let you capture your whole image in focus unless your subject is flat and perpendicular to the camera. post processing (focus stacking) in photo shop is a requirement to get your whole image in focus at 1:1 or greater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never done focus stacking and wouldn't even know where to begin. I don't know how to do much in photoshop either.
> 
> I guess even though I most likely won't get much (if any) feedback I'll post some new pics.
> 
> *Awesome pics. im a complete noob to the macro world and also in photoshoping 10 images together to get one beautiful in focus picture. if you are interested in it i would suggest looking up don kom on youtube his work is impeccable and he shoots snowflakes at up to 12:1 (most are 6:1 i think) HANDHELD and goes into great detail how he does it, it is really beautiful if you have not seen it before*
Click to expand...


----------



## St3phaniex3

petrochemist said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have identified it.
> 
> It appears to be a bug.
> 
> Very fine set, there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A rather vague identification but actually totally incorrect.
> No 3 is a fly of some sort, I think a robber fly.
> 
> I don't think any of these are technically bugs, though two are probably close enough for the lay man.
Click to expand...




I believe you are correct about it being a robber fly. 




Peeb said:


> petrochemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think any of these are* technically* bugs, though two are probably close enough for the lay man.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't really know that 'bug' was a technical term, so I supposed I've learned something.
> 
> Bugs, critters, whatever- it's still a fine set.  Well done St3phaniex3
Click to expand...


Lol thank you!!




davholla said:


> Number 3 is quite good but if you had been parallel it would have looked better.  I like the fact that you can see the halteres.



I wish I could have got more angles but with only using a 60mm lens (unfortunately can't afford a longer focal length at the moment) as soon as I started to move, he flew off  I was actually quite lucky to get a photo of him at all. I was actually following a butterfly  that wanted absolutely nothing to do with me lol and when I decided to back off I looked down just as this little guy was landing (yes he's on a rope. Landlords marking property line for future fence)


----------



## St3phaniex3

Almost forgot about this little guy 

Not the best picture ever but I thought it was a cute little thing!

I bet no one would ever guess that I am actually terrified of bugs lol


----------



## DogDaze

couple of my first non-stacked pics with the 105mm. 

 


i did not have all the focal points with the tiny flowers to get a clear stack and i thought the spider was going to jump on me so i was quite shakey and this was the only half acceptable pic


----------



## petrochemist

Peeb said:


> petrochemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think any of these are* technically* bugs, though two are probably close enough for the lay man.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't really know that 'bug' was a technical term, so I supposed I've learned something.
> 
> Bugs, critters, whatever- it's still a fine set.  Well done St3phaniex3
Click to expand...


I didn't have my source material at work, so didn't want to risk miss quoting the definition. My Dictionary of Nature defines a Bug as 'An insect with piercing mouthparts and thickened forewings'. It goes on to say 'In biology, a bug is a particular kind of insect. Bugs belong to the order Hemiptera which contains about 50,000 species. '  
I have to admit I'd misused the term often enough before finding out.


----------



## jake337

DogDaze said:


> you guys pics look good, but with a macro lens or extension tubes, teleconverter or combination the Depth of Field is so shallow, it physically will not let you capture your whole image in focus unless your subject is flat and perpendicular to the camera. post processing (focus stacking) in photo shop is a requirement to get your whole image in focus at 1:1 or greater



That's why I really want anext 85mm f2.8 pce tilt/shift macro.


----------



## St3phaniex3

DogDaze said:


> couple of my first non-stacked pics with the 105mm. View attachment 117640 View attachment 117641
> i did not have all the focal points with the tiny flowers to get a clear stack and i thought the spider was going to jump on me so i was quite shakey and this was the only half acceptable pic




What's the working distance with the 105mm? I didn't think it would be close enough for things to jump on you.


----------



## DogDaze

St3phaniex3 said:


> DogDaze said:
> 
> 
> 
> couple of my first non-stacked pics with the 105mm. View attachment 117640 View attachment 117641
> i did not have all the focal points with the tiny flowers to get a clear stack and i thought the spider was going to jump on me so i was quite shakey and this was the only half acceptable pic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the working distance with the 105mm? I didn't think it would be close enough for things to jump on you.
Click to expand...


at 1:1 it is 12 inches, that spider was over my head a little bit it started doing its dance a couple time and freaked me out im no fan of spiders


----------



## DogDaze

my first try at free hand shooting then focus stacking, good lord i need a lot of practice 105mm with 68mm of extension this a good pic to see improvement over time with cause it is NOT good be gentle with critique im a NOOB I think i missed about three depths. what is so easy on a rail is so hard in the hand


----------



## kalgra

St3phaniex3 said:


> Almost forgot about this little guy
> 
> Not the best picture ever but I thought it was a cute little thing!
> 
> I bet no one would ever guess that I am actually terrified of bugs lol
> 
> View attachment 117630



I think you are off to a great start! Much better than what most of first macros looked like. I tried a Yongnuo ring flash for a bit and it helped me in the beginning but after a while I found it to be too harsh and too clinical looking. I just bought a cheap $16 6"x6" softbox that Velcros onto the front of the flash and started getting much better results. I am very new myself, been at it less than a year but im starting to learn that the more diffused the light the better, especially on bugs with highly reflective parts. 

Perhaps this was mentioned above but one think I have discovered is my lens has a sweet spot for sharpness that is between f/9-11, My guess is this is same for all macro lens if not most lenses in general. When I first started I shot everything with a ring flash at f/22 and couldn't ever figure out why my shots where never as sharp as other peoples I was seeing that I knew where not focus stacking. It didn't take me long to figure out that sometimes its better to use a lower fstop and sacrifice some dof to gain more sharpness. For me I find this to be helpful when I know im going to crop in really close anyway.

Looking forward to seeing more shots as you progress


----------



## DogDaze

well got my r1c1 flash in last week and sure has helped being able to raise the fstop a little bit. pictures seem to be a bit better, but have entered into to a whole new realm of learning. I think I have hit information overload and just need to practice.


----------

