Macro Photo thread

[Whitefly Swatter]

Somethin with no legs !

Heads by crosswisecom, on Flickr

[blod]

Two worker bees,

Edited by blod on Thursday 7th October 20:22

[dibbly dobbler]

^^^ That's very good blod What equipment are you using ?

[dibbly dobbler]

My first attempted at droplet snapping - bloody frustrating it was too !

[blod]

dibbly dobbler said:

^^^ That's very good blod What equipment are you using ?

Nikon D700, a borrowed 60mm Nikkor macro, profoto pro-7b pack and two heads. The studio was a sheet of A4 bright white printer paper. Here's another one.

[dibbly dobbler]

Excellent again! Interesting that your dof looks fairly shallow on that one even at F32...

[blod]

Yes, I thought that I'd get more depth than that. The lens was stopped right down.

[dibbly dobbler]

blod said:

Yes, I thought that I'd get more depth than that. The lens was stopped right down.

Don't get me wrong it's a great pic, just surprised the whole of the beastie was not in focus. No doubt some brainbox will be along shortly to tell us why

[fathomfive]

dibbly dobbler said:

blod said:

Yes, I thought that I'd get more depth than that. The lens was stopped right down.

Don't get me wrong it's a great pic, just surprised the whole of the beastie was not in focus. No doubt some brainbox will be along shortly to tell us why

Just the way of macro lenses methinks - even at f32, dof is always going to be a problem with something as big as a bee. Maybe compromise by going for f11-f16 and shooting side-on. Plus, at f32 the resolution of the lens is probably reduced a fair bit. A couple of pages back someone posted up a link and some info on diffraction - it's worth a look

For me, anyway, I like the picture. I doubt it would look better if the whole of the bee was in focus head-on.

I'd like to know how you got the little feckers to sit still enough though

[dibbly dobbler]

fathomfive said:

dibbly dobbler said:

blod said:

Yes, I thought that I'd get more depth than that. The lens was stopped right down.

Don't get me wrong it's a great pic, just surprised the whole of the beastie was not in focus. No doubt some brainbox will be along shortly to tell us why

Just the way of macro lenses methinks - even at f32, dof is always going to be a problem with something as big as a bee. Maybe compromise by going for f11-f16 and shooting side-on. Plus, at f32 the resolution of the lens is probably reduced a fair bit. A couple of pages back someone posted up a link and some info on diffraction - it's worth a look

For me, anyway, I like the picture. I doubt it would look better if the whole of the bee was in focus head-on.

I'd like to know how you got the little feckers to sit still enough though

Or maybe it's a giant bee and is 6 inches long

[fathomfive]

dibbly dobbler said:

fathomfive said:

dibbly dobbler said:

blod said:

Yes, I thought that I'd get more depth than that. The lens was stopped right down.

Don't get me wrong it's a great pic, just surprised the whole of the beastie was not in focus. No doubt some brainbox will be along shortly to tell us why

Just the way of macro lenses methinks - even at f32, dof is always going to be a problem with something as big as a bee. Maybe compromise by going for f11-f16 and shooting side-on. Plus, at f32 the resolution of the lens is probably reduced a fair bit. A couple of pages back someone posted up a link and some info on diffraction - it's worth a look

For me, anyway, I like the picture. I doubt it would look better if the whole of the bee was in focus head-on.

I'd like to know how you got the little feckers to sit still enough though

Or maybe it's a giant bee and is 6 inches long

Oh beehive

[Pvapour]

fathomfive said:

dibbly dobbler said:

fathomfive said:

dibbly dobbler said:

blod said:

Yes, I thought that I'd get more depth than that. The lens was stopped right down.

Don't get me wrong it's a great pic, just surprised the whole of the beastie was not in focus. No doubt some brainbox will be along shortly to tell us why

Just the way of macro lenses methinks - even at f32, dof is always going to be a problem with something as big as a bee. Maybe compromise by going for f11-f16 and shooting side-on. Plus, at f32 the resolution of the lens is probably reduced a fair bit. A couple of pages back someone posted up a link and some info on diffraction - it's worth a look

For me, anyway, I like the picture. I doubt it would look better if the whole of the bee was in focus head-on.

I'd like to know how you got the little feckers to sit still enough though

Or maybe it's a giant bee and is 6 inches long

Oh beehive

no matter what your wife says DD, 6 inches is not giant

[dibbly dobbler]

Pvapour said:

fathomfive said:

dibbly dobbler said:

fathomfive said:

dibbly dobbler said:

blod said:

Yes, I thought that I'd get more depth than that. The lens was stopped right down.

Don't get me wrong it's a great pic, just surprised the whole of the beastie was not in focus. No doubt some brainbox will be along shortly to tell us why

Just the way of macro lenses methinks - even at f32, dof is always going to be a problem with something as big as a bee. Maybe compromise by going for f11-f16 and shooting side-on. Plus, at f32 the resolution of the lens is probably reduced a fair bit. A couple of pages back someone posted up a link and some info on diffraction - it's worth a look

For me, anyway, I like the picture. I doubt it would look better if the whole of the bee was in focus head-on.

I'd like to know how you got the little feckers to sit still enough though

Or maybe it's a giant bee and is 6 inches long

Oh beehive

no matter what your wife says DD, 6 inches is not giant

This thread has gone bad for me and I'm off!

[LongQ]

dibbly dobbler said:

blod said:

Yes, I thought that I'd get more depth than that. The lens was stopped right down.

Don't get me wrong it's a great pic, just surprised the whole of the beastie was not in focus. No doubt some brainbox will be along shortly to tell us why

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

The perceived depth of field will increase as usual with f8 giving twice the value of f4, f16 twice the value of f8 and f32 twice the value of f16.

However when you start of af f4 with the DoF being about 3/5ths of 4/5ths of hardly anything at all you still end up with a very small number.

Have a play with the calculator in the link posted.

Edited by LongQ on Friday 8th October 15:05

[blod]

fathomfive said:

I'd like to know how you got the little feckers to sit still enough though

It took me a while to work that one out

[dibbly dobbler]

LongQ said:

dibbly dobbler said:

blod said:

Yes, I thought that I'd get more depth than that. The lens was stopped right down.

Don't get me wrong it's a great pic, just surprised the whole of the beastie was not in focus. No doubt some brainbox will be along shortly to tell us why

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

The perceived depth of field will increase as usual with f8 giving twice the value of f4, f16 twice the value of f8 and f32 twice the value of f16.

However when you start of af f4 with the DoF being about 3/5ths of 4/5ths of hardly anything at all you still end up with a very small number.

Have a play with the calculator in the link posted.

Edited by LongQ on Friday 8th October 15:05

Heh - I had a wee bet on with myself that you would step in on this one LQ

According to my rough calculations using 'dofmaster' I would have expected blod's pic to have around an inch of dof which is surely enough to cover a bee!?

[conspiracy mode]Or maybe they are all fake bees 2 inches long and made of plastic... that's why they stood still .... [/conspiracy mode]

[LongQ]

dibbly dobbler said:

LongQ said:

dibbly dobbler said:

blod said:

Yes, I thought that I'd get more depth than that. The lens was stopped right down.

Don't get me wrong it's a great pic, just surprised the whole of the beastie was not in focus. No doubt some brainbox will be along shortly to tell us why

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

The perceived depth of field will increase as usual with f8 giving twice the value of f4, f16 twice the value of f8 and f32 twice the value of f16.

However when you start of af f4 with the DoF being about 3/5ths of 4/5ths of hardly anything at all you still end up with a very small number.

Have a play with the calculator in the link posted.

Edited by LongQ on Friday 8th October 15:05

Heh - I had a wee bet on with myself that you would step in on this one LQ

According to my rough calculations using 'dofmaster' I would have expected blod's pic to have around an inch of dof which is surely enough to cover a bee!?

[conspiracy mode]Or maybe they are all fake bees 2 inches long and made of plastic... that's why they stood still .... [/conspiracy mode]

Hehe.

Well, what was the subject distance? You'd have to be some way back to get an inch DoF which in turn would suggest the final result to be a heavy crop.

[fathomfive]

blod said:

fathomfive said:

I'd like to know how you got the little feckers to sit still enough though

It took me a while to work that one out

You've 'shopped the 6-inch nail out that's holding him down, haven't you?

[Ed_P]

One from this afternoon:

Garden-Spider-and-Wasp by Ed Phillips 01, on Flickr

[blod]

fathomfive said:

blod said:

fathomfive said:

I'd like to know how you got the little feckers to sit still enough though

It took me a while to work that one out

You've 'shopped the 6-inch nail out that's holding him down, haven't you?

No, she flew away after the photographs were taken.