Another try getting everything in focus.
- Thread starter Jack56
- Start date
Jack56 said:
Still not enough depth of field.
If you are using a macro lens, depth of field is measured in millimeters and smaller. In order to work within the space allowed, you would need to keep the camera sensor plane parallel to the flower bud in your picture.
The distance from the base of the bud to the sensor would have to be the same as the distance from the tip of the bud to the sensor. Focus maybe halfway into the water drop, and you will see more "in focus" or "sharp". But, the sides of the bud that curve away would become "unsharp".
The only other alternatives are focus stacking or a tilt-shift lens.
If you focus stack, you will need a tripod and rail setup with a micometer style adjustment to move the camera and lens in and out so you do not touch the focusing adjustment on the lens (AF off). Changing the focusing with the lens would alter your field of view.
There are people here that could offer a much more in depth
answer to your question, but that's how I understand it.
Upvote
0
There's an excellent depth of field table at http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html - I don't know the lens focal length or distance from the camera's sensor (from the top line), but you can set the table for yours. at 30cm away, a 100mm lens will give no depth of field at all. Going to f/22 or f/32 will give only a small depth of field, but possibly enough. The ISO will need to increase to achieve this, how far depends on the amount of image noise you are willing to tolerate.
The noise and sharpness are subjective, and it will be a compromise.
The noise and sharpness are subjective, and it will be a compromise.
Upvote
0
What lens & body were you using? How far away were you from the bud? For example, if you were using an aps-c body that would give a greater DOF than a FF body. (or is it the other way around?)
If you were using the MP-E 65 macro it would have different capabilities and answers than if you were using a 180mm f3.5 macro. Etc.
Nice photo of the water drops though. Can almost see you in the reflection. Good luck. Mark
If you were using the MP-E 65 macro it would have different capabilities and answers than if you were using a 180mm f3.5 macro. Etc.
Nice photo of the water drops though. Can almost see you in the reflection. Good luck. Mark
Upvote
0
The two things you almost never have enough when shooting at macro distances are depth of field and light. The post by danski0224 hits the nail on the head.
Upvote
0
I am telling, you...learn to embrace it! If you are always chasing perfection of one thing, it'll not only cost you a fortune, it will keep your eye off the ball, which is to make a piece of art.
Only took me 8 years to learn to do that with noise
Only took me 8 years to learn to do that with noise
Upvote
0
Neuro, I'm hoping you'll explain a bit.....neuroanatomist said:
I'll confirm that.danski0224 said:.....If you focus stack, ...... Changing the focusing with the lens would alter your field of view.
.... depth
I've been experimenting with focus stacking, manually focusing the lens tethered (actually, automated steps, manually pre-selected), camera position fixed on a tripod, extension tubes to get real close up, real shallow depth of field.
There is a definite shift in field of view, I think it's what is known as focus breathing (not sure on this), but it seems to me to be more like focal length breathing, or a focal length shift.
The view of the subject changed as though I had zoomed, 40mm pancake was the lens.
Was the apparent zoom effect an optical, lens zoom, or a zoom with your feet effect?
But doesn't this method also change the field of view?danski0224 said:.....
If you focus stack, you will need a tripod and rail setup with a micometer style adjustment to move the camera and lens in and out so you do not touch the focusing adjustment on the lens (AF off).
.... depth
Quick check right now as you read this, lean back, then forward, what happens to your field of view of your monitor?
---
It seems to me that both methods achieve one thing the same, that is the movement of the lens' focusing element the same same amount relative to the subject.
If that is so, then what other advantage(s) does a macro rail set up have over lens focus stepping?
---
Neuro? Please? Pretty Please?
Upvote
0
Another attempt.
I am pleased with it. First I helped nature a bit. I straightened the volunteer a bit and gave her a cuddle. Then I used the following settings:
Iso 100 - f/8 - 1/10 sec (no wind, pfff) and I used the 100mm f/2.8 L lens.
Ok, with stacking everything will be sharp, but I like it enough this way. Thanks for all the lessons. I wrote some notes in my little book.
Iso 160 - f/8 - 1/20 sec
I am pleased with it. First I helped nature a bit. I straightened the volunteer a bit and gave her a cuddle. Then I used the following settings:
Iso 100 - f/8 - 1/10 sec (no wind, pfff) and I used the 100mm f/2.8 L lens.
Ok, with stacking everything will be sharp, but I like it enough this way. Thanks for all the lessons. I wrote some notes in my little book.
Iso 160 - f/8 - 1/20 sec
Upvote
0
Tripod/monopod, narrow aperture, prime lens and if you shoot RAW, you may want to add some sharpness when you process the image.
Upvote
0
dawgfanjeff said:
I'm with you. It's hard to get everything in focus in macro-world, and if you need or want to do so it takes considerable effort, as explained by others. But the same reasons that make this difficult make it easier to obtain different effects - creating artistic images by focusing on tiny details and blurring out the rest. It's all a matter of taste, of course, but in these photos it strikes me as being far more effective if you can get a drop or two in focus and let the rest fade into the background than if you make the drops as in focus and thus as (un)important as everything else (or the tip of the bud vs the rest, etc.). The trick is then to be very precise with your composition and focusing (and technique - depending on the distances and apertures involved, the slightest movement by the camera or the subject can screw it up. Jack56 may like the retakes more, especially the first one, because the water drop and the tip of the bud (an iris?) are close enough to be in focus and are the details he wanted to draw attention to - the base of the bud isn't in focus at all, and, as it's unimportant to the overall image he was aiming for, it's aesthetically preferable for it not to be in focus (I'm just guessing, though - maybe he really wants it all to be in focus...).
Upvote
0
