DSLRUsers.com

Been a while since I last posted, I hope everyone is well.

Struggling with sharpness on Macro shots, not sure if its from my older equipment, the size of the subject or my crappy technique. Any help to get better results is appreciated.

I am using; D70s, 50mm 1.8, 68mm extension, SB600 triggered remotely from onboard flash, camera and flash handheld, shooting full manual, 1000 ISO.

Here are the images (subjects are about 3-4mm big), if you try and look at hairs on the legs it all gets a bit fuzzy:





Cheers

First thing, when looking at the 100% photos, it looks like in both cases the focal point is just in front of the spider.

Now, with the extension tubes on - your focal plane will be only 1 or 2mm. You could also try a slightly longer lens with the tubes, to increase your focal depth. Also, to increase the depth of focus maybe try the smallest F-stop you can

Cheers

Tommy has already highlighted the biggest issue...the focal point. I would agree with using a smaller aperture to extend your DOF, but at the same tiem i would say to maybe shorten the extension if possible

edneeves wrote:not sure if its from my older equipment, the size of the subject or my crappy technique. Any help to get better results is appreciated.

When in doubt, always start by making sure your technique is correct.

Tommy has already given you some great advice.

When you're shooting macros hand held, focus becomes a very difficult task. As Tommy explained, your available depth of field is very shallow. Even the slightest movement on your part can be enough to throw your focus out, and so the use of a tripod will help here. If you must shoot hand held, rather than adjusting the focus ring to get attain focus, try rocking gently back and forth.

Note Tommy's observations regarding your aperture settings too; this will help with increase the apparent DoF.

Also pay attention to your angle of view. Shooting front on, the animal will probably have greater depth (front to rear) and thus the problem of your DoF is exacerbated. By way of contrast, a different angle of view - say, from above - will flatten that depth, and thus help to reduce the problem. Of course, a different angle of view may not be what you're wanting to shoot.

I agree with TommyG, but in addition, your shutter speed is 1/40 &1/60 sec respectively. The flash Synch on the D70s is 1/500s, so that's where you should be. This could lead to some motion blur (either yours or the subject's) You are lighting with flash, so WB should be Flash, not Auto. Handlheld camera is also an issue. With the tiny DOF at these distances, the slightest wobble as you press the shutter is liable to move your sweetspot off the subject.

Have a look at this thread for some photos I took at a similar scale a few days ago. The first two were single flash (SB800) so is comparable to to your setup. I was on a tripos though. Flash was handheld. The flash was about 5cm from the subject & fired at M1/1. I managed to get f45 that way. Don't know if your lens is capable of getting that small. I still missed the focus on the first though. The later ones were multiple flash so I could get down to f57 which got me a little more DOF. Of course, my subject was not about to jump away

I have the lens stopped down to 20 & 22 which is as low as it will go. I will try a flash sync of 1/500 next time to see if that removes any slight motion blur, I also see what everyone is saying with the focal point.

I might try and take a tonne of pics next time to see if I can get the focus bang on.

Cheers for the feedback.

Also just noticed the diopter is adjusted all the way to the bottom. This might be contributing to the miss in focus point.

Will adjust it in the morning and see what difference it makes.

Ed, I'm not sure if this is your first foray into macro or not and if it isn't, I'm sorry if this is telling you stuff you already know. My advice would be to hone your macro skills with larger subjects and once you know what works and what doesn't, start working with smaller subjects.

As others have mentioned, depth of field can be a problem. With macro photography, depth of field is based purely on magnification and f/stop (focal length has no bearing, other than its effect on magnification). The greater the magnification (for the same f/stop) the shallower the depth of field. The "smaller" the f/stop (larger aperture), for the same magnification, the shallower the depth of field. For the size of the spiders you have there, your magnification needs to be very large and as such you end up with almost no depth of field, even if you go for f/22 or "greater".

To illustrate the point, here's an uncropped shot of a tiny spider (similar to yours) that was shot with a Nikon D300 with Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 macro lens with stacked Kenko tubes of 36, 20 and 12mm. It was shot at f/22 (note that is f/22 on the lens, the f/stop is much "larger" if you take the effects of the tubes into account). The lines in the background are millimetre graduations on a ruler and so as the frame is 10mm across, the magnification is around 2.4:1, i.e. 2.4 times life size. Now, while the top of the spider appears sharp, the graduations on the ruler do not. The spider is only around 1mm high, so the depth of field is less than 1mm.


Now, while using a "larger" f/stop (smaller aperture) will increase the depth of field, it introduces diffraction which can cause the image to look less sharp. This means that basically when you increase magnification, you end up in a lose/lose situation. Depth of field decreases and the only thing you can do about it ("larger" f/stop) works against the overall sharpness of the image. Of course, if you can keep as much of the subject in one plane, you can also keep more of it looking sharp.

So... while shooting really small subjects can be fun, you'll get a lot more sharpness (and satisfaction) with larger macro subjects.

ATJ,

Whilst much of your info is not new to me you certainly put it well so thanks (always good to have a reminder too). One thing I didn't know was the loss of sharpness when you stop the camera down (or up whichever it is, ie larger f #).

Does this mean that when I am using a 50mm with full extension I am always going to get an inherant unshaprness if using it at f22?

Is this what I am experiencing coupled with a focus point miss?

Is there room for improving the sharpness?

 BTW I am not "new" to macro, have been doing it for about a year now, however I am trying to hone the skills to deliver consistent results.

I am getting images like the one above on a consistent basis but most tend to be lacking sharpness.

Reason for such small subjects is due to my garden layout at the moment, its stripped bare of plants as I am in the middle of a complete renovation. Therefore the only things floating around are tiny jumpers on the rendered walls of the house. Plus they are the only ones that hang around to be photographed for any length of time

Ed,

edneeves wrote:Does this mean that when I am using a 50mm with full extension I am always going to get an inherant unshaprness if using it at f22?

Always? Perhaps, with that lens, but each lens that you have (or use) will have its own behavioural characteristics. As a general observation, what Andrew has said is 100% correct, but the degree of IQ degradation that you may experience could vary from quite a lot, to not all that noticeable.

There's a trade-off between needed DoF and IQ degradation at higher aperture values, and the best way for you to decide what's going to work for you is to just have a play and see what results you can achieve under controlled conditions, using a static subject with a variety of settings.

Is this what I am experiencing coupled with a focus point miss?

Quite possibly

Is there room for improving the sharpness?

I would think so.

Cheers Gary.

Just went a grabbed a ruler from my toolbox to see what difference a static object made and the sharpness didn't seem to improve. Had another go this morning after playing with the diopter and I think its helped with the focal point issue slightly although I am not confident its 100% fixed.

Pictures look great when on the screen, but any zooming in 30%+ delivers poor results. I would assume the D70s would be able to replicate the hairs on a spider at 30% shouldn't it?

How do I see where the focal plane is on a pic, having a look on this latest one and cannot figure it out.

Ed,

Gary has already answered your questions and I agree with his answers. I would add that the effect of diffraction will depend somewhat on the lens but also on the subject. Lenses all tend to have sweet points and some work their best at moderate apertures and some seem to handle well even with small apertures ("larger" f/stop).

The subject can also influence how sharp something appears. Somethings look sharp even when they are not. Other things look unsharp even if you nailed the focus - compound eyes of insects are difficult to get to look sharp. Which brings up a good point. Sharpness is largely subjective and it is apparent sharpness than absolute sharpness that matters.

As the others have said, the most likely reason for the apparent lack of sharpness in your images above is missing the focus point in the first place. The advice to correct that is spot on - you have to secure the camera so the distance between the lens and the subject doesn't change. A tripod can work well. With the shots I took of a tiny spider, I mounted the camera on a light stand and moved the subject around on a piece of paper or the ruler. This meant I could keep the lens to subject distance constant and I only had to worry about keeping the spider in the frame.

Another thing to think about is the angle you are to the subject. With such a narrow depth of field, you want to keep as much of the subject within the bounds of the depth of field. This may mean shooting from directly above so that the top of the spider is pretty much within the same plane.

If you are going to shoot at an angle and as such only get some of the subject looking sharp, concentrate on the eyes for the focus. It is most important for the eyes to look sharp as this is where the viewers eyes are drawn.

Ed,

edneeves wrote:Pictures look great when on the screen, but any zooming in 30%+ delivers poor results. I would assume the D70s would be able to replicate the hairs on a spider at 30% shouldn't it?

What, exactly, do you mean by zooming in 30% ?

if you're viewing the image at greater than 100% magnification, then you are actually doing yourself a disservice. At that point, you've gone beyond the image's native resolution, and you will be observing pixels, rather than the image.

Just try shooting something like a ruler or a newspaper page, and make a number of exposures using different aperture settings. Have a look at the apparent sharpness, and see what you can doscern.

Do this from straight on - with the subject parallel to the focal plane, and then repeat it with the focal plane at an angle of 90 degrees to the subject. This latter test will let you see exactly where your point of focus actually is, as well as giving you a good idea of what the depth of field is at any given aperture.

The D70 - in either model - doesn't capture the focus point in use in the raw image. Set the camera to the centre focus point so at least you know where it is.

Again, it's best of you can do all of this with the camera mounted on a semi-decent tripod, so that everything is working from a common (and solid) base.

Thanks everyone

Time to get practicing!

edneeves wrote:Pictures look great when on the screen, but any zooming in 30%+ delivers poor results. I would assume the D70s would be able to replicate the hairs on a spider at 30% shouldn't it?

Which nicely defines "depth of field".

As I mentioned above, it is all about apparent sharpness rather than absolute sharpness. When you take a shot, only a single place is truly in focus. The area in front and the area behind may appear to be sharp. How sharp it appears depends on how closely you look. For example, take a photo and look at it as a thumbnail. It may appear to be sharp. Now look at it sized to fit your PC screen. It may look less sharp. Now look at it at 100%. It will look even less sharp. Of course, the sharper the original image, the sharper it will appear under close inspection.

Here's a really good write-up on depth of field: http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html

gstark wrote:Do this from straight on - with the subject parallel to the focal plane, and then repeat it with the focal plane at an angle of 90 degrees to the subject. This latter test will let you see exactly where your point of focus actually is, as well as giving you a good idea of what the depth of field is at any given aperture.

Ed, Here are some shots (I prepared earlier) that demonstrate what Gary is saying:

The ruler was at a 45º angle to the focal plane. Now, these were shot with magnification at 1:1 and show the depth of field. Increase the magnification and the depth of field will decrease. Also, if I made those images larger, the depth of field would be less.

Ed,

In that last photo, if you look at the wall itself I think the focal point is just in front of the legs of the spider.

It is difficult to see however as there if fairly low contrast between the ridges etc of the render - but if you look closely it appears just a little sharper there

Cheers

I was struggling with the ruler so went for a dog biscuit instead. I am struggling with the focal point still but I will attempt to improve on this.

I did some tests to work out where the lack of sharpness stopped with the combination I have. It appears that anything above f14 (up to f22) loses serious amounts of sharpness, so I will be trying with f14 for the afternoon to see whether this improves things (if I can get my focusing sorted )

Heres 100% crops of f22 and f14:





It looks like a big difference to me, or am I seeing things.

The difference is noticeable.
Are you still hand holding these?

Wink wrote:The difference is noticeable.
Are you still hand holding these?

No these were off the tripod.

All others are left hand flash, right hand camera.

These 2 were taken at f14, I also took a fair few past and in front of where I thought I should be taking them to hopefully give me a sharp shot. Still not 100% but much better.

Thanks everyone for your help, I think the results are much better than where I was last night, this is like macro therapy





Photobucket does something with the images too I think as they look a bit fake.

I don't think the head could get much sharper on those two!

Ed,

These are much better.

You may now go to the cashier and collect your fly-buys.

gstark wrote:Ed,

These are much better.

You may now go to the cashier and collect your fly-buys.

WOO HOO!!! CAAAA-CHIIIIIIIIING

looking good!!

edneeves wrote:All others are left hand flash, right hand camera.

This also sounds like a bit of a the problem as well. Your camera is much more stable in two hands if you are trying this hand held.

Your latest images are great.
Keep up the good work

colin_12 wrote:

edneeves wrote:All others are left hand flash, right hand camera.

This also sounds like a bit of a the problem as well. Your camera is much more stable in two hands if you are trying this hand held.

Yeah I hear what your saying, and sometimes I get the shakes because the camera is quite heavy with all that extension. The problem is that the flash doesn't light past the end of the lens on the shoe so I have to hold it at the end of the lens and trigger via commander mode.

Sometimes I can rest the lens on something which makes a HUGE difference.

Keep looking at homemade diffuser thread with a view to have a go at one.

edneeves wrote:

colin_12 wrote:

edneeves wrote:All others are left hand flash, right hand camera.

This also sounds like a bit of a the problem as well. Your camera is much more stable in two hands if you are trying this hand held.

Yeah I hear what your saying, and sometimes I get the shakes because the camera is quite heavy with all that extension. The problem is that the flash doesn't light past the end of the lens on the shoe so I have to hold it at the end of the lens and trigger via commander mode.

Sometimes I can rest the lens on something which makes a HUGE difference.

Keep looking at homemade diffuser thread with a view to have a go at one.

Ed,

Wander down to your local hardware store and pick up a length of aluminium rod. What you're wanting is a length of flat bar that's a 1/4" thick, and one inch across the face. You want a piece that's about a foot long. Drill a 1/4" hole close to one end.

Now wander down to your local photographic supplier and pick up a standard tripod mount screw accessory, and a basic hotshoe mount. You will use the screw to attach the bar to your camera via the screw hole in the base of the camera. You should attach (permanently) the hotshoe mount to the other end of the bar.

You now have an inexpensive way of holding the camera and flash together.

Ed,

As the others have said, the fly photos are very good and much better than the spider ones. As you can see, the depth of field is much greater, mostly due to the decreased magnification.

Another alternative for your flash is to make a soft box. That's what I use for all my macro work. I then have a single easy to manage rig, which I usually use on a monopod which gives me a more rigid support that is still quite mobile. I even have a specific one for use with tubes.

ATJ,

I think I need to have a go at creating a softbox, the results you are getting are amazing. Are you still using the D70 or have you moved on from there, if you have I would be thrilled as I feel that a 10MP sensor would allow a lot more retention of detail (probably an excuse to upgrade though )

Obviously the Micro Nikkors are worth their weight in gold, will have to hire a 105 to give that a whirl.

With the softbox, do you have any issues with it being above the lens like that? I tend to move it around a bit but thats probably because I am struggling to hold the camera with 1 hand.

Since you are just down on that over cooked plain, you can borrow mine for a few days if you like.
I also have one home made softbox a la Andrew ( he has several). It took less than an hour to make. PM me if you are interested.

edneeves wrote:Are you still using the D70 or have you moved on from there, if you have I would be thrilled as I feel that a 10MP sensor would allow a lot more retention of detail (probably an excuse to upgrade though )

ATJ converted over to the D300 and as far as I know he has not really used the D70 since. His work is a very good excuse to upgrade...but remember it is the photographer that makes the image, not the gear.

Ed, very nice picture.

Could you please tell me whether you still using tripod to take the fly picture? I normally use hand held to take most macro picture between f11-f14.

edneeves wrote:Are you still using the D70 or have you moved on from there, if you have I would be thrilled as I feel that a 10MP sensor would allow a lot more retention of detail (probably an excuse to upgrade though )

I upgraded to a D300 2 years ago but I still use the D70 from time to time. There's no reason you can't get good macro shots with a D70 (or D70s) although the D300 is more fun.

edneeves wrote:With the softbox, do you have any issues with it being above the lens like that?

No issues as such. It works best for landscape orientation - so the subject is lit from above - but portrait orientation also works but sometimes the lighting looks a little odd.

If you're serious about macro you MUST use a tripod and very small f/stops (f11,f16, f22 or f32). You must also get enough magnification to fill the image frame with your subject.

Mr Darcy wrote:Since you are just down on that over cooked plain, you can borrow mine for a few days if you like.
I also have one home made softbox a la Andrew ( he has several). It took less than an hour to make. PM me if you are interested.

Wow Mr Darcy, that is very generous. I will bear that in mind for the future but for the moment I will persevere with the current setup. It will be good training, but I am scared that I will love it and convincing the fund manager to release that sort of coin will be a challenge

amashun1 wrote:Ed, very nice picture.

Could you please tell me whether you still using tripod to take the fly picture? I normally use hand held to take most macro picture between f11-f14.

All my macro stuff is handheld. Left hand flash, right hand camera. I am working on a solution to keep the gear as a unit so I can free up two hands for the camera.

Matt. K wrote:If you're serious about macro you MUST use a tripod and very small f/stops (f11,f16, f22 or f32). You must also get enough magnification to fill the image frame with your subject.

Trying with the magnification however most of the things available to shoot over the past day or so were about 3mm and hence impossible to fill the frame at a little over 1:1.

eg:





Can't crop either with the D70s as the quality goes through the floor

Oh, yaack! What is wrong with you guys and spiders or flies.
Isn't there anything more pleasant to photograph?

zafra52 wrote:Oh, yaack! What is wrong with you guys and spiders or flies.
Isn't there anything more pleasant to photograph?

I have to say I find them facsinating, even more so the closer I manage to get. The compound eye to me is magical, and the jumping spiders look so cute to the naked eye but look lethal close up, especially those "fangs".

Ed, this is just a perfect example of beauty is in the eye of the ....


However, considering how much I love these beasties I would use
a long telescopy lens; rather than going close to them. In fact, with one
of my cameras I found using the telescopic/zoom of the lens worked far
better than the macro closeups.

I guess my problem is that any beast with more than four legs makes
me nervous.

zafra52 wrote:I guess my problem is that any beast with more than four legs makes
me nervous.

Two thoughts:
1. What does that say about your relationship with sheep?
2. So you're Ok with snakes then?

There was a rather large orb weaver in the garden but I have to admit I was too chicken to get close to that one. The advantage of the ones above is that they are only about 3-5mm which isn't scary at all.

55mm on the other hand

So you're Ok with snakes then?

no...not really!

But...I like roast lamb!

However, a couple of years ago I immortalised this
thing... that leaved happily on my front veranda.
I did use a contact camera with a zoom lens at 60mm.
And, still get shivers up my spine just to look at it.

I don't understand the fear at all. I'll happily move in close to photograph anything... OK, I haven't tried a great white, I might be nervous about that.

However, a couple of years ago I immortalised this
thing... that leaved happily on my front veranda.

I walked face first into a orb weaver and its web just the other during a coastal shrub walk...the view kinda looked like your picture now I think about it...

oh yes, the expletives were heard for hours...

That would freeeeeeeaaaaaaaakkkkkkk me out

The web that "Petula" made was huge and and looked a bit like an inverted cone.
The problem was she decided to bring in the boyfriend and procreate, and soon
I had a silk factory. So... once day we had visitors, I decided they all had to seek
alternative accommodation so I destroyed their webs and send them packing without
killing them, but gently destroying their webs so in time the learned it was better to
go elswhere.

zafra52 wrote:So... once day we had visitors, I decided they all had to seek
alternative accommodation so I destroyed their webs and send them packing without
killing them, but gently destroying their webs so in time the learned it was better to
go elswhere.

I hope you left the web behind when you "destroyed" it. Orb weavers will eat their webs if they are damage beyond repair and this gives them energy and the ingredients to spin another web. If the web wasn't left, there's a good chance the spider would have starved - not enough energy, etc. to make a new web and not able to catch any food.

Ooooooooops!
Sorry, I didn't I rolled the webs in a tree branch
and removed the webs. You taught me something
very useful. I'll keep this in mind for next time.