Some random shots of what comes naturally in the bug kingdom.

Image 1: She'd rather be eating.

Image 2: Winging It!

Image 3: A head turning experience.

Image 4: Luke...I am your father...

Image 5: What can I say?

[Duh_Vinci]

Absolutely stunning images from EVERY perspective!!!

Regards,
D

[roentarre]

Sharp and clear series of love images!

Impressive

[Eaglerapids]

Wow! Awesome pics.

[Vertex Ninja]

These are some seriously sharp images! Is that all lens, or have these been processed? Care to share your settings(sharpening)? I'd be interested in knowing you pp workflow. Beautiful shots.

[SCGushue]

These are some seriously sharp images! Is that all lens, or have these been processed? Care to share your settings(sharpening)? I'd be interested in knowing you pp workflow. Beautiful shots.

Ninja,

The Sigma 180 EX DG can be "that" sharp.

It truly may be the second best long macro lens out there. But I find that what also makes a macro look sharp(er) is composition and placement. Almost all the macros I photograph are composed through the viewfinder... checking for objectionable foreground and background clutter before I press the shutter release. I look for bold background color and strong ambient background lighting whenever possible.

Most of my post processing is simple and straight-forward. In CS2, I sharpen and then fade the sharpening to an acceptable level (generally equal to about Smart Sharpening 35-50). On rare occasions I will actually blur the image and then fade that. I dabble with highlights/shadows and never add more than 10% contrast and rarely that. That's generally the only PP I do. When I screw up I have to hit levels.

Hope this answers your question. Contact me if I can clarify anything else.

Stephen
PBase.com

[Tom Lusk]

These are beautiful, Stephen!

Excellent compositions and sharpness.

Keep them coming.

Tom(I've got 3 good macro lenses, but don't use them)Lusk

[Marc Langille]

Ninja,

The Sigma 180 EX DG can be "that" sharp.

It truly may be the second best long macro lens out there. But I find that what also makes a macro look sharp(er) is composition and placement. Almost all the macros I photograph are composed through the viewfinder... checking for objectionable foreground and background clutter before I press the shutter release. I look for bold background color and strong ambient background lighting whenever possible.

I agree - it appears that's one of the winners in Sigma's lineup. I think the Pentax FA* 200/4 and the Sigma 180/3.5 are probably the two best macro lenses. Not sure about the Nikon version in 200mm, or the Canon 180mm macro lenses...

Of course, excellent equipment is nothing without the talents of the photographer... I think Stephen clearly shows his talent here...

Excellent work Stephen!

Most of my post processing is simple and straight-forward. In CS2, I sharpen and then fade the sharpening to an acceptable level (generally equal to about Smart Sharpening 35-50). On rare occasions I will actually blur the image and then fade that. I dabble with highlights/shadows and never add more than 10% contrast and rarely that. That's generally the only PP I do. When I screw up I have to hit levels.

Hope this answers your question. Contact me if I can clarify anything else.

Stephen
PBase.com

Stephen points out an important thing that I believe in - I may correct the exposure a bit - or brighten up shadowy areas, but that's about it. Sometimes some sharpening, but with my lens, it's not really needed! Otherwise it's not an image at the standards I have. For me, I must have the head/eyes in focus...

Cheers,
Marc

[Vertex Ninja]

Thank you both for your explanations and info. Very nice images.

[SCGushue]

For me, I must have the head/eyes in focus...

Cheers,
Marc

Marc,

First, thanks for the comments.

Secondly, you hit the cardinal rule right on the head for macro photography... well in your and my opinion anyway (), that if the eyes are not in focus the image just isn't there. In macro, almost nothing else counts.

Stephen