[Ash]

Incredible Work from All! Amazing!

Agreed, the contributions here are fantastic. These macro lenses give us so much minute detail of the world around us.
Thanks JT for your latest, they're great.

[yeatzee]

[aliasant]

Tanner, my emphasis with Macro is not magnification, though that plays a role; rather, my emphasis is the subject & composition interplay. Towards that end, I use magnification. Generally, 1 to 1 is more than enough. For example, here is a teeny weeny, Lady Bug--a very small insect.

I completely agree that magnification in itself is not the goal but one of the means.
I do however disagree in that a ladybird is a small insect.
This is a small insect. Not the mosquito like fly but the little critter in its shadow. Could have used Yeatzees rig for that one
Note here: This is a 50%'ish crop. That fly is probably similar size to your ladybird.

[Rense]

SMC Pentax-A 100/4 macro

[aliasant]

SMC Pentax-A 100/4 macro

Amazing! Am I the only one thinking "Speeeerm Attaaack"?

[Rense]

No, I guess not

[aliasant]

No, I guess not

[Clou]

Seen today (Elicar 90/2,5 1:1 hand-held):


Eiszäpfchen

[Jewelltrail]

aliasant: I completely agree that magnification in itself is not the goal but one of the means.
I do however disagree in that a ladybird is a small insect.
This is a small insect. Not the mosquito like fly but the little critter in its shadow.

Alia, you have taken but one of the discussions Tanner & I were having, out of context, and placed it here for a strange argument of how small is small. What you have done to my quotation, has no bearing on its original context.

Obviously, there are smaller insects than a Lady Bug--I never said/implied otherwise. My point was 1 to 1 magnification is "generally enough for me." I think, if you read back on the several posts whic culminated in the one you finally quoted, carefully, you will arrive a better understanding of what I'm trying to bring to light for you.


JT

[Jewelltrail]

Ash: Thanks JT for your latest, they're great.

And thank you!


The bokeh of a fine lens is as alluring and intoxicating as the boquet of a fine wine.

[yeatzee]

Tanner, my emphasis with Macro is not magnification, though that plays a role; rather, my emphasis is the subject & composition interplay. Towards that end, I use magnification. Generally, 1 to 1 is more than enough. For example, here is a teeny weeny, Lady Bug--a very small insect.

I went into my deep archives to pull this up




almost a 100% (90-something iirc) crop taken @ 1:1 with the sigma 105mm. like I said, 1:1 is never enough for me....... especially because my goal is to bring out the details our naked eye has trouble/cannot see alone. Granted I've been shooting bigger (its all relative ) bugs lately.... but hey I shoot whats around


to each their own

[Jewelltrail]

I went into my deep archives to pull this up




almost a 100% (90-something iirc) crop taken @ 1:1 with the sigma 105mm. like I said, 1:1 is never enough for me....... especially because my goal is to bring out the details our naked eye has trouble/cannot see alone. Granted I've been shooting bigger (its all relative ) bugs lately.... but hey I shoot whats around


to each their own

I know spiders vary a great deal in their size, like everything else. How large is this spider? Tanner, I think your setup is cool--it just isn't something for me, that is all. Lamboughinis are great too, but they are not for everyone--right?


My whole point is/was: magnification doesn't matter by itself--it takes thw whole picture--IQ, composition & subject to make shots which appeal to me.

Yes, it is all relative--we could start talking about insects best seen under microscopes--right? BTW, I like this shot--it has more of the Spider in the field of focus than many of your others, plus this little (big?) guy has more color than the other ones.

[yeatzee]

I know spiders vary a great deal in their size, like everything else. How large is this spider? Tanner, I think your setup is cool--it just isn't something for me, that is all. Lamboughinis are great too, but they are not for everyone--right?


My whole point is/was: magnification doesn't matter by itself--it takes thw whole picture--IQ, composition & subject to make shots which appeal to me.

Yes, it is all relative--we could start talking about insects best seen under microscopes--right? BTW, I like this shot--it has more of the Spider in the field of focus than many of your others, plus this little (big?) guy has more color than the other ones.

How large? smallish.... small enough for that to be nearly a 100% crop of a picture @ 1:1. I know, and I subsequently said to each their own My setup is for me, yours is for you... i.e. to each their own I understood your point just fine... again to each their own I choose magnification to get closer and more intricate details. You choose more context.... to each their own

I personally hate the shot, but keep it showing where I started and where I am today. To each their own (sick of me saying this yet? ). unlike most, im not to concerned about getting everything in focus. I get as much as I can, but I refuse to sacrifice IQ for more in focus. An image of a jumper at F/22 for example..... sure its got everything in focus but it will be incredibly soft in comparison to say an image taken @ F/8. I took this a while ago to demonstrate what I mean by this in real terms:



taken at F/16

in comparison an image with the same setup but with stacking at F/5.6




DOF aside (as I stacked many photos to make them equal), the IQ is worlds apart. Some find it acceptable, I do not (not saying you do, just making a point thats all)

Color wise, I can't control the fact that I have white jumpers around

[Ash]

Great example of the excellent results you can get with focus stacking Tanner.
Thanks for sharing that result.

[aliasant]

Alia, you have taken but one of the discussions Tanner & I were having, out of context, and placed it here for a strange argument of how small is small. What you have done to my quotation, has no bearing on its original context.

Obviously, there are smaller insects than a Lady Bug--I never said/implied otherwise. My point was 1 to 1 magnification is "generally enough for me." I think, if you read back on the several posts whic culminated in the one you finally quoted, carefully, you will arrive a better understanding of what I'm trying to bring to light for you.


JT

That was a joke JT.
I was just messing with you and you dont have to bring me any light since Im already in your corner.
Look at my previous pictures in this thread and you know I am.

What I am hoping to do this season is to take 1 small step closer to Yeatzee's corner but only 1 small tiny step. I want to get a little bit more detail without spoiling the overall picture/frame. Damned winter....begone!