[WPRESTO]

Spider and unwilling dinner guest.

Attached Images

 

---

Last edited by WPRESTO; 01-29-2017 at 02:39 PM.

[rgknief60]

Many steps to create an image as satisfactory as that.

Thanks, Walt. I got lucky with the lighting. This is in Dad's shop, just the way he laid it down on the workbench.
He was in a hurry for me to finish. I have two other stacks to process when I get time. This was taken at f8.
The other two are f11 & f16. Would have liked to use f5.6, but just don't have the eyesight.

I spent about 6 hours in Zerene retouching this image. Dad continued to do this and that on the workbench while
I was taking pictures, so in places I needed to use a less sharp layer because of artifact. Moire was also an issue
on the left barrel that holds a spring when viewed at certain magnifications. Again, a less sharp layer.

Biggest issue is bloom from the OOF areas. Was able to remove most, but not all. A reverse stack would be ideal,
but Zerene choked on that, and I didn't want to spend even more editing time. Learned a lot on this image.

Took other pictures of Dad working on the clock, and got bit by the electronic shutter. Since lighting was from CF
bulbs, most of my pictures of him have scan lines. Wonder if there is a filter designed to take those out?

I could not have done this image without the retouching feature of Zerene. Would have been too much time in CS6.

Roger

[rgknief60]

Spider an unwilling dinner guest.

It always makes a shot more interesting when one is able to capture behavior of the subject!

I'm just amazed every time I see a nice sharp image of a spider in it's web. It seems there is always a breeze whenever I try.
There is always motion blur, or I just don't see well enough to get the subject in focus.

You have excellent DOF and sharpness in that image. One of my goals is to get a nice sharp spider image this year.

[WPRESTO]

It always makes a shot more interesting when one is able to capture behavior of the subject!

I'm just amazed every time I see a nice sharp image of a spider in it's web. It seems there is always a breeze whenever I try.
There is always motion blur, or I just don't see well enough to get the subject in focus.

You have excellent DOF and sharpness in that image. One of my goals is to get a nice sharp spider image this year.

I pretty much gave up on natural light for many, many field macros. Lost far too many images to undetected wind-induced movement. I use flash routinely now, especially for insects, spiders and the like.

[Scorpio71GR]

I pretty much gave up on natural light for many, many field macros. Lost far too many images to undetected wind-induced movement. I use flash routinely now, especially for insects, spiders and the like.

Are you using a regular shoe mount flash? I know are so many options for using a flash in macro. It starts to get confusing what to use. I agree handheld natural light is extremely difficult and I know I can not do it.

[WPRESTO]

Are you using a regular shoe mount flash? I know are so many options for using a flash in macro. It starts to get confusing what to use. I agree handheld natural light is extremely difficult and I know I can not do it.

I use both a ring light and several different shoe-mounted flashes, the latter sometimes on the camera, sometimes hand held, but almost always with some kind of diffuser or mini-softbox. I sometimes use a TTL cord, will probably experiment with the Acon cordless TTL this year, but many times I use manual flash setting with some tiny Chinese-made wireless transmitters (they cast about $25 for a transmitter + two receivers). I also sometimes use a Cactus flash with it's dedicated wireless transmitter. If you cannot digest all of this, I basically have tried and do use a variety of flash techniques, and most people who use flash for macro experiment and come up with what provides results that please them. I generally prefer either: 1) my old Sunpak manual ring light; OR 2) a shoe-type flash, hand held with wireless trigger, with diffuser and manual rather than TTL control. The reason I like wireless hand-held in the field is I can quickly change the light direction, and when moving to look for a new subject, I can pop the flash in a pocket rather than dealing with a cord or having it vulnerable to being bumped in the hot shoe. (I once snapped off a hotshoe by bumping a mounted flash with my arm).

[rgknief60]

Lost far too many images to undetected wind-induced movement.

Sure wish I'd had flash & diffuser for AK trip last June. Dozens of shots for a keeper or two. Wind never stops.
These little ones move if someone walks by:


Don't Forget Me...


Don't Forget Me...

[baro-nite]

Sure wish I'd had flash & diffuser for AK trip last June. Dozens of shots for a keeper or two. Wind never stops.
These little ones move if someone walks by:

That came out beautifully. If you have a body with pop-up flash, something like this diffuser takes up next to no space in the camera bag and can produce good results for close-up work.

[rgknief60]

If you have a body with pop-up flash, something like this diffuser

Thanks for the heads up and the compliment on the image.

That diffuser looks like a nice tool. You posted some real nice images in that review.

I haven't seen a diffuser like that before. That looks like something I explore. I got the K-1 shortly before
the trip, and was so excited about it that I didn't think to use the K-5IIs I brought as backup. Direct flash
is harsh, but would have led to more keepers. Sometimes enthusiasm overrides common sense.

Just got a used computer off Ebay and am starting to slog my way through 450GB of data I took on the trip. Old
one was 10 years old, and could not handle that amount of data, even for previewing. Just took too much time.

A few mos. ago I purchased a Metz from a the marketplace for the K-1, and will try to do something similar.

[WPRESTO]

A few mos. ago I purchased a Metz from a the marketplace for the K-1, and will try to do something similar.

A heads up about any older Metz strobe. Many/most are designed for Pentax APS-C and their internal software communicates an APS-C focal length which a K1 body will interpret as incorrect for FF. Consequently the camera will not fire the flash. The problem can be corrected by updating the Metz software IF the unit has a USB connector to do so. If it is a lower-end Metz strobe with no provision to change the internal software, and its native software is programmed for APS-C format, it cannot be used on a K1 hot-shoe, the camera will not trigger the strobe. The K1 will fire the strobe if it is connected with a cord to the PC outlet (=no PTT-L, only manual flash control). The latter would only be useful if the strobe can be switched to manual and preferably has adjustable manual output.

[rgknief60]

A heads up about any older Metz strobe. Many/most are designed for Pentax APS-C and their internal software communicates an APS-C focal length which a K1 body will interpret as incorrect for FF.

First thing I did was upgrade the 52's firmware, with a bit of fear and trepidation. The newest firmware date is 1/23/2015, so it probably not K-1 aware, and it is listed as OOS on the Metz website. It says the zoom is 24-105mm FF. It has fired every time I've used it on the K-1 hotshoe, but I've not used it extensively enough to know if exposure is accurate with the K-1. It sounds like I'll either have to use it in manual mode (which I was going to do for hummers anyway) or some APS-C Pentaxian may get a bargain if I decide to upgrade it to something else. I do have the cable and shoe I bought brand new for $5 in 2009 or 2010 after Pentax told our local camera store they could not carry Pentax products without a certain inventory level. They sold Pentax for years, but will never do so again.

The firmware for the 58 was produced July last year, and is K-1 aware. I got a wire crossed when I bought the 52. I thought I was getting the 58, even though the listing was for a 52.

Even if I can get it to work reliably with the K-1, it has stuff built into it that I don't understand even after reading the manual. Once I can put it through it's paces, I'll report how well the 52 works with the K-1, unless someone else has already done so.

[zzeitg]

Sigma 180mm macro






FA50mm macro f/2.8

[WPRESTO]

<<<@!1!@>>>

Very nice zzeitg. I presume that's the original f3.5 version of the 180 Sigma. Still a fine macro for live insects in the field.

[zzeitg]

<<<@!1!@>>>

Very nice zzeitg. I presume that's the original f3.5 version of the 180 Sigma. Still a fine macro for live insects in the field.

Correct, f/3.5. Poor man's A* 200mm f/4 .

[WPRESTO]

Correct, f/3.5. Poor man's A* 200mm f/4 .

I have an SMCA 200 f4, purchased a long time ago I saw a 180mm Sigma recently on EBAY, offered @ $1000. That's significantly more than what I paid for the Pentax.
BTW: That's one of the deep downsides of K-mount. Used copies of the 180 Sigma in Canikon mount typically go for under $500.