Super close macro?

audiobomber · 01-18-2013, 12:26 PM

What aperture did you use?

FrancisK7 · 01-18-2013, 12:34 PM

f/8 ISO100 on a tripod (1/30s each exposure approx).

audiobomber · 01-18-2013, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by FrancisK7

f/8 ISO100 on a tripod (1/30s each exposure approx).

Wow, DOF is shallow, even after all that effort. If I were you I'd try f14 or even f16. Diffraction is not a great concern when shooting macros, IME.

Why are you doing this, are you a botanist, or a hobbyist?

FrancisK7 · 01-18-2013, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

Wow, DOF is shallow, even after all that effort. If I were you I'd try f14 or even f16. Diffraction is not a great concern when shooting macros, IME.

Why are you doing this, are you a botanist, or a hobbyist?

Compared to DOF before stacking the DOF is actually quite nice

I've helping a friend who is a PhD student in botany.

My professional area of expertise is maternity/baby photography.

FrancisK7 · 01-19-2013, 03:21 PM

Here's a f/16 stack. It's about 15 shots.

I took these with my camera on tripod and used the focusing ring to get different shots at different DOF (all manually). That's when I noticed the focusing ring also changed scale noticeably when you're so close

I didn't know that. I now understand why rails come into play.

So I ordered this.

Should make taking sharp pictures of macro subjects very easy!

audiobomber · 01-19-2013, 07:55 PM

For $600, I hope this is a paid gig.

You definitely lost some sharpness, I assume due to diffraction, but DOF is improved. F11 and f14 would be worth a try. You could punch up the contrast, I think it would improve the detail.

The bud in the center needs to stand out more. It should be the sharpest part of the photo. In this photo, the leaf at the rear is sharper.

FrancisK7 · 01-19-2013, 08:10 PM

Yes I missed the bud. Saw it too late. I'll make sure to get it right on my next shoot.

I just resubmitted the picture (so shift+refresh) after I played with the retouching tool in Zerene.

audiobomber · 01-19-2013, 08:19 PM

Of course I don't know how the actual plant looked, which would be the main concern of a botanist, but what about this?

FrancisK7 · 01-19-2013, 08:21 PM

Indeed looks sharper with higher clarity and contrast but it would be an easy fixed had I taken the proper exposures.

FrancisK7 · 01-20-2013, 02:30 PM

Here today's shot. Stack of 53 shots taken at f/16

I think I'm visibly improving. There's more room for improvement but as I get comfortable with Zerene and the retouching I should have the method down for when the photography skills will really be needed, which is much later in the growth process. So I'm practicing a lot now.

Allison · 01-21-2013, 07:11 AM - **1 Like**

You are definitely getting ahold of the stacking thing and each image is getting better. Moving to f16 was the right move. Did you get the rail yet? The one you ordered puts my cheap cowboy studio one to shame! I guess that you are enjoying the whole super close macro thing.

FrancisK7 · 01-21-2013, 11:45 AM - **1 Like**

I'm holding off on the rail for now. But... I am having SO MUCH FUN!!!

Getting paid is just cherries on top.

I tried macro photography in 2007 when I first got my K10D. I wasn't experienced enough. I even bought one of the last brand new and legendary VL 125mm from CameraQuest. I resold it a year later with a 400$ profit right here on PF. I regret it very much.

What can I do if I want 5x magnification? Can I stack two Raynox?

If I ever need something like 10x, what kind of equipment would I need? A microscope, obviously, and a mount adapter (Pentax makes one I think). Anything else?

Thanks bomber and Allison for your invaluable help!

audiobomber · 01-21-2013, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by FrancisK7

Here today's shot. Stack of 53 shots taken at f/16

I think I'm visibly improving.

Yeah, lookin' good.

I don't know anything about microscopes for macro photography. For high magnifications, I would reverse a short lens on a long tele. Use primes for better IQ. You don't need AF or even auto aperture, so the cost could be reasonable, e.g.
200/24 = 8.3X,
300/28 = 10.7X,
etc.

bluestringer · 01-21-2013, 12:30 PM

Here's a tylenol pm tablet and a fly I did with a 100 f4 macro and tubes, and a sunpak ring flash. The tablet is about 2mm, and the fly less than 1mm.

audiobomber · 01-21-2013, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by bluestringer

Here's a tylenol pm tablet and a fly I did with a 100 f4 macro and tubes, and a sunpak ring flash. The tablet is about 2mm, and the fly less than 1mm.

Are you sure you don't mean cm instead of mm?

01-19-2013, 03:21 PM	#35
FrancisK7 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 474 Original Poster	Here's a f/16 stack. It's about 15 shots. I took these with my camera on tripod and used the focusing ring to get different shots at different DOF (all manually). That's when I noticed the focusing ring also changed scale noticeably when you're so close I didn't know that. I now understand why rails come into play. So I ordered this. Should make taking sharp pictures of macro subjects very easy! Last edited by FrancisK7; 01-19-2013 at 07:04 PM.

01-20-2013, 02:30 PM	#40
FrancisK7 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 474 Original Poster	Here today's shot. Stack of 53 shots taken at f/16 I think I'm visibly improving. There's more room for improvement but as I get comfortable with Zerene and the retouching I should have the method down for when the photography skills will really be needed, which is much later in the growth process. So I'm practicing a lot now. Last edited by FrancisK7; 01-21-2013 at 12:31 PM.

01-21-2013, 11:45 AM - 1 Like	#42
FrancisK7 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 474 Original Poster	I'm holding off on the rail for now. But... I am having SO MUCH FUN!!! Getting paid is just cherries on top. I tried macro photography in 2007 when I first got my K10D. I wasn't experienced enough. I even bought one of the last brand new and legendary VL 125mm from CameraQuest. I resold it a year later with a 400$ profit right here on PF. I regret it very much. What can I do if I want 5x magnification? Can I stack two Raynox? If I ever need something like 10x, what kind of equipment would I need? A microscope, obviously, and a mount adapter (Pentax makes one I think). Anything else? Thanks bomber and Allison for your invaluable help! Last edited by FrancisK7; 01-21-2013 at 11:54 AM.

01-21-2013, 12:30 PM	#44
bluestringer Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Cotton fields of South Georgia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,748	Here's a tylenol pm tablet and a fly I did with a 100 f4 macro and tubes, and a sunpak ring flash. The tablet is about 2mm, and the fly less than 1mm. Last edited by bluestringer; 02-11-2013 at 10:42 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Super-Macro-Takumar 1:4/50 50mm macro (price Reduced)	bobrapp	Sold Items	7	12-29-2012 09:18 PM
Macro Close-up Macro	moste72	Post Your Photos!	8	07-10-2012 06:50 AM
Nature 5 pics from recent work - close up and true macro	margriet	Post Your Photos!	9	06-21-2012 05:13 AM
Zoom Lens into Macro using close up diopter?	Gsmp	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	03-03-2011 10:20 PM
super close macro	trev99	Pentax DSLR Discussion	23	02-01-2007 02:28 PM

01-18-2013, 12:26 PM	#31
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	What aperture did you use?

01-18-2013, 12:34 PM	#32
FrancisK7 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 474 Original Poster	f/8 ISO100 on a tripod (1/30s each exposure approx).

01-18-2013, 12:42 PM	#33
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by FrancisK7 f/8 ISO100 on a tripod (1/30s each exposure approx). Wow, DOF is shallow, even after all that effort. If I were you I'd try f14 or even f16. Diffraction is not a great concern when shooting macros, IME. Why are you doing this, are you a botanist, or a hobbyist?

01-18-2013, 12:51 PM	#34
FrancisK7 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 474 Original Poster	Originally posted by audiobomber Wow, DOF is shallow, even after all that effort. If I were you I'd try f14 or even f16. Diffraction is not a great concern when shooting macros, IME. Why are you doing this, are you a botanist, or a hobbyist? Compared to DOF before stacking the DOF is actually quite nice I've helping a friend who is a PhD student in botany. My professional area of expertise is maternity/baby photography.

01-19-2013, 07:55 PM	#36
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	For $600, I hope this is a paid gig. You definitely lost some sharpness, I assume due to diffraction, but DOF is improved. F11 and f14 would be worth a try. You could punch up the contrast, I think it would improve the detail. The bud in the center needs to stand out more. It should be the sharpest part of the photo. In this photo, the leaf at the rear is sharper.

01-19-2013, 08:10 PM	#37
FrancisK7 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 474 Original Poster	Yes I missed the bud. Saw it too late. I'll make sure to get it right on my next shoot. I just resubmitted the picture (so shift+refresh) after I played with the retouching tool in Zerene.

01-19-2013, 08:19 PM	#38
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Of course I don't know how the actual plant looked, which would be the main concern of a botanist, but what about this?

01-19-2013, 08:21 PM	#39
FrancisK7 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 474 Original Poster	Indeed looks sharper with higher clarity and contrast but it would be an easy fixed had I taken the proper exposures.

01-21-2013, 07:11 AM - 1 Like	#41
Allison Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 667	You are definitely getting ahold of the stacking thing and each image is getting better. Moving to f16 was the right move. Did you get the rail yet? The one you ordered puts my cheap cowboy studio one to shame! I guess that you are enjoying the whole super close macro thing.

01-21-2013, 12:29 PM	#43
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by FrancisK7 Here today's shot. Stack of 53 shots taken at f/16 I think I'm visibly improving. Yeah, lookin' good. I don't know anything about microscopes for macro photography. For high magnifications, I would reverse a short lens on a long tele. Use primes for better IQ. You don't need AF or even auto aperture, so the cost could be reasonable, e.g. 200/24 = 8.3X, 300/28 = 10.7X, etc.

01-21-2013, 12:34 PM	#45
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by bluestringer Here's a tylenol pm tablet and a fly I did with a 100 f4 macro and tubes, and a sunpak ring flash. The tablet is about 2mm, and the fly less than 1mm. Are you sure you don't mean cm instead of mm?