allover sharpness in macro's

guus giesbergen · 05-07-2013, 07:43 AM

I uploaded a maco yesterday (https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/224040-macro-we-one.html#post2376841), which demonstrated my problem with macro's. I cannot get my close-ups sharp from back to front. And I wonder how is it done? The above picture was made with a smc pentax 100mm macro, which should be good enough.
I could solve the problem by focussing differently in different photo's, but that might be awkward in live-shooting insects.
What could I be overlooking ?

**jatrax** · 05-07-2013, 07:49 AM

Forgive me if I state the obvious but at that distance with a 100mm macro your depth of focus is extremely small. Less than the width of the insect. Focus stacking is the only way I know to have more of the subject in focus. This can be done with dedicated software or by merging layers in photoshop. Do a search for 'focus stacking' and your will get the idea.

Clavius · 05-07-2013, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by guus giesbergen

but that might be awkward in live-shooting insects.

1. Focus stacking provides sharpness front-to-back.
2. You can make an insect easily sit perfectly still.

I experimented with it for a while. (Please see my Flickr account in my signature.) Then I got bored with it.

topace · 05-07-2013, 08:24 AM

I second the focus stacking. But if you're restricted to one shot (live insects) then I would go with a ring flash and a lens that looks good stopped down. I myself use the Elicar 90 f/2.5, since it can be used at around f/16 to f/20 on APS/C without losing too much to diffraction.

Of course, you'll never get panfocus that way, but it's the closest I've gotten.

**TER-OR** · 05-07-2013, 08:25 AM

Stop down as much as you can. With the FA100 I'll shoot f11 in full light with a good fast shutter, no problem. f16 or higher gets a little tricky, but you should be able to do this.
But yeah, it's tough to get them full focused without resorting to stacking sometimes. There are some masters of hand-held stacking on Flickr.

Jean Poitiers · 05-07-2013, 08:29 AM

Another for focus stacking ... something that I may try to master this spring/summer bug season ... J

Anvh · 05-07-2013, 08:33 AM

Stacking would indeed be a solution, i can not think of another one.

Originally posted by jatrax

Forgive me if I state the obvious but at that distance with a 100mm macro your depth of focus is extremely small.

This a false statement that has sneaked in, the focal length is not what determent the DOF it's the magnification.
So with macro at 1:1 magnification it does not matter if you use a 50 or 100mm lens the DOF is just as large.

**jatrax** · 05-07-2013, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Anvh

This a false statement that has sneaked in,

Well, I think false is a bit strong as it is completely true as written. However, I admit there is an implication in the wording that might be read to indicate that I meant the lens had anything to do with it. That was not my intent, I was just re-stating which lens was bring used, not trying to indicate that this is a characteristic of any particular lens. Anvh is correct in that magnification is what is important here, not the actual lens.

And I know that when I fall into bad habits of using imprecise language Anvh will be around to correct me!

scratchpaddy · 05-07-2013, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by jatrax

Well, I think false is a bit strong as it is completely true as written. However, I admit there is an implication in the wording that might be read to indicate that I meant the lens had anything to do with it. That was not my intent, I was just re-stating which lens was bring used, not trying to indicate that this is a characteristic of any particular lens.

I think you would make a good politician.

How about using a smaller sensor? That's hardly a quick solution, since it requires a new camera, but taking that exact same picture would require less magnification, and allow more depth of focus. I know the Q is great for telephoto, but how about macro? Anybody have examples?

**jatrax** · 05-07-2013, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by scratchpaddy

I think you would make a good politician.

Just don't want to get into an argument with Anvh, that is a losing proposition.

Originally posted by scratchpaddy

How about using a smaller sensor?

Yes, this should also work but at the expense of some image quality. It is always a compromise, balancing the different factors to get the best possible image. I wonder how the little Pentax WG cameras would work? They advertise 'macro' though I doubt it is 1:1.

ruggiex · 05-07-2013, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by scratchpaddy

I know the Q is great for telephoto, but how about macro? Anybody have examples?

Not too shabby actually. There's definitely some IQ compromise but for my usage it's pretty convenient. This is done with the 35mm Ltd.

A few more at the LINK

guus giesbergen · 05-07-2013, 09:53 AM

thanks for the advice given, I feel more confident now, knowing wich way to go.
and yes, Clavius, there is always this problem after fulfilling challenges... still I have to try !

top-quark · 05-07-2013, 10:27 AM

If you're shooting at F11, you can go down to F16. F22 even, diffraction be damned, since loss of resolution due to diffraction is far less than loss of resolution due to not being in focus! You'll need a bit of flash to help you out here, but you don't need a ring flash. Your popup flash with some sort of diffuser will do the trick - I use a push-over-the-lens collapsible diffuser made by Interfit (it cost me something like a tenner).

Another alternative: set magnification to <1:1 and crop. If you're going to reduce the resulting picture it to web size anyway, using 1:2 for more DOF is a valid strategy - you should gain more than you lose.

Yet another strategy: use a compact. Ricoh says that the GRD IV at 1cm will capture an area approx 26mm x 19mm. Now this is the same area as APS-C at 1:1 but, given the size of the compact sensor, is more like 1:3. For a given magnification, DOF is independent of focal length (it's simply working distance that changes) and 1:3 gives you lots more DOF than 1:1.

Anvh · 05-07-2013, 10:43 AM - **1 Like**

Haha nice one jatrax

Originally posted by scratchpaddy

How about using a smaller sensor? That's hardly a quick solution, since it requires a new camera, but taking that exact same picture would require less magnification, and allow more depth of focus. I know the Q is great for telephoto, but how about macro? Anybody have examples?

Smaller sensor actually makes the DOF smaller.
I know, many want FF for the smaller DOF but they are looking at equivalent lens and such, wich with Macro has less of an importance. Equivalent of 1:1 macro is a 1:1 macro

The DOF is smaller with smaller sensors because you enlarge the image more that the lens make when viewing/printing on same size.
Circle of Confusion is what you want to google if you want to know more.

p38arover · 05-07-2013, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

2. You can make an insect easily sit perfectly still.

How does one do this? I have trouble getting my wife to sit still!

Do you freeze the insect or kill it?

05-07-2013, 07:43 AM	#1
guus giesbergen Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: netherlands Photos: Albums Posts: 63	allover sharpness in macro's I uploaded a maco yesterday (https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/224040-macro-we-one.html#post2376841), which demonstrated my problem with macro's. I cannot get my close-ups sharp from back to front. And I wonder how is it done? The above picture was made with a smc pentax 100mm macro, which should be good enough. I could solve the problem by focussing differently in different photo's, but that might be awkward in live-shooting insects. What could I be overlooking ?

05-07-2013, 09:14 AM	#11
ruggiex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: East Bay Area Photos: Gallery Posts: 811	Originally posted by scratchpaddy I know the Q is great for telephoto, but how about macro? Anybody have examples? Not too shabby actually. There's definitely some IQ compromise but for my usage it's pretty convenient. This is done with the 35mm Ltd. A few more at the LINK Last edited by ruggiex; 05-07-2013 at 11:27 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
sharpness in Pentax utility 4	kamisu	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	2	05-18-2012 11:22 PM
Sharpness, Fine Sharpness, Extra Sharpness	Taviali	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	8	03-31-2012 12:56 PM
So there's the missing sharpness	VaughnA	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	06-27-2011 09:08 AM
Sharpness VS Fine-Sharpness in k20d	wasim_altaf	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	10-12-2009 11:41 AM
Film holding it's own in sharpness	Ole	Post Your Photos!	5	09-20-2009 11:20 AM

05-07-2013, 07:49 AM	#2
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Forgive me if I state the obvious but at that distance with a 100mm macro your depth of focus is extremely small. Less than the width of the insect. Focus stacking is the only way I know to have more of the subject in focus. This can be done with dedicated software or by merging layers in photoshop. Do a search for 'focus stacking' and your will get the idea.

05-07-2013, 07:49 AM	#3
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by guus giesbergen but that might be awkward in live-shooting insects. 1. Focus stacking provides sharpness front-to-back. 2. You can make an insect easily sit perfectly still. I experimented with it for a while. (Please see my Flickr account in my signature.) Then I got bored with it.

05-07-2013, 08:24 AM	#4
topace Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Stockholm Posts: 198	I second the focus stacking. But if you're restricted to one shot (live insects) then I would go with a ring flash and a lens that looks good stopped down. I myself use the Elicar 90 f/2.5, since it can be used at around f/16 to f/20 on APS/C without losing too much to diffraction. Of course, you'll never get panfocus that way, but it's the closest I've gotten.

05-07-2013, 08:25 AM	#5
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	Stop down as much as you can. With the FA100 I'll shoot f11 in full light with a good fast shutter, no problem. f16 or higher gets a little tricky, but you should be able to do this. But yeah, it's tough to get them full focused without resorting to stacking sometimes. There are some masters of hand-held stacking on Flickr.

05-07-2013, 08:29 AM	#6
Jean Poitiers Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Lost in translation ... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 18,076	Another for focus stacking ... something that I may try to master this spring/summer bug season ... J

05-07-2013, 08:33 AM	#7
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Stacking would indeed be a solution, i can not think of another one. Originally posted by jatrax Forgive me if I state the obvious but at that distance with a 100mm macro your depth of focus is extremely small. This a false statement that has sneaked in, the focal length is not what determent the DOF it's the magnification. So with macro at 1:1 magnification it does not matter if you use a 50 or 100mm lens the DOF is just as large.

05-07-2013, 08:41 AM	#8
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by Anvh This a false statement that has sneaked in, Well, I think false is a bit strong as it is completely true as written. However, I admit there is an implication in the wording that might be read to indicate that I meant the lens had anything to do with it. That was not my intent, I was just re-stating which lens was bring used, not trying to indicate that this is a characteristic of any particular lens. Anvh is correct in that magnification is what is important here, not the actual lens. And I know that when I fall into bad habits of using imprecise language Anvh will be around to correct me!

05-07-2013, 08:53 AM	#9
scratchpaddy Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Phoenix Posts: 3,361	Originally posted by jatrax Well, I think false is a bit strong as it is completely true as written. However, I admit there is an implication in the wording that might be read to indicate that I meant the lens had anything to do with it. That was not my intent, I was just re-stating which lens was bring used, not trying to indicate that this is a characteristic of any particular lens. I think you would make a good politician. How about using a smaller sensor? That's hardly a quick solution, since it requires a new camera, but taking that exact same picture would require less magnification, and allow more depth of focus. I know the Q is great for telephoto, but how about macro? Anybody have examples?

05-07-2013, 08:59 AM	#10
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by scratchpaddy I think you would make a good politician. Just don't want to get into an argument with Anvh, that is a losing proposition. Originally posted by scratchpaddy How about using a smaller sensor? Yes, this should also work but at the expense of some image quality. It is always a compromise, balancing the different factors to get the best possible image. I wonder how the little Pentax WG cameras would work? They advertise 'macro' though I doubt it is 1:1.

05-07-2013, 09:53 AM	#12
guus giesbergen Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: netherlands Photos: Albums Posts: 63 Original Poster	thanks for the advice given, I feel more confident now, knowing wich way to go. and yes, Clavius, there is always this problem after fulfilling challenges... still I have to try !

05-07-2013, 10:27 AM	#13
top-quark Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Aylesbury, Bucks Photos: Albums Posts: 492	If you're shooting at F11, you can go down to F16. F22 even, diffraction be damned, since loss of resolution due to diffraction is far less than loss of resolution due to not being in focus! You'll need a bit of flash to help you out here, but you don't need a ring flash. Your popup flash with some sort of diffuser will do the trick - I use a push-over-the-lens collapsible diffuser made by Interfit (it cost me something like a tenner). Another alternative: set magnification to <1:1 and crop. If you're going to reduce the resulting picture it to web size anyway, using 1:2 for more DOF is a valid strategy - you should gain more than you lose. Yet another strategy: use a compact. Ricoh says that the GRD IV at 1cm will capture an area approx 26mm x 19mm. Now this is the same area as APS-C at 1:1 but, given the size of the compact sensor, is more like 1:3. For a given magnification, DOF is independent of focal length (it's simply working distance that changes) and 1:3 gives you lots more DOF than 1:1.

05-07-2013, 10:43 AM - 1 Like	#14
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Haha nice one jatrax Originally posted by scratchpaddy How about using a smaller sensor? That's hardly a quick solution, since it requires a new camera, but taking that exact same picture would require less magnification, and allow more depth of focus. I know the Q is great for telephoto, but how about macro? Anybody have examples? Smaller sensor actually makes the DOF smaller. I know, many want FF for the smaller DOF but they are looking at equivalent lens and such, wich with Macro has less of an importance. Equivalent of 1:1 macro is a 1:1 macro The DOF is smaller with smaller sensors because you enlarge the image more that the lens make when viewing/printing on same size. Circle of Confusion is what you want to google if you want to know more.

05-07-2013, 10:49 AM	#15
p38arover Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Western Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,084	Originally posted by Clavius 2. You can make an insect easily sit perfectly still. How does one do this? I have trouble getting my wife to sit still! Do you freeze the insect or kill it?