Housefly macro (2:1 magnification)

Got a thin skin? Then look elsewhere. Post a link to an image that you've made, and invite others to offer their critiques. Honesty is encouraged, but please be positive in your constructive criticism. Flaming and just plain nastiness will not be tolerated. Please note that this is not an area for you to showcase your images, nor is this a place for you to show-off where you have been. This is an area for you to post images so that you may share with us a technique that you have mastered, or are trying to master. Typically, no more than about four images should be posted in any one post or thread, and the maximum size of any side of any image should not exceed 950 px.

Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators

Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent.

Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature.

Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread.

Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.

Housefly macro (2:1 magnification)

Postby kamran on Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:13 am

Greetings,

This was taken with 2X Teleplus PRO attached to the Micro Nikkor 105mm 2.8D and the SB800 (diffuser attched). It was VERY difficult to get the compound eyes in focus as the wire on which the fly was resting was swinging. I'm always open to comments!

Image
Nikon D200 | Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm DX | Sigma 15-30mm EX DG | Nikkor AF Micro 105mm 2.8 D | Nikkor AF 50mm 1.8D | Nikon Speedlight SB-800
User avatar
kamran
Member
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:16 am
Location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Postby sheepie on Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:20 am

The eyes appear to be sharp as a tack, but to me the image is let down a little by the rest of the fly - it takes a while to realise just how sharp the eyes are, and you're then drawn to look at just them. Seems to me you'd be better just showing that bit of the image from the start.

I understand the whole DOF thing, so don't think I'm suggesting there's a problem there - what I would suggest though is a crop much closer to showing just the eyes - I think that would be magic :) Presuming this is the whole frame as taken, you have plenty of scope to go in closer with a crop and still have a high quality output at reasonable size. :)
*** When getting there is half the fun! ***
User avatar
sheepie
Key Member
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 11:56 am
Location: Picnic Point, Sydney Australia *** Nikon D200/D70 ***

Postby MHD on Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:28 am

I disagree.... at such high mags shallow DOF is part and parcel of the image... the sharp (and boy they are SHARP) eyes give a real focal point...

Brilliant shot, and totally gross :D
New page
http://www.potofgrass.com
Portfolio...
http://images.potofgrass.com
Comments and money always welcome
User avatar
MHD
Moderator
 
Posts: 5829
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 8:51 pm
Location: Chicago Burbs

Postby sheepie on Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:30 am

MHD wrote:I disagree.... at such high mags shallow DOF is part and parcel of the image... the sharp (and boy they are SHARP) eyes give a real focal point...

Brilliant shot, and totally gross :D


I'm not saying they aren't - just suggesting that the image would perhaps be stronger with more 'focus' on the eyes :)
*** When getting there is half the fun! ***
User avatar
sheepie
Key Member
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 11:56 am
Location: Picnic Point, Sydney Australia *** Nikon D200/D70 ***

Postby NJ on Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:54 am

WOW! :shock:

thats insane! the eyes are so damn sharp!
Nathan
D700 | MB-D10 | Nikkor 14-24 | Nikkor 24-70 | Sigma 70-200 | 20 2.8 28 2.8 35 2 50 1.8 | Sigma 105 | SB-800
http://www.flickr.com/nathanjphoto/
User avatar
NJ
Senior Member
 
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 12:00 am
Location: Ringwood, Melbourne

heliconfilter

Postby christiand on Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:46 pm

WOW! :shock: ,

Me too says that's insane! the eyes are so damn sharp!

A while ago I came accross this link (somebody may have posted it here)

http://www.heliconfilter.com/pages/focus_overview.html

Have a look - this software has potential.

HTH,
CD
User avatar
christiand
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1989
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 1:36 pm
Location: Tuggeranong, ACT - Canberra

Postby Manta on Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:57 pm

Kamran - great shot. Everything that everyone else had said.

Macro DOF will always be a very subjective area so it wil always come doen to what you want the image to portray. We all have our own views and it will also change, depending on the subject matter.

Christian - I remember seeing the original post on the Helicon Filter software (was it Sirhc55 or MattK perhaps?).

At the time, way before I got into macro, I thought it was pretty cool. I still things it's amazing but have my concerns about having to take multiple shots, each at differnet points of focus, of a subject that's likely at any second to get up and leg it and the slightest provocation, eg a fly. Sure the photog might get lucky and the thing might sit there for week but I just thought this was something to consider. Obviously, static stuff would give no such hassle.
Simon
D300 l MB-D10 l D70 l SB-800 l 70-200 VR l TC 17-E l 18-70 f3.5-4.5 l 70-300 f4-5.6 l 50 f1.4 l 90 Macro f2.8 l 12-24 f4
http://www.redbubble.com/people/manta
User avatar
Manta
Former Outstanding Member Of The Year
 
Posts: 3815
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:49 pm
Location: Hamilton Qld

Postby marcotrov on Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:41 pm

Great sharpness in the eyes but I would like to see the sharpness extended, and I knw that's difficult but some subjects benefit from an absolutely narrow DOF i don't feel this one suits that. Manta's right though very subjective area macro :wink:
cheers
marco
marcotrov
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2577
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Cairns, Queensland, Australia

Postby PALL on Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:58 am

wow great macro,huge magnification.i like the shalow DOF as is cuz its mostly a part of macro photography and it looks good other wise raising aperture will make shot look too flat.shalow DOF gives a 3d feel.very good.i never had tried this with my macro since it only goes 1"1".which TELE-C you uses?.are you in lahore? ,

cya,
Allah Hafiz.
Pall.A.
PALL
Member
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:09 am
Location: SKT. , PAKISTAN.

Postby Matt. K on Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:18 pm

One trick to increase the DOF is to pull the camera back a little. As you move back then DOF increases. You then regain your magnification by cropping in Photoshop. Providing you don't overcrop then this is a recognised method for getting the DOF you require without losing any visible image quality. (There is no other way).

Now I'm gonna bunker down because I suspect there might be a bit of flak coming my way. :shock: :shock: :shock:
Regards

Matt. K
User avatar
Matt. K
Former Outstanding Member Of The Year and KM
 
Posts: 9981
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:12 pm
Location: North Nowra

Postby sirhc55 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:33 pm

Matt. K wrote:One trick to increase the DOF is to pull the camera back a little. As you move back then DOF increases. You then regain your magnification by cropping in Photoshop. Providing you don't overcrop then this is a recognised method for getting the DOF you require without losing any visible image quality. (There is no other way).

Now I'm gonna bunker down because I suspect there might be a bit of flak coming my way. :shock: :shock: :shock:


There is another way if the fly stays still. Progressive 0.5 to 1mm focussing then combine images in PS and work the magic :wink:
Chris
--------------------------------
I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
User avatar
sirhc55
Key Member
 
Posts: 12930
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: Port Macquarie - Olympus EM-10

Postby kamran on Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:44 pm

I forgot to mention earlier that I am using a Kenko 2x Tele-converter (grabbed it for US$70). Pretty ordinary tele converter if you ask me. Robs away quite a lot of sharpness and light. But it's a pretty cheap way of achieving 2:1 maginification.

One thing to note is the aperture as the tele converter doesn't show the correct aperture when connected to some Nikkor lenses. For instance, f/20 in this shot might be something like f/29.

Next time, I will try to shoot without the tele converter i.e. shorter focal length of 105mm and therefore, more DOF. I hope the fly's still there!
Nikon D200 | Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm DX | Sigma 15-30mm EX DG | Nikkor AF Micro 105mm 2.8 D | Nikkor AF 50mm 1.8D | Nikon Speedlight SB-800
User avatar
kamran
Member
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:16 am
Location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Postby ozimax on Sun Nov 12, 2006 9:06 pm

A case of serious red eye here :) Outstanding eyes. Great.
President, A.A.A.A.A (Australian Association Against Acronym Abuse)
Canon EOS R6, RF 24-105 F4, RF 70-200 F4, RF 35mm F1.8, RF 16mm F2.8
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
User avatar
ozimax
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5289
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:58 am
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW

Postby Matt. K on Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:22 pm

Chris
That is another way but it is devilishly tricky as there will be slight changes in perspective. The correct way is to mount the fly on a rack that changes the position of the fly as the focal length is changed on the lens. The whole setup has to be calibrated for precision. The exposure is built up on one frame and the fly is lit with a moving slit of light. Get to it! :D :D
Regards

Matt. K
User avatar
Matt. K
Former Outstanding Member Of The Year and KM
 
Posts: 9981
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:12 pm
Location: North Nowra


Return to Image Reviews and Critiques