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!

Housefly macro (2:1 magnification)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.
Previous topic • Next topic
14 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Housefly macro (2:1 magnification)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! ![]() 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
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 ![]() ![]() *** When getting there is half the fun! ***
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 ![]() New page
http://www.potofgrass.com Portfolio... http://images.potofgrass.com Comments and money always welcome
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! ***
WOW!
![]() 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/
heliconfilterWOW!
![]() 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
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
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
![]() cheers marco
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.
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. ![]() ![]() ![]() Regards
Matt. K
There is another way if the fly stays still. Progressive 0.5 to 1mm focussing then combine images in PS and work the magic ![]() Chris
-------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
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
A case of serious red eye here
![]() 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)
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! ![]() ![]() Regards
Matt. K
Previous topic • Next topic
14 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|