DSLR's / Lenses / Rigs / Techniques

[yeatzee]

Im sure there are a lot of people on this forum that have some question concerning photography whether it be what brand/system is for me to how to take good macro shots of these incredible mantids.

We are blessed to have a large group of knowledgeable people when it comes to photography on this forum so fire away any and all questions and we will answer them to the best of our ability. :lol:

OR

Show off your rig! I know some here are deffinently worth showing off!

 

[Katnapper]

I don't even know where to start, Tanner! Autofocus is my best friend. I tried to read the manual and do research on the Canon site and digital SLR photography forums... but it was all too overwhelming. I don't know how to set one thing manually. I'm not really asking for help right now either... as it would be too big a job, and I have a block about learning it now. I think I just need to take a hands-on basic photography course on how to use a digital SLR camera... with someone right there showing me everything. There's just something about it that's very tough for me to grasp on my own... or by reading instructions and suggestions.

 

[yeatzee]

The glorious thing that is full control (manual mode and manual focusing) is something in my opinion all should know. Im used to old film era lenses because pentax has 100% backwards compatability with every lenses they have ever made so I have kind of a head start with manual focusing. With macro work manual focusing is ESSENTIAL. I actually bought a split focusing screen to aid in quicker more accurate manual focusing recently. I understand there is a lot to learn when it comes to DSLR's and it can be extremely overwhelming.... which is why I started this thread. We are more of a family here IMO making it an easier environment to learn at. If you have any question post em here

 

[Katnapper]

So when are you coming over to show me what all these buttons are on my camera? :lol:

 

[yeatzee]

ha, Illinois is slightly out of my range.... :-/

Sorry :lol:

What DSlR do you have again katnapper?

 

[kamakiri]

Great idea to encourage questions here!

I've been wanting to do a series of how-to threads...but real life gets in the way. And heck, I can't even keep up with posting the pictures that I do take.

My suggestion for getting started would be to take a beginner photography class (like Yen recently did) or a buy and read a photography starter book.

Then read your camera manual again.

If you have questions along the way, I'd certainly love to help!

I absolutely agree that (M)anual mode is the best way to do macro and particularly macro/flash shots. The preset "flower" mode on many DSLRs has really mediocre settings...f/4, 1/60, ISO 400 (typical Canon settings) even with the flash on - ugh. It's a wonder that people don't give up macro immediately.

Here are examples of a couple of different 'looks' with the same camera/lens/flash combo. 5D/100mm/580EX+diffuser

click for larger

Exposure: 0.005 sec (1/200)

Aperture: f/2.8

Focal Length: 100 mm

ISO Speed: 400

Flash: On

click for larger

Exposure: 0.005 sec (1/200)

Aperture: f/9.0

Focal Length: 100 mm

ISO Speed: 400

Exposure Bias: 0 EV

Flash: On

Exposure Program: Manual

 

[yeatzee]

I agree that for most a course/book on photography in general or specifically for macro work is a good idea. I personally have yet to read my manual or take a course/read a book of any kind but thats just how I work. I play with it day in and day out until I figure everything out, and when I have question I ask Yeah I know, Im weird like that

Feel free to ask any questions concerning photography big or small, we are all willing to help

 

[chun]

my kit is an old 5 year old Nikon D70 and a SIGMA 105mm Macro lense. I'm not the best photographer, but my photos have been improving over the years. I'm not a big fan of flash (mainly because i havent got one) because the photos tend to turn up too 'blue' or 'stale'. I do enjoy taking photos without flash and i personally think it captures and expresses the 'mood' and 'emotion' better (sorry for sounding all arty farty). I shoot all my photos on manual at around 1/200 shutter speed and around f/5 aperture at 400 or 800 ISO, it's tricky getting the setting right under such 'low' light environment, especially with an overactive mantid. Currently, i use normal light bulbs; but would definitely purchase a much brighter halogen lamp and modify it to diffuse the light.

Any criticisms/advice would be great, always striving to improve my photography. Here are my favourite photos i have taken:

Phyllocrania paradoxa

Hestiasula brunneriana

Tenodera sp.

Rhombodera sp.

 

[PhilinYuma]

Haha! Are we going to have fun on this thread when it comes to critiquing other people's pix! Close friends will stop speaking to each other, poisoned crickets will be mailed!

O.K. The diffuser pic doesn't really work, does it? Important detail is lost in the mantis and the flower isn't "dreamlike" a favorite word with diffuser fans, but simply indistinct. The muting of the colors also tends to make the live subject lifeless.

The second picture is much better and more eye catching. I see a nice picture of a flower, and my eye is immediately drawn to the red marking in lower left center. And what's that? Some kind of mantis over on the right? Those nicely arranged background triangles occupy 1/4 of the space, the flower the remaining 3/4, and of that the "mantis triangle" occupies, broadly speaking, 1/5 of the flower space.

You were shooting wide open with your macro lens, but you still have too much depth of focus. Perhaps, if you had pulled the camera back a little, the mantis would have stayed in focus and the flower would have begun to blur.

If this is intended as a pictorial record of the mantis --beutifully in focus, and showing a complete dorsal view -- you might want to just crop out everything that isn't mantis. If you want a picture of a flower with a mantis in it, you could get a tighter pic by cropping 1/6 of the area at the right hand margin, so that the eye is stopped by the mantis image on the right and the dark background on the left. If you want to create a picture of a mantis against a flower background, though, it seems as though you would have to isolate the mantis on one mask, (in a photoeditor) blur the the flower on another and then overlay one on the other. Lotsa work, but it might give a very nice result. Again, I would crop as in the last example.

Edit: Sorry, Kamakiri: I misread your data. I also thouight that you had used a diffuser over the light soiurce in the first ine withoutcompensating for the light loss. So the first one is underexposed and the depth of field is so narrow that only the mantis's eyes are in focus. The second gains depth of field from being stopped down but is slightly overexposed (compare the two heads). How did the histogram look on that second one? A spike on both ends? In the first, I would guess that it was kinda flat.

Wotdjathink?

 

[Katnapper]

Huh?!! Lol... :lol: I like kamikiri and Chun's first pics the best.

Thanks for showing the difference different settings can make.

ha, Illinois is slightly out of my range.... :-/Sorry :lol:

What DSlR do you have again katnapper?

Canon Digital Rebel with EF100mm f/2.8 macro usm

 

[yeatzee]

Haha! Are we going to have fun on this thread when it comes to critiquing other people's pix! Close friends will stop speaking to each other, poisoned crickets will be mailed!

HA! :lol:

Alright Chun..... first things first, the lower the ISO the better. I understand low light shots are hard which is why you want to avoid them as much as possible!

The first is a great shot I really like the lighting but the noise deffinently kills it IMO. It is way too high, and with macro you want the sharpest in focus and the creamiest bokeh (out of focus backgrounds). Luckily a quick adjustment with curves and you get this.....

It took me honestly 10 seconds (5 to get the program running and 5 to actually do it). I hope you dont mind me editing your picture, and if you do I will delete it immediately.

 

[yeatzee]

As for your second picture.... the same thing applies and I did the exact same 10 second treatment getting me this..

Both the first and second have great potential!!

(btw black backgrounds are great safety nets! easily fixed)

---------------------------------------------------------

The third is not that appealing and the mantis kind of creates a horizontal line going accross the whole middle of the frame.

---------------------------------------------------------

Finally the last, which is my favorite btw, has great colors and is very sharp! My complaint is all the dust on your sensor (?) or what ever those dust spots are. It kind of takes away from the picture. If you want I can edit them out real quick to give you an idea of what it looks like without them (im sure much better)....but only upon request. Also I kind of wish I could see exactly what its standing on since we can only see a small chunk in the bottom left of the frame so a little farther back might have been slightly better.

Note: I am not a pro nor do I pretend to be.....take my advice/suggestions with a grain of salt!

 

[kamakiri]

Phil,

I *always* welcome comments and critiques. Rarely do I take a shot that cannot be improved by cropping or post production of some sort. I had some of the same reaction to the series when reviewing as shot on-camera.

But my two shots above were done with the exact same equipment, but to show how the choice of setting can affect the main light vs. phil phlash (sorry, I couldn't resist)

here they are with a white balance adjutment to both:

f/2.8 with 'fill flash':

f/9 with flash as 'main light':

And like I said above, either shot could benefit from a crop:

 

[kamakiri]

Edit: Sorry, Kamakiri: I misread your data. I also thouight that you had used a diffuser over the light soiurce in the first ine withoutcompensating for the light loss. So the first one is underexposed and the depth of field is so narrow that only the mantis's eyes are in focus. The second gains depth of field from being stopped down but is slightly overexposed (compare the two heads). How did the histogram look on that second one? A spike on both ends? In the first, I would guess that it was kinda flat.Wotdjathink?

Aha! So now we're on the same page...too bad I had to be away from the 'puter for a few hours for a dinner meeting!

The histogram is 'dual-spikey', but I think the exposure was spot-on, if not a little low.

Second one wasn't so flat as it was about a stop+ underexposed:

 

[PhilinYuma]

Aha! So now we're on the same page...too bad I had to be away from the 'puter for a few hours for a dinner meeting!The histogram is 'dual-spikey', but I think the exposure was spot-on, if not a little low.

Second one wasn't so flat as it was about a stop+ underexposed:

Aha! I really like that cropped, ballanced pic! Get it printed, sign it illegibly, have it framed, and hang it behind your desk. When a client admires it, tell him that it is a limited edition of an up and coming photographer, and tell him you can get him one for only $500, because he is a "valued client."

I have "always" understood manual settings, because when I started out, over half a century ago (ouch!) that was all there was, and veterans were still copmplaining about "klunky" SLRs compared with their sleek (parallax ridden) Leica rangefinders. In those days, we also carried our own hand held light meters and did macros with bellows or an extension tube (only "amateurs" used diopter lenses). It was all great fun, and I think that I shall stick to technical aspects of pix here, rather than design elements. Less dangerous!

Are you guys all using a version of PS, by the way? I got one for Sunny, because she has Talent (I don't) but I get by very nicely on The GIMP, which is Quite a Bit Cheaper!

 

[yeatzee]

I also use GIMP

 

[kamakiri]

Aha! I really like that cropped, ballanced pic! Get it printed, sign it illegibly, have it framed, and hang it behind your desk. When a client admires it, tell him that it is a limited edition of an up and coming photographer, and tell him you can get him one for only $500, because he is a "valued client." I have "always" understood manual settings, because when I started out, over half a century ago (ouch!) that was all there was, and veterans were still copmplaining about "klunky" SLRs compared with their sleek (parallax ridden) Leica rangefinders. In those days, we also carried our own hand held light meters and did macros with bellows or an extension tube (only "amateurs" used diopter lenses). It was all great fun, and I think that I shall stick to technical aspects of pix here, rather than design elements. Less dangerous!

Are you guys all using a version of PS, by the way? I got one for Sunny, because she has Talent (I don't) but I get by very nicely on The GIMP, which is Quite a Bit Cheaper!

I use mostly PS products. Sad part is I can and do most of my edits on PS Elements 2.0...even paid editing. Usually from other wedding photogs who don't know how to fix their *own* mistakes! I only fire up CS2 or 3 if I need it for reeeeally complicated work.

No real plans to print any of my mantis pictures for mounting or framing. I'm still hoping to get a gallery opening...but insects and macro have nothing to do with it!

And hey, I still love the sleek function of a rangefinder-like digital camera in the Sigma DP-1...one of these days I'll pick up a DP-2 to pair with it. The digital Ms are a little too rich for my blood. The only thing I really appreciate about Leica is the glass. I have a couple of R-ROM mount lenses that bolt up to the 5D via adapter. Canon glass just doesn't compete in the WA-UWA focal lengths.

 

[kamakiri]

I'm not a big fan of flash (mainly because i havent got one) because the photos tend to turn up too 'blue' or 'stale'.

Chun, well that's one advantage of working with digital is the ability to adjust White Balance (WB) to suit the source of the light.

There are three practical places to adjust WB:

1) Camera setting.

When shooting flash, the first chance to set WB is on the camera, usually indicated by the symbol of a lightning bolt under the WB setting. When shooting JPG format straight out of camera, this will remove the typical blue or cool cast of light from the xenon flash tube.

2) Shoot in RAW.

When shooting in RAW formats, WB can be adjusted in post, usually with a single click in your cameras proprietary software. Shooting RAW isn't for everybody, but offers the most control over a digital image and is the closest thing to having negatives worked in your own darkroom.

3) Fix with 3rd party software.

PS, PSP, LR, Aperture, or many of the various tools out there will also fix flash WB. The various tools are far too expansive for me to cover all techniques even in just PhotoShop, but just to list a few tools: Auto color correction, Color Cast, Hue, Eye dropper WB...

There is also shooting a grey or white card for a Custom White Balance (CWB)...which isn't practical for many shooters. But I could cover the topic further if there is any interest.

From my example above with flash main lighting, JPG straight from camera:

"corrected" for white balance:

 

[kamakiri]

One last technique I forgot to mention is changing the color temperature of the light source. I don't have any mantis/insect examples, but here is a flash shot where the flash has been warmed with a 'gel' filter. I do the same thing with a gold diffuser or bounce reflector.

From an engagement shoot last season: