I need an objective eye -please.
Posted 03/05/2013 - 23:01
Link
Mike-P wrote:
[quote:3496ace15f="davidstorm"]Unfortunately I think it is lenses that are Charlottes problem, it happens to all those that get hooked on macro in a big way - the holy grail that is magnification. I went the same way, macro lens, macro lens with tubes, macro lens with bellows, macro lens with bellows and tubes, macro lens with bellows, tubes and Raynox DCR-250, reversed lenses ... and so on and so on.
I think we are maybe agreeing in a way Mike? I was really meaning that the lenses are not the cause of any lack of quality in Charlotte's images, but that it is more her own self critical approach that maybe leads to a desire to keep striving for better results via different lenses?[quote:3496ace15f="davidstorm"]Unfortunately I think it is lenses that are Charlottes problem, it happens to all those that get hooked on macro in a big way - the holy grail that is magnification. I went the same way, macro lens, macro lens with tubes, macro lens with bellows, macro lens with bellows and tubes, macro lens with bellows, tubes and Raynox DCR-250, reversed lenses ... and so on and so on.
I like to dabble with macro, but I am by no means obsessed with greater magnification, more detailed hairs on insects legs etc, etc. I'm happy with my Sigma 105; I use it with tubes and TC's and I aim more for composition and colour than I so for extreme magnification.
As always with our passion it is 'each to their own'.
Regards
David
Posted 04/05/2013 - 19:32
Link
Mannesty wrote:
It's possible that some of the image degradation that you are perceiving is due to the converter you are using. I'm not sure why you think you need it.
If it's high magnification you are after, a reversed decent 28mm lens might give you what you are seeking.
Some of your shots above are heading towards microphotography, perhaps choose larger subjects to work with whilst you perfect all of the other influences that make a good image, lighting being the main one of course.
There are tiny little leaf hoppers and such like that you can't see very well but up close they are stunningly beautiful. Some are really weird looking. I cant capture them with just the macro lens I need more magnification. Charlotte wrote:
MP-E65mm is what my lba is lusting after at the moment.
As Mike points out, the required kit doesn't start and finish with one lens Charlotte.MP-E65mm is what my lba is lusting after at the moment.
It's possible that some of the image degradation that you are perceiving is due to the converter you are using. I'm not sure why you think you need it.
If it's high magnification you are after, a reversed decent 28mm lens might give you what you are seeking.
Some of your shots above are heading towards microphotography, perhaps choose larger subjects to work with whilst you perfect all of the other influences that make a good image, lighting being the main one of course.
The jumping spider above was only slightly bigger than an ant. I'd been following it around for about 20 minutes and it pounced on something. The only way I could see what it had was with the above set up - it had actually cought a teeny weeny little crab spider and it looked like it was holding a deflated crab spider shaped balloon when it had finished sucking it dry.
The problem I have with the 28 mm reversed is firstly I have to get really close which is only any good for insects that aren't going to get spooked easily.
Secondly I get flare for some reason every so often - which is immensely frustrating as I usually find it's the in focus shots that have flared. I have tried in the past to solve this problem but there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason for it. Here's an example taken today to show what I mean. This has just been resized and converted - no pp.
I have in the past tried the 28mm on tubes but you really have to be touching the creature to get focus and they really don't like that.
Thanks for all the advice you've given I am taking it all on board.
Charlotte
Oh - I was looking at the shots I took today and noticed the same 'glass' problem - it's OK now I've cleaned my computer screen.
I think I need to recalibrate the screen as well.
Posted 04/05/2013 - 20:56
Link
I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the lighting on these, though I am not a macro expert; in fact I hardly ever do any. I think the processing could be tweaked, and mainly by using levels. I think a lot of people get too hung up on only pulling the histogram in on levels adjustments to where it starts curving upwards.
I hope you don't mind, but I have taken three of your shots and done levels adjustments on them, all by just pulling the right hand side of the histogram a bit to the left. In the first two I also erased the levels adjustment about 90% on the brighter highlights using a soft brush.
I hope you don't mind, but I have taken three of your shots and done levels adjustments on them, all by just pulling the right hand side of the histogram a bit to the left. In the first two I also erased the levels adjustment about 90% on the brighter highlights using a soft brush.
Posted 04/05/2013 - 21:41
Link
Hi Charlotte, I would personally stick to a 50mm f1.4 0r f1.7 on tubes with good diffused lighting and crop.
Take a look at what Thomas Shahan is using. It's a very simple setup, however he tends to trap the subject, take it back to his studio and once he has the shot he wants, takes the subject back to where it came from.
Get yourself a flash you can control fully and a swiveling hot shoe mount, try to diffuse the light as much as you can and use as little glass between the lens and the sensor.
Stealth is your friend.
I don't know why I'm saying all this anyway as you are one of the best macro shooters on this forum. You've got your smalls in a twist and just need to get back to basics, stop faffing and go as simple as possible with your equipment.
Take a look at what Thomas Shahan is using. It's a very simple setup, however he tends to trap the subject, take it back to his studio and once he has the shot he wants, takes the subject back to where it came from.
Get yourself a flash you can control fully and a swiveling hot shoe mount, try to diffuse the light as much as you can and use as little glass between the lens and the sensor.
Stealth is your friend.
I don't know why I'm saying all this anyway as you are one of the best macro shooters on this forum. You've got your smalls in a twist and just need to get back to basics, stop faffing and go as simple as possible with your equipment.
Flickr
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans" (John Lennon)
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans" (John Lennon)
Posted 04/05/2013 - 22:40
Link
Charlotte, if you were to look back at those images in a few weeks time I think on reflection you'd be quite pleased with them. You are still too close to producing them, aware of any flaws and already know how you could improve them, but it is the law of diminishing returns.
They're absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. Are you still using the Pringle tube for lighting or got something more elaborate now?
John K
They're absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. Are you still using the Pringle tube for lighting or got something more elaborate now?
John K
John K
Posted 05/05/2013 - 20:56
Link
davidstorm wrote:
There's a little bit of blur in a couple of these Charlotte, but I tend to agree with the others that the lighting is probably the single biggest thing that is holding these back. That is, apart from your own self-criticism and self-confidence! You really are hard on yourself, needlessly so IMHO.
Your macros are great, if they were lit a little more strongly lit this would mean less processing would be required, especially in the sharpening department.
I don't think lenses are your problem, apart from the fact that maybe you should choose one that suits you and stick with it. I have noticed that you've changed a few times, but you seem always to rate your Vivitar 55mmm so why not just stick with that and get the best from it? I bought a Sigma 105mm DG EX macro a year or so back and find it really suits me down to the ground, so I've taken the decision to not buy any other macro lens and to learn this one intimately to try and extract the most I can from it. I doubt I'll find a sharper / better one.
I wish I could give you something to lift your self-confidence in a photography sense, but I fear that only you can do this. All I can say is that you are head and shoulders above most and you should not beat yourself up if some of your images are not blindingly brilliant.
Best wishes
David
PS: My own personal opinion (for what it's worth) is that some of your finest work was with the Sigma 50mm F2.8 macro - maybe you should buy another one of these?
Thanks for taking the time to help David, 'tis appreciated. There's a little bit of blur in a couple of these Charlotte, but I tend to agree with the others that the lighting is probably the single biggest thing that is holding these back. That is, apart from your own self-criticism and self-confidence! You really are hard on yourself, needlessly so IMHO.
Your macros are great, if they were lit a little more strongly lit this would mean less processing would be required, especially in the sharpening department.
I don't think lenses are your problem, apart from the fact that maybe you should choose one that suits you and stick with it. I have noticed that you've changed a few times, but you seem always to rate your Vivitar 55mmm so why not just stick with that and get the best from it? I bought a Sigma 105mm DG EX macro a year or so back and find it really suits me down to the ground, so I've taken the decision to not buy any other macro lens and to learn this one intimately to try and extract the most I can from it. I doubt I'll find a sharper / better one.
I wish I could give you something to lift your self-confidence in a photography sense, but I fear that only you can do this. All I can say is that you are head and shoulders above most and you should not beat yourself up if some of your images are not blindingly brilliant.
Best wishes
David
PS: My own personal opinion (for what it's worth) is that some of your finest work was with the Sigma 50mm F2.8 macro - maybe you should buy another one of these?
These were test shots not taken in the best of conditions it was a wee bit windy and I didn't want to go to the trouble of sorting out lighting, which can be time consuming, if others could see the glass of the teleconverter.
I am perhaps overly critical of myself not just with photography. It's the way I learn and I have to push myself as no one else is going to push me to improve.
I don't have the vivitar any more I sold it to fund a 16-45. I do still have the sigma (no one wanted that so I kept it) and do still use it more for the artistic characteristics of that lens. The Pentax 100mm 2.8 is sharper and gives more working distance, especially when using bellows or tubes.
I know my lenses probably as well as you know yours and if you think of my macro work like your landscapes where you have more than one lens and try different ones, that's really the same thing. Each of my lenses have different attributes and different uses.
Thanks for the kind comments.
Kind regards
Charlotte
Posted 05/05/2013 - 20:59
Link
aliengrove wrote:
I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the lighting on these, though I am not a macro expert; in fact I hardly ever do any. I think the processing could be tweaked, and mainly by using levels. I think a lot of people get too hung up on only pulling the histogram in on levels adjustments to where it starts curving upwards.
I hope you don't mind, but I have taken three of your shots and done levels adjustments on them, all by just pulling the right hand side of the histogram a bit to the left. In the first two I also erased the levels adjustment about 90% on the brighter highlights using a soft brush.
No I don't mind at all - thank you so much for taking the time - I have no idea how to erase levels with a brush, I didn't even know you could do such a thing.I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the lighting on these, though I am not a macro expert; in fact I hardly ever do any. I think the processing could be tweaked, and mainly by using levels. I think a lot of people get too hung up on only pulling the histogram in on levels adjustments to where it starts curving upwards.
I hope you don't mind, but I have taken three of your shots and done levels adjustments on them, all by just pulling the right hand side of the histogram a bit to the left. In the first two I also erased the levels adjustment about 90% on the brighter highlights using a soft brush.
I really must get to grips with this pp lark.
Thanks again,
Charlotte
Posted 05/05/2013 - 21:04
Link
SteveEveritt wrote:
Hi Charlotte, I would personally stick to a 50mm f1.4 0r f1.7 on tubes with good diffused lighting and crop.
Take a look at what Thomas Shahan is using. It's a very simple setup, however he tends to trap the subject, take it back to his studio and once he has the shot he wants, takes the subject back to where it came from.
Get yourself a flash you can control fully and a swiveling hot shoe mount, try to diffuse the light as much as you can and use as little glass between the lens and the sensor.
Stealth is your friend.
I don't know why I'm saying all this anyway as you are one of the best macro shooters on this forum. You've got your smalls in a twist and just need to get back to basics, stop faffing and go as simple as possible with your equipment.
A good old fashioned kick up the bum, Thanks Steve.Hi Charlotte, I would personally stick to a 50mm f1.4 0r f1.7 on tubes with good diffused lighting and crop.
Take a look at what Thomas Shahan is using. It's a very simple setup, however he tends to trap the subject, take it back to his studio and once he has the shot he wants, takes the subject back to where it came from.
Get yourself a flash you can control fully and a swiveling hot shoe mount, try to diffuse the light as much as you can and use as little glass between the lens and the sensor.
Stealth is your friend.
I don't know why I'm saying all this anyway as you are one of the best macro shooters on this forum. You've got your smalls in a twist and just need to get back to basics, stop faffing and go as simple as possible with your equipment.
You're right about the flash situation I really need a proper one - perhaps you can give me some guidance there are so many of them and I don't know which does what and how.
I never did get round to buying a swivel hot shoe adapter as the flash I have isn't adjustable or long enough.
I'll stop faffing (for a while) then.
Thanks,
Charlotte
Posted 05/05/2013 - 21:16
Link
JAK wrote:
Charlotte, if you were to look back at those images in a few weeks time I think on reflection you'd be quite pleased with them. You are still too close to producing them, aware of any flaws and already know how you could improve them, but it is the law of diminishing returns.
They're absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. Are you still using the Pringle tube for lighting or got something more elaborate now?
John K
You're probably right John. Charlotte, if you were to look back at those images in a few weeks time I think on reflection you'd be quite pleased with them. You are still too close to producing them, aware of any flaws and already know how you could improve them, but it is the law of diminishing returns.
They're absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. Are you still using the Pringle tube for lighting or got something more elaborate now?
John K
I still use the pringles tube at times - especially when I'm out and don't want to carry too much equipment.
I have a cheap metz non adjustable manual flash which I use on a bracket made from a 'majic arm' when I am using the Pentax 100mm on long tubes or bellows.
I have a DOI ring flash which is quite old and manual as well. So with both of these I have to be careful so as not to get 'flash' on what ever I'm photographing.
I do need to get an automatic flash system sorted out really - it would make life easier.
Thanks for your encouragement,
Charlotte
Posted 05/05/2013 - 21:24
Link
I've been having a think about lighting / flash. I made a double-header diffuser from Pringles Tubes and it has proved to be my most successful contraption to date. The best thing about it is that it's adjustable and it fires light from two directions, so no shadows. The worst thing is it is not efficient in its light output, so a powerful flash is needed and I can't get ISO 100 at F16, which is what I need.
I think a better solution is required. I don't like ringflash so I am about to build an adjustable bracket that will support two flashguns at once, one on each side of the subject. I've got some ideas about how I will build this and will post some pics once it's done.
BTW Charlotte, regarding flash, my advice would be to buy a couple of cheap and powerful manual flashguns, ones on which you can adjust the power output easily. There is no need for TTL or automatic flash. I have Neewer TT560's, they only cost £30 and they are superb.
Regards
David
I think a better solution is required. I don't like ringflash so I am about to build an adjustable bracket that will support two flashguns at once, one on each side of the subject. I've got some ideas about how I will build this and will post some pics once it's done.
BTW Charlotte, regarding flash, my advice would be to buy a couple of cheap and powerful manual flashguns, ones on which you can adjust the power output easily. There is no need for TTL or automatic flash. I have Neewer TT560's, they only cost £30 and they are superb.
Regards
David
Posted 05/05/2013 - 21:35
Link
Yeah Charlotte, some of macro shots you've put on here have been really really memorable.
I love macro and I'm looking forward to the season changing, the DA100, tubes & Pringle tube seem to satisfy me, so I'd agree with Steve and say keep it simple and also offer another gentle boot to the rear
What has left me fed up, and perhaps this might be part of your funk, is finding the subjects! I go out in the garden expecting to come back with bright colourful things like I live in Madagascar or something, but sadly the pickings tend to be the 'usual suspects' of your average Scottish backyard. I only got my first Southern Hawker last summer down at the in-laws in the Lake District, and what a great reinvigorating feeling it was! You're obviously privileged to a healthier eco-system than some, but perhaps this might be a factor?
I love macro and I'm looking forward to the season changing, the DA100, tubes & Pringle tube seem to satisfy me, so I'd agree with Steve and say keep it simple and also offer another gentle boot to the rear
What has left me fed up, and perhaps this might be part of your funk, is finding the subjects! I go out in the garden expecting to come back with bright colourful things like I live in Madagascar or something, but sadly the pickings tend to be the 'usual suspects' of your average Scottish backyard. I only got my first Southern Hawker last summer down at the in-laws in the Lake District, and what a great reinvigorating feeling it was! You're obviously privileged to a healthier eco-system than some, but perhaps this might be a factor?
Pentax pour des images riches en détails!
Posted 05/05/2013 - 21:42
Link
I must be lucky, but I get some really great insects in our garden in Sheffield. Found a beautiful little green flourescent spider today (image posted in the Gallery) and last year got all sorts of interesting things. I have let an area of the garden go wild and encouraged wild plants and this has paid off with Grasshoppers, a myriad of flies, ladybirds and all sorts of other insects. Got some Woundwort Shield Bugs last year, first time I've seen these. We also get Grass Snakes in the garden; it's one of my photographic goals to get some really close up images of these beautiful reptiles.
Regards
David
Regards
David
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
13627 posts
18 years
Hythe,
Hampshire UK
I don't think lenses are your problem, apart from the fact that maybe you should choose one that suits you and stick with it. I have noticed that you've changed a few times, but you seem always to rate your Vivitar 55mmm so why not just stick with that and get the best from it?