Macro Nasturtium and Impatiens
Mar 26, 2017 05:15:04 #
Mar 26, 2017 05:36:30 #
Great photos with vivid color and detail. 
While the orientation of #1 may be reality you will be sending many UHH people to the chiropractor after they twist there head to better see the main character... the ant in a horizontal orientation.
While the orientation of #1 may be reality you will be sending many UHH people to the chiropractor after they twist there head to better see the main character... the ant in a horizontal orientation.
Mar 26, 2017 08:23:01 #
Beautiful. Can you tell us about the setup and settings? If that is an ant, how did you get it to hold still?
Mar 26, 2017 09:46:50 #
Mar 26, 2017 12:35:05 #
Charles 46277 wrote:
Beautiful. Can you tell us about the setup and settings? If that is an ant, how did you get it to hold still?
The impatiens is in the 2:1 to 3:1 range. Yongnuo flash. MPE-65 @ F11, 1/250. Handheld. 200 ISO.
The nasturtium is 1:1. Same setup as before. I simply wanted to photograph the inside of the flower. The ant emerged from within, hesitated for a moment, and I was lucky enough to get it in focus. Ants are difficult customers.
Mar 26, 2017 13:35:47 #
Tech question for all.
On traditional cameras, a lens set at f11 has effective aperture of f22 when focused at 1:1 magnification, either by actual extension such as tubes or bellows, or by lens design features. In metering through the lens, the camera sets or indicates a shutter speed appropriate to f22, just as a light meter would indicate a speed for f22, even though the lens is set on f11.
But in digital cameras, when lenses do not have marked aperture settings, when the camera indicates an aperture of f11, is it saying this is the effective aperture (or f22)?
I ask because it makes a difference in depth of field whether we call it f11 or f22, yes? The aperture that is f11 at normal distances is 4 times larger than the same aperture (same hole size) at 1:1 (two stops). So if I do macro work with digital, and do not have stop-down preview to see depth of field, there are two issues. First, should I expect DOF of f22 or f11, when it says f11? Second, at what marked aperture will I run into softness from diffraction? (At marked f11, no problem; but at f22 we begin to see softness on small sensors). (A third issue, which interests me less, is the effect on out of focus background...)
On traditional cameras, a lens set at f11 has effective aperture of f22 when focused at 1:1 magnification, either by actual extension such as tubes or bellows, or by lens design features. In metering through the lens, the camera sets or indicates a shutter speed appropriate to f22, just as a light meter would indicate a speed for f22, even though the lens is set on f11.
But in digital cameras, when lenses do not have marked aperture settings, when the camera indicates an aperture of f11, is it saying this is the effective aperture (or f22)?
I ask because it makes a difference in depth of field whether we call it f11 or f22, yes? The aperture that is f11 at normal distances is 4 times larger than the same aperture (same hole size) at 1:1 (two stops). So if I do macro work with digital, and do not have stop-down preview to see depth of field, there are two issues. First, should I expect DOF of f22 or f11, when it says f11? Second, at what marked aperture will I run into softness from diffraction? (At marked f11, no problem; but at f22 we begin to see softness on small sensors). (A third issue, which interests me less, is the effect on out of focus background...)
Mar 28, 2017 05:00:58 #
Mar 28, 2017 12:58:05 #
Mar 28, 2017 14:13:57 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.