Spider and moth
May 19, 2017 07:31:12 #
Both are very tiny. I think the moth may be a webbing clothes moth Tineola sp. (perhaps bisselliella). The spider is, I believe, one of the tiny Money Spiders - Linyphiidae sp.
Both images are quite noisy on download at only ISO 320, the originals were well illuminated and not at all dark SOOC. I used 68mm of tubes and perhaps this was too much for such tiny subjects or could I have done better?
The moth, taken at 1:2 and cropped, seems a cleaner shot even though I had to kneel awkwardly in the bath to reach it whereas the spider shots were taken on a tripod. (1st. spider taken at about 1:2) 1st spider uncropped the 2nd. fairly lightly cropped.
The 3rd image is a stack of 2 shots at 1:1 which is even noisier. Also, all shots seem a little murky SOOC missing clarity. Too much light perhaps or too little. I had speedlight on camera for 1st. 2 images and on the table for the last and near a window. Suggestions very welcome.
PS I have just added a 4th. image of the stacked spider after de-noise treatment and without crop.
Both images are quite noisy on download at only ISO 320, the originals were well illuminated and not at all dark SOOC. I used 68mm of tubes and perhaps this was too much for such tiny subjects or could I have done better?
The moth, taken at 1:2 and cropped, seems a cleaner shot even though I had to kneel awkwardly in the bath to reach it whereas the spider shots were taken on a tripod. (1st. spider taken at about 1:2) 1st spider uncropped the 2nd. fairly lightly cropped.
The 3rd image is a stack of 2 shots at 1:1 which is even noisier. Also, all shots seem a little murky SOOC missing clarity. Too much light perhaps or too little. I had speedlight on camera for 1st. 2 images and on the table for the last and near a window. Suggestions very welcome.
PS I have just added a 4th. image of the stacked spider after de-noise treatment and without crop.
May 19, 2017 08:31:13 #
👍 . As for the sensor noise in the spider pix, that is a bit of a puzzle. The ISO is not high. The aperture was f/14, which is pretty small but probably necessary given the high mag. A too small aperture + a lot of extension could cause diffraction, but the effect does not come across as diffraction to me.
May 19, 2017 08:42:14 #
Mark Sturtevant wrote:
Thanks for those thoughts Mark, I am thinking it has something to do with light, perhaps around f9 with less flash power might have been better for the spider in the dining room, I used 1/8th power. I understand the lower power the better the image. My outside shots come out better than indoors. I think the moth shot in the bath was better taking advantage of the white bath as a large soft box.👍 . As for the sensor noise in the spider pix, that is a bit of a puzzle. The ISO is not high. The aperture was f/14, which is pretty small but probably necessary given the high mag. A too small aperture + a lot of extension could cause diffraction, but the effect does not come across as diffraction to me.
May 19, 2017 09:35:25 #
May 19, 2017 09:41:35 #
Brenda, my ISO stays at 320 with a full set of tubes. I shootat f/11 or f/16. I usually take a shot and adjust my flash for a few better shots.
May 19, 2017 10:03:25 #
tinusbum wrote:
Thanks Tom, is that the same procedure for indoors and out. I find that shots are murkier indoors?brenda my iso stays at 320 with a full set of tubes.i shoot f-11 or f-16. i usually take a shot and adjust my flash for a few better shots
May 19, 2017 10:23:04 #
Lower flash power means that the effective shutter speed is faster -- so less light. I am wondering if that results in the camera amplifying the image to compensate, and that could introduce sensor noise.
May 19, 2017 13:30:37 #
EnglishBrenda wrote:
yes,same in and out.outside i try to shoot in the shadeThanks Tom, is that the same procedure for indoors and out. I find that shots are murkier indoors?
May 19, 2017 13:31:50 #
Mark Sturtevant wrote:
Maybe Mark, insufficient light does, I believe, introduce noise. I did also read that using lower power flash creates less diffraction. Something I realised the other day was that because different parts of the world have different qualities of natural light then settings that work well in, say Spain, will need to be adjusted in the much duller light of England. I noticed this difference when living in Spain - photos taken there were much brighter and colourful than those taken in England but only now have I remembered this. Lower flash power means that the effective shutter speed is faster -- so less light. I am wondering if that results in the camera amplifying the image to compensate, and that could introduce sensor noise.
May 19, 2017 13:41:54 #
tinusbum wrote:
Thanks, I always try to follow your methods because your results are so amazing but, of course, I don't have your natural talent or steadiness.yes,same in and out.outside i try to shoot in the shade
May 19, 2017 14:22:45 #
EnglishBrenda wrote:
last time someone buttered me up like that,they wanted to borrow money Thanks, I always try to follow your methods because your results are so amazing but, of course, I don't have your natural talent or steadiness.
May 19, 2017 16:26:07 #
tinusbum wrote:
Were they successful, if so I will continue.last time someone buttered me up like that,they wanted to borrow money
May 19, 2017 16:33:39 #
EnglishBrenda wrote:
i'm afraid i couldnt make a down payment on a free lunchWere they successful, if so I will continue.
May 19, 2017 16:36:55 #
tinusbum wrote:
Free lunches are usually grotty anyway and they have strings.i'm afraid i couldnt make a down payment on a free lunch
May 20, 2017 03:22:58 #
EnglishBrenda wrote:
Close. Insufficient exposure of a stop or two, can create noise.Maybe Mark, insufficient light does, I believe, introduce noise.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.