Macro Question: Due to being stuck in one place because of the virus and the advancing years, I have begun to shoot some macro. (Why it is called macro and not micro has always...

carney2

Due to being stuck in one place because of the virus and the advancing years, I have begun to shoot some macro. (Why it is called macro and not micro has always bothered me.) I 've seen some really good macro photos, and some have been "focus stacked." I don't focus stack, considering it too much fuss and bother. Or, as one long time photographer friend of mine once said, "I didn't get into this hobby to play with computers." Rather, I have a macro lens that will get me to f/32, so I go for maximum depth of field and add needed light via a flash or a reflector.

Opinions?

bleirer

I think one reason for stacking is fear of diffraction. With stacking you get to use the sweet spot of the lens.

I think it is called macro is because it means 'large.' With magnification at 1x or better the image on the sensor is as big or bigger than the object in the world.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You didn't tell us the focal length being used.

For an aperture, you might want to spend some time with your computer. Set up a tripod on any subject and just walk the apertures from say f/8 out to f/32 on a consistent set of test images. Then, pull-up the images on your computer and look at the image details of your test at the 1:1 pixel-level. You'll likely find the point / aperture of diminished returns. That is, you'll see in your image the point where you don't gain any more sharpness in depth of field, but do start to see a drop off in the sharpness of the image.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

carney2 wrote:

... (Why it is called macro and not micro has always bothered me.) ...
...

Probably because micro is very small in scale and macro is very large in scale.
Macro being larger than life size.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

carney2 wrote:

Due to being stuck in one place because of the vir... (show quote)

That is similar to the way I shoot macro. I don't focus stack because I don't like to use a tripod. It would just slow me down too much and I wouldn't get as many shots. I use high enough shutter speeds and VR to eliminate camera motion, and I stop it down as much as I can to get max depth of field. I usually shoot at ISO 800 even in sunlight to accomplish this. If it is overcast or the subject is in the shadows, I use flash lighting.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

carney2 wrote:

Due to being stuck in one place because of the vir... (show quote)

F32 is not the sharpest aperture for most DSLR lenses, even though it may be the aperture that provides the most DoF. It's not hard to tell the difference between small aperture images and those that are focus stacked. Focus stacking is no bother, once you understand it and have done it a few times.

If you don't care about fine detail capture, then F32 will do. You are not likely to capture detail like this with F32, however. These were done at F16, and not nearly as sharp as they could be had I chosen F8, which is the sharpest aperture for my Tamron 180mm F3.5. I chose F16 to be able to take fewer exposures, and just crossed my fingers that Mr. Mantis held his pose, which he obviously did.

(Download)

carney2

100 mm

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Gene51 wrote:

F32 is not the sharpest aperture for most DSLR lenses, even though it may be the aperture that provides the most DoF. It's not hard to tell the difference between small aperture images and those that are focus stacked. Focus stacking is no bother, once you understand it and have done it a few times.

If you don't care about fine detail capture, then F32 will do.

And you have Nikon who calls their Macro lens a Micro Nikkor. I get fine detail at F16 with my 105 Micro Nikkor lens.. It all depends upon up depth of field you need.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

PixelStan77 wrote:

And you have Nikon who calls their Macro lens a Micro Nikkor. I get fine detail at F16 with my 105 Micro Nikkor lens.. It all depends upon up depth of field you need.

Yes, I get fine detail at F16, but I get better and more fine detail at F8. Regardless of whether I am using Nikkors, Sigmas, Tamrons or Tokinas. Macro/Micro lenses are all pretty darn good, with just a handful of exceptions.

There is no question that the 105 is exceptionally sharp at F4 and F5.6, and nearly as good at F8, but by F16 performance falls to very good, and F32 is crap.

https://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/224-micro-nikkor-af-s-105mm-f28g-if-ed-vr-review--test-report?start=1

I think the aperture decision is more than just the need for depth of field - image size, possibility of movement, how much detail you want to capture, and the unique capabilities of a lens all go into the decision.

JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

Gene51 wrote:

F32 is not the sharpest aperture for most DSLR len... (show quote)

I have that same lens and usually shoot at f/16. Your mantis shot in my opinion is very sharp. I've not tried f/8 as I prefer the entire subject to be reasonably sharp in most cases.

ShelbyDave Loc: Lone Rock, WI

CHG_CANON wrote:

You didn't tell us the focal length being used. br... (show quote)

Great idea, thanks, will do that today.

John Maher Loc: Northern Virginia

bleirer wrote:

I think one reason for stacking is fear of diffraction. With stacking you get to use the sweet spot of the lens.

I think it is called macro is because it means 'large.' With magnification at 1x or better the image on the sensor is as big or bigger than the object in the world.

How do I determine "sweet spot"

I am considering stacking and centering on the "sweet spot" makes sense.

I am using an AIS Micro-Nikkor 105mm which has aperture of f4 to f32.

I would like to understand how to determine "sweet spot", not just what the "sweet spot" is for this lens.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

John Maher wrote:

How do I determine "sweet spot"

I am considering stacking and centering on the "sweet spot" makes sense.

I am using an AIS Micro-Nikkor 105mm which has aperture of f4 to f32.

I would like to understand how to determine "sweet spot", not just what the "sweet spot" is for this lens.

For an aperture, you might want to spend some time with your computer. Set up a tripod on any subject and just walk the apertures from say f/8 out to f/32 on a consistent set of test images. Then, pull-up the images on your computer and look at the image details of your test at the 1:1 pixel-level. You'll likely find the point / aperture of diminished returns. That is, you'll see in your image the point where you don't gain any more sharpness in depth of field, but do start to see a drop off in the sharpness of the image.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

JRiepe wrote:

I have that same lens and usually shoot at f/16. Your mantis shot in my opinion is very sharp. I've not tried f/8 as I prefer the entire subject to be reasonably sharp in most cases.

Thanks!

But the mantis was a focus stacked image comprised of 13 images. It's sharp because I didn't rely on a small aperture for DoF.

Here is one of the component images:

.

(Download)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

CHG_CANON wrote:

For an aperture, you might want to spend some time... (show quote)

Actually, Paul, I'm pretty sure the sweet spot is the aperture that produces the best result across the image. What you are describing is more of a "compromise" spot where there is a tradeoff between image sharpness and depth of field.