Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I saw this guy on the wall this morning and was only able to get this one shot before he got away, the second image is a crop of the first.

Shot with the reversed 28mm lens on 38mm tubes at ISO 160, f/8 with diffused flash. I measured the magnification this morning for that setup and it is 3X, the field of view is right at 7mm.

jrb1213 Loc: McDonough GEorgia

I like his "graying at the temples" look.

colo43 Loc: Eastern Plains of Colorado

Kool Shot.
Hope he does not come back to bite you in your sleep. nasty bites!

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

This guy is tiny and I am sure very harmless, he was crawling on my hand before I lost him... I have had spider bites and yes they are nasty, but I am not aware of any Jumpers that I should be concerned about, they are very small spiders.

colo43 Loc: Eastern Plains of Colorado

:thumbup: :thumbup:

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

Think I'm seeing noise from using ISO 160 or would you call this diffraction. F/8 at 3x equals = affective aperture F/32. What's your thoughts Geff, Douglass

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I think that it is what I usually refer to as flare, that spider was shot on an almost white wall. But if you look at the eyes the hair around the eyes is reasonably sharp... I am not so sure that I would consider it to be diffraction in the strict sense of being caused by the aperture... but I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject... Image is also processed probably a little too much which would add to the noise, I think that it may be just a tad over sharpened and I adjusted the shadows to bring the spider out a little bit, that adds a lot of noise.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Didn't ask me, but I'd say it's diffraction. I would think it would increase in reversing a lens-- but that's just a hunch on my part.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

From what I'm learning the further away your point of aperture from your sensor, the more the angle of light changes. This changes the effective aperture, which changes exposure/DoF/Diffraction blur

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

That would make sense, especially in a setup designed to magnify the image. I still think that there are a few different factors that contribute to the problem. I get some images that hardly need to be touched at all in PP and others that need some serious work... generally I can recognize the conditions that I took the shot under that contributed to the problems that I experience in particular pics. I like what image master said in his post, it seems to make sense to me, I also think that a reversed lens on tubes where the iris is very near the front element is going to be more problematic than a macro lens mounted directly to the camera. I think that having the iris pushed way our away from the camera as it is on extension tubes does create a problem with flare which to me is quite different than diffraction, the image coming through the lens is much larger than what you see in your viewfinder or on your sensor and I believe that it begins bouncing around the walls of the tubes, I think that is why I have been able to find photographers stating that this is not a problem with bellows because the walls of the bellows do not reflect the light like the metal tubes do.