Don't Laugh
Apr 17, 2014 17:37:15 #
I know this is so bad. But I am posting because I am confused about this. I thought that if I shot a spider at 1:1 it would fill my frame. I still had to crop most of the background away. I see the little hairs on his legs, but when I see macro photos I see people that have these big eyes and mine isn't even close.
Sorry, I accidentally killed him. I caught him running up my sleeve and I tried to brush him off gently well, apparently not gently enough. These little guys are fragile aren't they?
I sure would appreciate it if someone would explain why my spider is so small.
I hope no one is offended that I killed him. :-(
Sorry, I accidentally killed him. I caught him running up my sleeve and I tried to brush him off gently well, apparently not gently enough. These little guys are fragile aren't they?
I sure would appreciate it if someone would explain why my spider is so small.
I hope no one is offended that I killed him. :-(
Apr 17, 2014 17:42:38 #
Macro doesn't change the size of the image. It actually replicates at 1:1 the size of the spider. In order to fill the frame, your spider (for a cropped DX sensor), would have to be 23.6mm sized spider. Help?
Apr 17, 2014 17:42:40 #
Nightski, I'm sitting here laughing so hard, your last line is a riot, I'd have done the same!!! :) :) :)
Apr 17, 2014 17:43:40 #
dljen wrote:
Nightski, I'm sitting here laughing so hard, your last line is a riot, I'd have done the same!!! :) :) :)
Sigh!
Apr 17, 2014 17:44:38 #
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
Macro doesn't change the size of the image. It actually replicates at 1:1 the size of the spider. In order to fill the frame, your spider (for a cropped DX sensor), would have to be 23.6mm sized spider. Help?
Oh, so how do you guys get those big bug eyes that are so awesome?
Apr 17, 2014 18:02:10 #
Okay, so since the 1:1 revelation I went to read Douglass's FAQ's. I need a 2X teleconverter lens extender? Do you have to spend lots of money to do that or are the $120 ones fine?
Apr 17, 2014 18:15:13 #
Nightski wrote:
Okay, so since the 1:1 revelation I went to read Douglass's FAQ's. I need a 2X teleconverter lens extender? Do you have to spend lots of money to do that or are the $120 ones fine?
Actually you want extension tubes, not a teleconverter. A full set will get you to 2x. More magnification of the image can be attained via cropping during PP. Jumpers vary in size. The ones I've seen are roughly 1/4" in size. The other components are diffused flash, an f/stop around f/16, and technique which involves staying as square as possible to the parts of the critter that are critical to focus. DOF is very shallow.
Apr 17, 2014 18:15:39 #
Nightski wrote:
You would be better served with automatic extension tubes. TC adds glass to the optical path and degrades image quality. Tubes separated lens further from the sensor, increasing magnification without impacting image quality. Tubes come with image cost too, illumination. Further you move the lens from the sensor the darker the image gets. This is corrected with speedlight and softbox illumination.Okay, so since the 1:1 revelation I went to read Douglass's FAQ's. I need a 2X teleconverter lens extender? Do you have to spend lots of money to do that or are the $120 ones fine?
Apr 17, 2014 18:16:05 #
BEFORE you invest in a set of auto-extension tubes (NOT a Tele-Converter), get comfortable shooting with your stand-alone lens at Minimum Focusing Distance.
I own a set (12-mm, 20-mm, 36-mm) of auto-tubes, but I rarely use them. When I need more magnification than 1:1 (life-size), I clip-on to my 105-mm macro lens, a Raynox M-160 (+4.8 diopter) lens.
I own a set (12-mm, 20-mm, 36-mm) of auto-tubes, but I rarely use them. When I need more magnification than 1:1 (life-size), I clip-on to my 105-mm macro lens, a Raynox M-160 (+4.8 diopter) lens.
Apr 17, 2014 18:20:03 #
Nikonian72 wrote:
Okay
more practice
soon we will have bugs. I have a Canon
not a Nikon though.BEFORE you invest in a set of auto-extension tubes (NOT a Tele-Converter), get comfortable shooting with your stand-alone lens at Minimum Focusing Distance.
Apr 17, 2014 18:25:49 #
Nightski wrote:
Not everyone is perfect, but we will work with you. :wink: I have a Canon
not a Nikon.
Auto-tubes & Raynox add-on lenses work just as well on Canon, Pentax, Sony, Olympus, Nikon, etc.
Apr 17, 2014 18:38:53 #
Nikonian72 wrote:
That's funny
but thanks..I will practice on bigger bugs first. :-DNot everyone is perfect, but we will work with you. :wink:
Auto-tubes & Raynox add-on lenses work just as well on Canon, Pentax, Sony, Olympus, Nikon, etc.
Auto-tubes & Raynox add-on lenses work just as well on Canon, Pentax, Sony, Olympus, Nikon, etc.
Apr 17, 2014 21:29:19 #
Nightski wrote:
I think that it is worth saying that those spiders with the really big eyes are jumping spiders, those eyes are what makes them so special to macro photographers.... so not only is the equipment important but also is finding the right spider.Okay
more practice
soon we will have bugs.
Apr 17, 2014 21:33:38 #
Blurryeyed wrote:
Are jumping spiders bigger? I hope you don't mind me saying so, but gee you are cute. :lol:I think that it is worth saying that those spiders with the really big eyes are jumping spiders, those eyes are what makes them so special to macro photographers.... so not only is the equipment important but also is finding the right spider.
Apr 17, 2014 23:14:52 #
Nightski wrote:
No, they actually are small to tiny. The one in my avatar is the biggest one that I have come across, he was less than 1/2 inch long and a little less than 1/4 inch across his face. of course I am not including his legs in these measurements. The little green spiders that I have been posting for the last couple of days are so small that I can not see their faces with my eyes. I shoot with reversed lenses that give higher magnification than does a macro lens and that is how I get such big pictures of such small things.Are jumping spiders bigger?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.