Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Check out Infrared Photography section of our forum.
Main Photography Discussion
Extension Tubes
Page <<first <prev 5 of 5
Jun 19, 2012 02:27:38   #
AnnieB Loc: UK
 
Thank you Jerryc41 - sadly, I have not yet got a good photo processing program - that is niext on my wish list
ASR666 wrote:
jerryc41 wrote:
AnnieB wrote:
Yes, have been trying all morning and have tried what you have suggested and it does work - thank you. Just another query though, my photos have very little depth of field, would a dedicated macro lens have more? Hoever, even with narrow dof, am having lots of fun!!

Like you, I started with extension tubes, the cheap $10 kind - totally manual. As you're found, focusing manually works best. As for the depth of field, there is a lot of math and theory involved, and some people might jump in with that. Basically, yes, there is a very shallow depth of field. The closer you get to your macro subject, the less DOF you will have. I got a Nikon 105mm macro after playing with the extension tubes. I still use manual focus and exposure, and there is still a shallow DOF.
quote=AnnieB Yes, have been trying all morning an... (show quote)


You could try focus stacking to overcome the shallow DOF and focus issue. It works well for stationary subjects. Set aperture to f/8 or similar and then take 3 shots (1) focused on top of subject (2) focused on mid (3) focus on bottom part. Use Photoshop or similar to merge the three images. Here's a tutorial.

http://digital-photography-school.com/an-introduction-to-focus-stacking
quote=jerryc41 quote=AnnieB Yes, have been tryin... (show quote)

Reply
Jun 19, 2012 07:31:32   #
pigpen
 
AnnieB wrote:
Thank you Jerryc41 - sadly, I have not yet got a good photo processing program - that is niext on my wish list
ASR666 wrote:
jerryc41 wrote:
AnnieB wrote:
Yes, have been trying all morning and have tried what you have suggested and it does work - thank you. Just another query though, my photos have very little depth of field, would a dedicated macro lens have more? Hoever, even with narrow dof, am having lots of fun!!

Like you, I started with extension tubes, the cheap $10 kind - totally manual. As you're found, focusing manually works best. As for the depth of field, there is a lot of math and theory involved, and some people might jump in with that. Basically, yes, there is a very shallow depth of field. The closer you get to your macro subject, the less DOF you will have. I got a Nikon 105mm macro after playing with the extension tubes. I still use manual focus and exposure, and there is still a shallow DOF.
quote=AnnieB Yes, have been trying all morning an... (show quote)


You could try focus stacking to overcome the shallow DOF and focus issue. It works well for stationary subjects. Set aperture to f/8 or similar and then take 3 shots (1) focused on top of subject (2) focused on mid (3) focus on bottom part. Use Photoshop or similar to merge the three images. Here's a tutorial.

http://digital-photography-school.com/an-introduction-to-focus-stacking
quote=jerryc41 quote=AnnieB Yes, have been tryin... (show quote)
Thank you Jerryc41 - sadly, I have not yet got ... (show quote)



Gimp is very similar to photoshop elements, and it is completely free. Many people here use it.

Reply
Jun 19, 2012 12:13:17   #
AnnieB Loc: UK
 
Thank you for that - will give it a try.
pigpen wrote:
AnnieB wrote:
Thank you Jerryc41 - sadly, I have not yet got a good photo processing program - that is niext on my wish list
ASR666 wrote:
jerryc41 wrote:
AnnieB wrote:
Yes, have been trying all morning and have tried what you have suggested and it does work - thank you. Just another query though, my photos have very little depth of field, would a dedicated macro lens have more? Hoever, even with narrow dof, am having lots of fun!!

Like you, I started with extension tubes, the cheap $10 kind - totally manual. As you're found, focusing manually works best. As for the depth of field, there is a lot of math and theory involved, and some people might jump in with that. Basically, yes, there is a very shallow depth of field. The closer you get to your macro subject, the less DOF you will have. I got a Nikon 105mm macro after playing with the extension tubes. I still use manual focus and exposure, and there is still a shallow DOF.
quote=AnnieB Yes, have been trying all morning an... (show quote)


You could try focus stacking to overcome the shallow DOF and focus issue. It works well for stationary subjects. Set aperture to f/8 or similar and then take 3 shots (1) focused on top of subject (2) focused on mid (3) focus on bottom part. Use Photoshop or similar to merge the three images. Here's a tutorial.

http://digital-photography-school.com/an-introduction-to-focus-stacking
quote=jerryc41 quote=AnnieB Yes, have been tryin... (show quote)
Thank you Jerryc41 - sadly, I have not yet got ... (show quote)



Gimp is very similar to photoshop elements, and it is completely free. Many people here use it.
quote=AnnieB Thank you Jerryc41 - sadly, I hav... (show quote)

Reply
Check out Landscape Photography section of our forum.
Jun 20, 2012 10:45:58   #
ASR666 Loc: Singapore
 
Nikonian72 wrote:
ASR666 wrote:
You could try focus stacking to overcome the shallow DOF and focus issue. It works well for stationary subjects. Set aperture to f/8 or similar and then take 3 shots (1) focused on top of subject (2) focused on mid (3) focus on bottom part. Use Photoshop or similar to merge the three images.
Surely you are speaking from experience. We are interested in seeing your examples.


Here you go. 3 shots of a red hibiscus. 1st focused on the top part of the flower, the next on the middle and the last on the stamens. I've posted the merged file separately.

This method works well for any subject (large or small) where uniform DOF cannot be obtained.

Focused on top (green part)
Focused on top (green part)...

Focused on middle of flower
Focused on middle of flower...

Focused on stamens
Focused on stamens...

Merged 3 shots
Merged 3 shots...

Reply
Jun 20, 2012 11:22:59   #
AnnieB Loc: UK
 
Wow stunning!
ASR666 wrote:
Nikonian72 wrote:
ASR666 wrote:
You could try focus stacking to overcome the shallow DOF and focus issue. It works well for stationary subjects. Set aperture to f/8 or similar and then take 3 shots (1) focused on top of subject (2) focused on mid (3) focus on bottom part. Use Photoshop or similar to merge the three images.
Surely you are speaking from experience. We are interested in seeing your examples.


Here you go. 3 shots of a red hibiscus. 1st focused on the top part of the flower, the next on the middle and the last on the stamens. I've posted the merged file separately.

This method works well for any subject (large or small) where uniform DOF cannot be obtained.
quote=Nikonian72 quote=ASR666 You could try focu... (show quote)

Reply
Jun 20, 2012 15:57:09   #
Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA
 
ASR666 wrote:
Here you go. 3 shots of a red hibiscus. 1st focused on the top part of the flower, the next on the middle and the last on the stamens. I've posted the merged file separately.
This method works well for any subject (large or small) where uniform DOF cannot be obtained.
You have the technique correct, but you do not have enough images for focus overlap between images. The top tips of petals are still soft, as are a few "bands" within merged photo. Had you tried this technique with 6, 8, or 10 focus-shifted images, with smaller focus spacing, you would have a much cleaner merged image.

My concern on your initial post was not with technique, but with your suggestion of only three images. Also, critical review is best accomplished on an enlarged image <check the box labeled "(store original)" when posting image>, than on a smaller thumbnail image.

Tips of petal not in focus
Tips of petal not in focus...

Light green base of flower not in focus
Light green base of flower not in focus...

Reply
Jun 20, 2012 21:10:21   #
ASR666 Loc: Singapore
 
Nikonian72 wrote:
ASR666 wrote:
Here you go. 3 shots of a red hibiscus. 1st focused on the top part of the flower, the next on the middle and the last on the stamens. I've posted the merged file separately.
This method works well for any subject (large or small) where uniform DOF cannot be obtained.
You have the technique correct, but you do not have enough images for focus overlap between images. The top tips of petals are still soft, as are a few "bands" within merged photo. Had you tried this technique with 6, 8, or 10 focus-shifted images, with smaller focus spacing, you would have a much cleaner merged image.

My concern on your initial post was not with technique, but with your suggestion of only three images. Also, critical review is best accomplished on an enlarged image <check the box labeled "(store original)" when posting image>, than on a smaller thumbnail image.
quote=ASR666 Here you go. 3 shots of a red hibisc... (show quote)


Thanks for the C&C and yes the 3 shot method is not perfect (as compared to more shots). The main reason I use it is speed when shooting outdoors and able to use autofocus points for high mid low. would love to know your outdoors workflow for such shots - thanks

Reply
Check out Photo Critique Section section of our forum.
Jun 21, 2012 01:44:06   #
MtnMan Loc: ID
 
pigpen wrote:

Gimp is very similar to photoshop elements, and it is completely free. Many people here use it.


It would be more accurate to compare Gimp with one of the three programs that comprise Photoshop Elements (PSE): the Editor. But it has only a fraction of the capability and nowhere near the available learning material. It also doesn't have the professional look and feel.

The Organizer part of PSE is a very powerful program in its own right; sort of a Lightroom light. It also includes simple editing capability.

Adobe Camera RAW also is part of PSE. It lets you process RAW photos and is fully intergrate within PSE.

Unless you really can't afford the $50 for PSE I recommend not wasting your time with Gimp. I tried it and wasted a month or so. I did get someone to repurchase the (pretty good) book I had bought for it. But I also recommend you get Kelby and Kloskowski's book if you get PSE.

Reply
Jun 21, 2012 02:34:02   #
AnnieB Loc: UK
 
Thank you for your comment
MtnMan wrote:
pigpen wrote:

Gimp is very similar to photoshop elements, and it is completely free. Many people here use it.


It would be more accurate to compare Gimp with one of the three programs that comprise Photoshop Elements (PSE): the Editor. But it has only a fraction of the capability and nowhere near the available learning material. It also doesn't have the professional look and feel.

The Organizer part of PSE is a very powerful program in its own right; sort of a Lightroom light. It also includes simple editing capability.

Adobe Camera RAW also is part of PSE. It lets you process RAW photos and is fully intergrate within PSE.

Unless you really can't afford the $50 for PSE I recommend not wasting your time with Gimp. I tried it and wasted a month or so. I did get someone to repurchase the (pretty good) book I had bought for it. But I also recommend you get Kelby and Kloskowski's book if you get PSE.
quote=pigpen br Gimp is very similar to photosh... (show quote)

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 5
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.