BocaMac

There is a puzzle that I can't crack. Is there an answer? Is it possible to shoot a very close up pic of a flower, getting detail of the pistil and stamen. Would want to have crisp edges on the petals. That would be without photo stacking. Have used my Canon 100 mm with extension tube's and gotten close, but no cigar. Played with F stops, SS speeds, and ISO. Mixing them. Let the camera pick the ISO, while I picked the other two. What kind of success have any of you had? What was your set up? Would love to crack this without using photo stack, but am willing to give in. Eventually. Love to hear back from you all.

PS This would be with using a Macro lens. Have challenged myself to get better with this lens. Is there way?

Balboa Loc: NJ

Try layering in Photoshop.

BocaMac

I have used Merge in Lightroom. Don't have Photoshop. Have just the simple version of Lr. Trying to do this the old fashion way, I guess. Is there a way? Thanks for your response.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

You can not achieve anything other than that clearly depicted in DOF charts/calculators. There is no magic means other than stacking to achieve what you want if a DOF calculator shows that it's not possible.

DOF (depth of focus) is dependent upon aperture used and subject distance, ISO and shutter speed make no difference to DOF.

Are you familiar with DOF charts/calculators and know how to use them?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You might find a Depth of Field Calculator to be useful. There a many freely available online or as apps for your phone. Below is an example with your 100mm lens and a full frame camera at 24-inches from the subject. Note the DOF is just over 1-inch. If you're using a cropped sensor, the DOF is even thinner from the same distance.

So, consider first your aperture and then your working distance. You might find capturing a sharp image from a greater distance and cropping yields a better result than getting very, very close and failing to find a DOF that covers the entire subject.

Test at various apertures. Although your lens will go as small as f/32, you should be working from a tripod and generate a 'test set' of images say from f/11 down to f/32 in Aperture priority and AUTO-ISO. You'll likely find a point of diminishing returns somewhere beyond f/18 where the image doesn't get any sharper while the ISO gets too noisy for a quality image. Using an external flash can help keep that ISO acceptably low. Look at your results at 100% on your computer looking for where sharpness seems to plateau and then diminishes at smaller apertures.

If you have the IS version, this feature is helpful, but the controlled test above for the fine details you're trying to capture will benefit from a tripod. Try to hold as steady as possible if using handholding, accepting you may not be able to use a super small aperture while handholding the lens.

Other useful macro tools are a wired shutter release, or using the 10-second delay on the tripod, especially at slow shutterspeeds. A speedlight flash or macro ring-flash also help for flowers. Time and practice, too.

(Download)

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

It sounds as if you want "close ups" rather than true macro work.Many lenses can capture flower detail. You may need a tripod or monopod to control camera shake, as well as fast shutter speed to stop the effect of wind. This was done with a 100-400 on a canon 7d from about 6 feet away indoors. No processing at all/SOOC, using a monopod

(Download)

BocaMac

Did a series of test pics using F7 - 16. Nothing was pin sharp like was looking for. Each F stop seemed to have a SS that produced acceptable pics, but nothing sharp. I used a tripod and constant lighting in a soft sided light box. Also used the remote shutter release. Don't know about the Field Calculator, but will look into that right away. Don't know what the IS version is? Appreciate your input. Thanks.

BocaMac

Love that picture. Yes, I have done the close up pics with my Canon 18 - 135. Use a tripod and remote trigger. Light box with constant lighting. Am too shaky at age 75. Am trying to learn how to get better and better at Macro. Just how far I can push my equipment. What needs changing. You guys are the best resource out there. Thanks.

BocaMac

You always give such report to your answers. Were you once a teacher? Maybe you missed your calling. Wish now I had studied a lot harder in HS physics class. Liked the subject, but that was my lazy year. Thanks for the supported insightful information. Bill.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Post a JPEG attachment, storing the file, so we can see how things are going and we'll be better able to provide specific suggestions. Remember too there are two UHH macro / close-up sections with many expert photographers with helpful suggestions. I think you said you're using LR. Provide an original file rather than LR export so we have access to the EOS information from the camera. Use the all-sections link at the bottom of the page to find and subscribe to the specialized sections.

bleirer

Are you talking the 100mm macro or one of the other 100mm?

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

I think only stacking will get the results you are looking for. You may get close but I can't see how you can achieve what you want without it.

BocaMac

Wise conclusions. Thanks. Sometimes, like now, the best answers come from people like yourself. You sound like you have experience.

BocaMac

Just purchased a Kirk macro slider. Change has been made. Headed in a slightly new direction. My macro lens will get a work out. The winter keeps me indoors and my light box will get a work out. It already has so far this winter. It will increase.

Now my next question is weather to go with Photoshop. Have Lightroom lite. Have to see what that will entail. Have a Happy New Year. And thanks again.

BocaMac

The computer part is the part that makes me nervous. Do my best to get some pics out to you guys. Just went through my pics. Took me a month to go through and cull out a bunch. Created a file that I have a bunch of candidates for such a purpose. I'll get working on it. Bill.