Almost macro at least

<p>Traveling with only a pocket camera this is about as macro as I can get without cropping, and someone has to visit here from time to time, so here's a greeting from a Georgia arachnid.</p><div></div>

<p>That's some mighty long legs on that spider. Shot this yesterday at my local park.</p><div></div>

<p>Two jagged ambush bugs. Despite what may at first glance appear to be reproductive behavior they are in fact hunting as a pair. This allows them to take take down larger prey.</p><div></div>

<p>Mississippian shell gorget with spider motif, ca. 1200 CE.<br>

Size of original about 3" in diameter. Macro? You decide.</p><div></div>

<p>Pre-war Lionel 259E engine</p><div></div>

<p>I'm a serious amateur trying to improve my closeup and macro shots. When I see an amazing image I wish I knew how the photographer captured it. I'm curious why I don't see technical or technique info associated with any images submitted here. The dragonfly for instance - were you able to get so close because it was cold?</p>

<p>Some of the technical information may remain embedded in the photo's EXIF file, if it has not been stripped or modified by an editing program. That won't tell you what lens accessories were used, nor whether an image was cropped or otherwise edited, but it can at least get you the camera and lens used, and the basic settings.</p>

<p>You can get that information either by opening the image in a program that reads EXIF files, or, if you use Firefox at least, with an add-on that adds EXIF to the right-click menu on any image. </p>

<p>When I'm using something other than the native close-up mode of a camera and a conventional lens, I generally try to note what I'm using, but it's a good point that when you're doing something unusual, it is helpful to say what. </p>

<p>You don't need a macro to do closeup photography. Handheld with a Nikon D600 and 70-200mm f4. ISO was 400, f4 @ 1/2000 sec. This lens has a magnification of 0.274X which is close to a true macro but offers fast focusing for fast moving subjects and very good VR.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Two jagged ambush bugs. Despite what may at first glance appear to be reproductive behavior they are in fact hunting as a pair. This allows them to take take down larger prey.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gordon I've seen them pair up but never realized there was more involved than the urge to sit still and multiply! At least the following two didn't look like they were focusing on lunch as much:</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm a serious amateur trying to improve my closeup and macro shots. When I see an amazing image I wish I knew how the photographer captured it. I'm curious why I don't see technical or technique info associated with any images submitted here. The dragonfly for instance - were you able to get so close because it was cold?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Chris that sounds like the perfect question to pose as a new thread! :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When I see an amazing image I wish I knew how the photographer captured it. I'm curious why I don't see technical or technique info associated with any images submitted here. The dragonfly for instance - were you able to get so close because it was cold?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mmh, mating season does some strange things to creatures to keep them from being distracted, wouldn't you think?</p>

<p>I used the macro switch on my film legacy Sigma 28-80mm zoom lens on my 2006 6MP Pentax K100D DSLR where I manually focused from about 6 inches from the subject. Post processing and careful sharpening did a lot to bring out detail and make it appear I got up real close. It's a cropped 6MP image.</p>

<p>If you want to see technical specs of shots posted in these forums, drag & drop some of them to your desktop and open them in an image editing thumbnail browser like Bridge or Lightroom that shows EXIF data or find a browser plugin that allows reading of EXIF data.</p>

<p>That Sigma lens even though it's an old "Plastic Fantastic" shoots at f/22 beautifully, no defraction. That's a big plus when shooting with the macro switch on a zoom lens. It gains quite a bit of DOF shooting macro compared to my kit lens, another sort of "Plastic Fantastic". The two Sigma film legacy lenses (70-300mm & 28-80mm) I bought 7 years ago on ebay for about $30 each.</p>

<p>This is a macro shot with the Sigma 28-80 set to macro at <strong>f/40 </strong>1/30's, ISO 800. The top is the unedited Raw image which I suggest anyone who shoots macro should shoot in the camera's Raw format. And bottom is the edited finished version. With a 1 inch long APS-C sensor the magnification is larger than 1:1. That sardine at its widest point is a little over one inch. The image is not cropped.</p><div></div>

<p>Here's one taken with one of my favorite combinations, which unfortunately does not give full exif information because the camera does not officially recognize it. It's taken at ISO 100, 1/125 second with the D3200's pop up flash activated. The aperture is unknown, but probably in the F 5.6 range. The setup is a Compugraphic typesetting lens set into a microscope adapter. The adapter is actually originally for a Konica, with a Nikon bayonet retrofitted. The lens has no focus and no aperture adjustment, but is light enough to shoot hand held. The Compugraphic typesetting machine had a set of these lenses on a turret, and I have several of different focal lengths, some better than others, but most surprisingly sharp.</p>

<p>e.t.a. by the way this is not cropped, as I recall. Flies are pretty slow in winter, and the lenses in question give a few inches of working space, so it's possible to swoop in on them. Same with ladybugs and occasionally with wasps and other critters.</p><div></div>

<p>Many thanks to you who offered information on how you captured an image including (but especially in addition to) EXIF data. I'm digesting it. I shoot a lot of flowers, butterflies and insects, mostly handheld, using a Canon EF 70-200mm 1:2.8 and I'm not satisfied with my DOF and sharpness. I was inspired by Ronald Duren's black swallowtail: eyes, 4 legs, and BOTH antennae in focus! I would have expected to need a smaller aperture than f4 to get that DOF. I assume it was shot at 200mm. </p>

<p>Keep in mind there's a trade off between DOF and capture of detail according to the sensor size/resolution vs the lens ability to capture and draw the detail onto the sensor whether with a zoom lens or prime.</p>

<p>Basically the smaller the object the closer you have to get and the less DOF you have no matter the size of aperture. I use a 50mm prime on an extension tube and though I can get REAL up close to like say capturing tiny threads in fabric stitching, the DOF is almost a fraction of an inch even at f/8 and the subject must be flat which is pretty easy shooting fabric.</p>

<p>But forget f/16, f/22 or even f/40 where you'll have to have a ton of light that can fit within the narrow space between the lens front rim and the subject and not have the lens cast a shadow. Some macro lenses may provide enough focus distance from the subject in order to allow much more light.</p>