Focus Issue

[richard_driscoll]

As regards lenses, I think the point Elliot's experiment is making is that you buy a 17-55 over an 18-55 to get extra durability, the f/2.8 aperture at all focal lengths and possibly a bit of extra image quality, though in practice it may be hard to detect that extra image quality if it does indeed exist.

 

I can quite believe Elliot's conclusions since they agree with objective measurements I've seen elsewhere. That's all.

[david.elliott]

It seems to me, based on this thread and one other, that Jerry believes a lot of people play hide the ball on this forum. He seems

to think everybody has secret high end glass and that they want everybody else to buy high end too. While he is entitled to his own

opinion, I simply do not believe this to be true. I have found this forum to be filled with helpful, honest people who offer advice to fit any budget. In

fact, many people on this forum recommend against acquiring new gear unless current gear is absolutely lacking such that one cannot take the

photos one wishes to take.

 

----------------

 

First off, I am a beginner. I am not a pro by any stretch of the imagination.

 

At any rate, Mary, I think you have received a number of excellent suggestions in this thread.

 

I dont really have much to add. I do think that the 50mm f/1.8d with extension tubes (mentioned above) is a good combination. I

recently purchased the lens and a set of extension tubes. While I havent had much time to work with it, I think that my results so

far have been pretty good. I only have 3 photos uploaded that used this setup. See -

http://strongmace.com/Photography/StowaAnteaBlack/index.html

 

All three photos were taken with my NIkon d70 on a tripod. I used a homemade lightbox made of cardboard and tissue paper

and two 250W construction lamps. The first two photos were taken with only the 12mm extension tube on. The third, with the

20mm extension tube.

 

The first photo was taken at ISO 200, f/11, 1/20 sec.

The second was taken at ISO 200, f/11, 1/40 sec.

The third was taken at ISO 200, f/11, 1/5 sec.

 

The reason I mention this is, if you are photographing roses outside, the wind could cause plenty of blur with those shutter

speeds. You may want to bring some cardboard panels with you to minimize the effect of wind, just take care with your lighting

of course. Also, note that even at f/11, there is some blur in the first two photos due to depth of field. That was fine with me since

I wanted the focus to be on the watch face itself and not the strap. However, for sharpness throughout, I would have had to stop

down even further - hopefully without losing sharpness to diffraction. The photos received minor sharpening in Lightroom.

 

For a look at subject matter closer to your own, feel free to check out this gallery.

http://strongmace.com/Photography/WDCGardenButterflies/index.html

 

Here, all the photos were taken with the 50mm f/1.8 and handheld. The lens has pretty good close focusing capabilities of its

own. Some of the photos in the gallery are cropped - a few, significantly so since I couldn't get too close to the subject. Still

made fine prints though! Most photos received minor sharpening in Lightroom.

 

Hope that helped a bit.

 

I think you have everything you need to take sharp, great photos. Just experiment with your gear and your subject, and

have fun! Enjoy!

[jerry_schuler]

More than 50 percent of the threads on this board are you guys discussing your high end professional lenses. Did it not occur to you that somebody might read them?

[jerry_schuler]

Elliot -- We back to my original point. 50mm f/1.8. She needed a different lens to get her results. From what I've seen and read, the 50mm f/1.8 is a pro lens though it may not cost that 1,000 dollars. Still I'm not convinced all those flower and bumble-bee pictures are not taken with expensive macro lenses. In fact many of them are posted with the notes on the nice lenses they have and used.

[Peter_in_PA]

Different track, imho...

 

First off, take a bunch of really boring test images with your lens on a tripod at every f-stop on your lens from f3.5 (or 5.6

or whatever is wide open) ALL the way down to f22 (which will look soft due to diffraction btw) and then you will actually

learn for yourself what works best.

 

Second, for flowers (which don't move) you are, imho, MUCH better off with an old manual 55mm micro lens (manual

focus) f2.8 or f3.5 (AI mount of course). You will have to guess exposure and do your focusing manually, but you put the

camera in full manual, use a flash if you need to (I've had GREAT results with an SB600 with a flower, you don't need a

micro flash), and look at the display till you get the exposure just right. Shoot in RAW and do all your sharpening in

Photoshop if you can.

 

You can get great results with a cheap lens and it will become one of your favorites in the bag.<div></div>

[jose_angel]

I wonder how poorly illuminated, low contrast, DoF lacking, unsaturated, sometimes overexposed images could be improved even with the most expensive lens in the world; surely it will be a little tad sharper, thought but... is it really worth it?

 

I was in the believing that good photographers use light and skill, not money, to have good photos. Equally mediocre results can be obtained (at least by me) with a consumer zoom or the best prime, especially when light is not taken into account.

[ShunCheung]

Mary, I have three suggestions for you.

 

(1) Study your compositions: you are shooting flowers from the side. Those are 3D subjects and the shallow depth of

field will always be an issue. A lot of good flower close ups are shot from the front so that the flowers will appear

as "flat" as possible, parallel to the sensor plane. I would also try to avoid out-of-focus leaves in the foreground; they

are very distracting.

 

(2) If you do a lot of close ups, get a dedicated macro lens that is optimized for close focusing. Regular lenses such

as the 70-300 are typically optimized for focusing to or near infinity. The good thing about macro is that you don't

need fast AF or wide aperture. I still use a 105mm/f2.8 AF macro from 1990. You can even use an older AI/AI-S

macro, but you won't have metering with your D80.

 

(3) A very good book for close up work is John Shaw's Closeups in Nature, originally published in 1987, but most of

the techniques are still applicable today:

http://www.johnshawphoto.com/books.html

 

Pay attention to John Shaw's compositions. A lot of his examples were shot at f11, f16, but diffraction may become

an issue on your D80.

[Matt Laur]

Jerry: Come now! I have absolutely <i>never</i> been coy about which lenses I use and when, and why. With possibly a couple of exceptions (due to sheer laziness), every one of the dozens of images I have posted here are complete with precise reporting of what lens, body, and exposure settings were in use. I'm not shy about that. So not shy, in fact, that I'm not shy about reporting when I used a decidedly consumer-oriented lens. On, I might add, some of the images that foot traffic, ratings, and comments here seem to suggest are some of the more compelling ones I've managed to stumble through producing. Nikon's 18-200 rides around with me most of the time. I've done a LOT of work with 20-year-old 50/1.8 that you can still buy (new) for $100.

<br><Br>

The only time I advocate here for the purchasing of spendy lenses is when it's obvious that someone has exhausted what they can do with what they have, and they have the actual need and budget for something that buys them the extra marginal difference in capability. Anecdotally, I'd say that I've spent far more time trying to talk people into using much <i>less</i> expensive equipment than they think they're going to need. Mary is a great example. What was my reaction, here? Some pointers on techniqe. I didn't link her to a similar image shot with a D3 and an $1800 tilt-shift macro lens and try to shame her into melting down a credit card. And nor do I try to pass off shots with a more expensive rig as something that could have come from her gear. As Shun points out, she's got all sorts of room to maneauver with what she's currently shooting, and can make great strides without spending another dime (except perhaps on some books!).

[ken_thalheimer]

Very simply the DOF needs to be deeper

[ilkka_nissila]

Jerry, I think you're missing the point. First one needs to get the technique, lighting, composition, subject right, and then, if one desires, better equipment can add something to an already good photo. If one is on a budget, then buying older prime lenses especially in this case is a good option, in fact in the case of macro lenses, many of the experts say that the older lenses are actually better in field use than the current autofocus ones. They're easier to focus precisely, offer greater working distance, and according to many reports, are even sharper than many of the autofocus lenses at macro distances. Since Micro-Nikkors have been made for many decades, and many people have moved to the new designs, older lenses are readily available in the $300 price class. Peter perfectly illustrates the point with his image taken with the classic 55mm f/3.5 lens.

<p>

If one has the money, newer items offer <b>convenience</b> advantages, such as the ability to go 1:1 without added extension (but with lost working distance), autofocus (useful for general photography), and VR (for snapshots of gadgets in the science museum and for field work by researchers who are not primarily photographers and can not carry a tripod in these conditions), i-TTL and metering support on budget DSLRs, and zoom in one case. They do not help at all with making a good flower close-up - sometimes the opposite.

<p>

The advice on the 50/1.8 is right on the mark. It can produce very good close-ups on a limited budget. It can be used with close-up lenses, bellows, extension tubes, and it can be reversed with good image quality. This allows a broader investigation of macro photography gadgets, which can be educative.

<p>

Many of us do use high-end equipment, but if you're willing to sacrifice convenience and focus on specific subjects then you can get really good results within a budget.

[nick_r8]

Lighting, lighting, lighting!

 

It's not sharpness that's your real problem (though your DOF is a bit narrow), it's that your subjects are poorly lit with very diffuse light. Textures need to be brought out with directional light- that will give you the 3d depth you're lacking.

 

I'm certainly not saying you should set up some kind of flash or light rig around these flowers. Something as simple as a piece of white paper acting as a reflector perpendicular to the camera plane would be a tremendous help. Experiment with controlling the angle of light across the surfaces you are photographing and you will certainly see an improvement.

[marianned]

I have a Canon 20D, and the first few times I tried it out, my pictures were fuzzy too. I found out that there is a little wheel located by the eyepiece viewer that, when turned, will focus/unfocus. I'm not sure why this is there. Maybe you have one of these on your camera, as well. Marianne

[jose_angel]

It is a diopter correction device. You must regulate this wheel to your eyesight.

[jose_angel]

... this diopter correction device has nothing to do with the AF system on the camera. It must be correctly regulated in order to have the sharpest viewfinder, and obviously, for easier manual focusing.

[michael_kuhne]

Mary, as has been stated already, it is indeed largely a matter of DOF. The closer the focus, the more DOF is reduced. And, as Matt and others have said, a longer FL like 200mm also greatly reduces DOF. Small areas of your composition are sharp. The same with Andy's examples. But he was working within that very small DOF. To get much more of your composition sharp, you'll need to work with a shorter FL and a smaller aperture. You'll then need to find just the right setting to still blur your background, according to how far away the background is behind your sharp area. A macro lens will generally have a DOF scale to help determine these factors.

[jerry_schuler]

That you. I do respect those you that do admit the use of the higher lens and help other with without the buget for them. I still think there are a few here who would fight the death on the value of consumer lens while shooting with using 1000 dollar lens themselves. Those seem to be the one's that make the most condencending comments (No I do not have a 1000 lens).

 

If Mary asks, I'll tell her my technique for DOF in close-ups.<div></div>

[Matt Laur]

Nick, of course, is right on about the light. If the light is interesting (or at least pleasant), then some of the aching

need for surgical, razor-like, electron-microscope-grade sharpness fades away a bit because the image has become

<i>interesting</i>.

<br><br>

As I'm typing this, we've got storm clouds rolling in. I was about to step out on the patio and take an available light

shot of some honeysuckle that's handy... but the sky suddenly turned dark and ugly. With literally five minutes

before the rain set in, I unfolded a $25 reflector, popped my Nikon SB800 speedlight into slave mode (just good ol'

TTL flavor), and told the camera to run it at +0.7. I then just set the strobe on the table, pointed it at the reflector, and

set the angle so it would provide some nice diffuse light on the flowers... but from slightly <i>below</i> them. That

causes the light to directly enter the blossom, and gives them a nice glow.

<br><br>

Attached here is a slightly distant shot of the setup. Note that the camera's meter was including the illuminated

reflector in the frame, and so dialed back the exposure in an attempt to preserve detail in that hot white area.<div></div>

[Matt Laur]

Now, when you get up close to the flowers, the camera's meter is looking to expose for the light that's actually getting the flowers. Things look much nicer that way. And, since I'm trying to keep Jerry happy, here, I did this hand-held with a Nikon 18-70 "kit" lens, which you can get for WAY under $200.

<br><br>

It's not magnificent, but it's not (terribly) boring, either. Note tiny spider web filiments, bits of pollen, etc.<div></div>

[Matt Laur]

And, from exactly the same rig, using the same kit lens. Using the reflector as the backdrop. Would a macro lens

produce sharper flowers? Of course. Would it matter? No. Because what you're looking at is composition, or the

slightly unusual lighting - not whether you can see dust mites reproducing (as exciting as that is!).

 

So, when you don't have spendy lenses... spend FIVE MINUTES, instead. Time is precious, but it's also something

you can make available when you're in the mood to experiement. Kit lens, kit lens, kit lens. Did I mention it's a

cheap kit lens? Relax and have fun. I think there are exactly twelve people in the entire world who sold flower pictures

this month. The other 12 million who were fussing over taking flower pictures were (theoretically!) doing it for the

pleasure of doing it. It can be done with modest lenses, and think of how much fun you could have if you took, say...

FIFTEEN minutes. And used a tripod. And got the exposure right. Happy shooting, all.<div></div>

[jerry_schuler]

Matt,

I think you've just gave about the best demonstrations of close up photography I've seen here. Showing the setup and stating the equipment you used. No, misconceptions here. Thank you. Much better than just silly batter Iﾒve seen. AAA+++. The amateur, including myself, can actually see what's needed and determine the costs involved. And if they didn't get the results they wanted they can say "Well, I just did not want to spend that extra money. And it wasn't because I'm incompetent"

 

18-70mm lens $150 - $250 on ebay

SB800 about $300 on ebay

The reflectors seem to range for $5 to $100.

[Matt Laur]

Thanks, Jerry. Obviously, there are a thousand ways to skin that cat. And frankly, that shot would have looked nicer with something like the inexpensive 50/1.8 than it did with the kit lens. But the kit lens will AF on any current Nikon body, so I thought I'd stick with that in the interests of a simple demo.

 

Full disclosure: in the example I just set up, I was using the D200's native ability to use its built-in flash to control an SB800 remotely. The D40 and D60 bodies won't be able to do that, but in the example I just showed (where the camera is only a few feet from the strobe and the action), one of Nikon's hot shoe strobe cables would have done the job. The remote slave commanding features that are built into the D80/200/300 are quite handy, though, I have to say.

[thomas_hardy1]

Mary, I don't think anyone has discussed sharpening in regards to images that are soft. I did use USM and the Ist

photo did look sharper.

 

One thing I did notice is the multiple "layers" to your rose photo. (I errantly do this all the time) The in focus layer is the

part where the petals are sort of drooping down with the water droplets on them. There are then some leaves in the

foreground at another layer which are out of the plane of sharp focus. Then there are some flowers and leaves in various

layers behind the target flower.

 

It looks like there is only a small area (narrow plane) of sharp focus in the target flower because of the orientation of the

petals. As someone mentioned above, the petals are not in the same plane as the camera back.

 

Notice the photo of the Crocus, at f/3.5 the top part of the flower is in focus but the bottom gradually falls away from the

camera and becomes blurred even though that flower looks almost completely flat.

 

I think a modification in technique would help a lot.

[richard_driscoll]

Thanks Matt that was great.

 

A question.

 

I guess you used the SB800 as a wireless slave. Could I have used an SB-400, 600, 800 flash on an SC-17 cable?

 

I only ask because the D40 won't act as a wireless commander and I do have an SC17 (though no SB-XXX yet).

[richard_driscoll]

Oh sorry - I see you just answered the question!

[dcphotography]

Yes you can use an SB-400/600/800 on an SC-17 cable.