Fiery-Skipper-

I had not been so fond of this butterfy, the fiery skipper (hylephila

phyleus), that shows up about this time every year in my area, but

being so intrigued by the amazing macros posted on PN and knowing I

have quite a few more cans to sell before I can get a dedicated macro

lens, even this butterfly motivates me to work on my close-up imaging

skills. This image was handheld but I am finding that at whatever

shutter speed my handheld images have decent focus maybe 1out 4 times.

I have learned that, particularly for close distances, I should use

as wide open f/stop I can get. Even with a relatively well focused

image, slight sharpening of my raw file (in my image ready/conversion

software) is helpful and a little selective sharpening of my tiff file

in my editing software is often beneficial. After a little work I am

beginning to appreciate this butterfly. Comments and critique

appreciated..

Hi Wayne,

Technically, well setup and shot.  The lens that you are using is NOT a true macro design, but it does provide a closer range of focus due to its design. Therefore, the closer you get to the subject (at any focal length setting) the more image Magnification is gained.

The use of F/4.5 is the best setting for this 70 mm lens in the way you employed it.

Now about the " effective f-stop ", which is different from the physical f-stop that you set on the lens.

If you were at a working distance that allowed you to get a 1:2 (or 1/2 life size image) of this subject, then the effective F-stop would become this: EF= F-stop times ( 1+ M) , wher M=magnification of the image itself. So EF= 4.5 times (1+ 0.5) = 4.5 X 1.5 = F/6.

So the effective f-stop is F/6. This number represents the amount of light that your sensor receives.

It does not pertain the the DOF or the clarity level, as that is set by the physical f-stop and focal length of the lens. The difference in light energy is = (effective f-stop/ f-stop set)^2 , or the ratio "squared in mathematical terms. So,  6/4.5= 1.5 and (1.5)^2= 2.25. So, the exposure required at a magnification level of 2:1 will require 2.25 times longer exposure.

This is why your use of a higher ISO, and shorter exposure were a good choice. The higher ISO compensated for the magnification factor, while the shorter exposure reduced the chance of any motion to degrade the image, either from your hand motion or the insect itself or any outside factor like a breeze, etc..

Now, my above example was based upon a 1:2 magnification. If you were much closer and you obtained a 1:1 ratio or life size, then the effective f-stop would become (4.5) X(2)= F/9.

Now the exposure required would have been (9/4.5)^2= 4 , four times what your lens normally would have required when it was set to F/4.5 and not in any close up mode causing a magnification factor to result. Using, by the time you back away from a subject, the magnification factor falls below 1:10 or less, and the effective f-stop begns to converge on the f-stop that you set anyway. Example at 1:10, EF=   (4.5 ) X (1.1)= 4.95, which is an exposure of only 21% longer. At this small amount, the dynamic range of the sensor can easy handle the small lighting change on the final image.

The good news is that Aperture Priority will often read the proper exposure for you. Spot metering helps, too, but be careful not to overexposure the brightest areas in the scene.

This is one reason I like to provide the working distance that I use in my close-ups and/or true macro images write ups. The importance is that the physical amount of ambient light is often effected by how close you are to the subject. For example, your camera, lens or yourself might block light falling onto the subject, so the "effective f-stop" is further reduced because the lighting has fallen off. When the ISO can not compensate for this, or the exposure becomes too long, then a flash will be required or a tripod will need to be set in place.

This is another reason that I like to use "faster, true macro lens" , like F/2.8 or F/2 by design for field work involving live subjects. For example, my Nikon 105mm F/2.8 macro lens provides more magnification than the 70 mm close up lens that you used, so shading the subject is less likely to happen. The F/2.8 provides a faster f-stop to start, and by 1:1, I am effectively F/5.6 (not much different from F/4.95 at only 1:2 magnification.

Again, I enjoyed the results that you have provided here. Keep up the good close up work my friend.

Best Regards, Mike

Thanks, Mike.  I understood some of that.  The rest will have to go into my "Mike folder" for further study.  I think I may have crept to within 3ft of this rascal.  (On second and third reading a lot more sinks into this thick head of mine.)  Thanks, again.

I'm not so expert like Mike but simply I like a lot your macro, really a wonderful work!

Thanks, Maurizio.  You can tell I am no expert either.  Thank goodness we have Mike around.

Wayne!MIke has nice story"is too technical.(study photo’s)we edi photo’s. a very nic macro work -sharp-colors and composition. well done. best regards janegbert

Wayne,

  Wonderful macro with beautiful colors, details & lighting.  Take care, Patsy

Thanks, Janegbert.  Your visit and comments are very much appreciated and your work encourages everyone's creativity. 

Thanks, Patsy.  I really appreciate your noticing and commenting.

Hi Wayne, Very beautiful moth with nice colors and composition. I like the fact that you provide always your EXIF data, and the use of a wide aperture allow you to have this nice details!!!!

Warm regards,

LuDa

Thanks, Luisa.  Craving a macro lens really makes me work on my close-up skills.

Good details achieved with this image Wayne. Mike offered you some pretty good advice. I have copied it into my Journal.

kind regards, Gail

Gail,

Thanks.  I copied it into my Mike folder too.