Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2015 · First ever macro shots. C&C plz

  
 
mxwizard1
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · First ever macro shots. C&C plz


Just got my Sigma 105mm 2.8 OS for my D7000..I know there are a few things that need work, including better post work,(cropping) which I only did a little. I took these 2 today with a tripod and there was a slight breeze, but the images seem soft and don't have the sharpness I was looking for. I'm looking for ideas from the collective on what I can do to improve on future images...Thanks in advance..












Jun 04, 2015 at 12:59 AM
AuntiPode
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · First ever macro shots. C&C plz


Shapes are nice. Needs better exposure and/or post processing. Composition a little better for the second than the first.

Try flash to freeze motion if shooting at a high shutter speed is otherwise needed. Also, when working to develop your technique, try shooting indoors. No wind...hopefully. Working indoors allows you to experiment more with lighting and to refine your techniques.



Jun 04, 2015 at 02:03 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · First ever macro shots. C&C plz


There are a few things going on here that you may want to adjust for in the future.

Sharpness is a function of contrast. Contrast is a function of your subject's inherent contrast and your lighting's contrast (i.e. diffuse / soft vs. specular / hard). Other factors on contrast are your lens' resolving capability at various apertures.

The fine detail areas of your subject (i.e. petals) are soft / subtle / low contrast.
Judging from the shadows, your lighting was very soft / diffuse (i.e. low contrast).
Shooting @ smaller apertures induces diffraction, which also reduces contrast.
Shooting with OS on a tripod may add very subtle, unwanted false offset movement.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=790&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=790&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=6

In the link above, you can compare your lens @ various apertures. Setting the comparison f/5.6 & f/16 you can see how much diff the aperture reduces contrast. F/32 will likely be even more so.

I understand the desire for the greater DOF afforded by the smaller apertures. While we may make choices that have contrast reducing effects, we can likewise make choices that have contrast enhancing effects. By this, when our contrast is low in one area (subject / light / lens), then we can choose to increase the contrast in another (light / lens / processing ... subject contrast remains constant).

That said, for these images having been shot already, the only option that remains is processing. Applying "standard" processing to "triple soft" low-contrast images (soft subject, soft light, soft aperture) will certainly result in a soft image. Our sharpening / contrast strategy needs to be adjusted differently, if we are to attain a "normal" amount of contrast in our image, when capturing it via a "triple soft" setup.

Next, these are both underexposed significantly.

The EXIF data of the first one tells us that you exposed for about 2/3 stop below Sunny 16, yet our (soft) shadows tell us that you were not shooting in Sunny 16 (EV15) conditions ... meaning you were even more underexposed than 2/3. Looking at your EXIF data for your EC set @ -1.3, that's likely a starting point @ your underexposure. The underexposure added to your "triple soft" contrast levels is doing you no favors.

The EXIF data in the second one tells a similar story (just diff numbers). Additionally, the lighting in your second one reveals the blue of overcast conditions (which matches your soft shadows). Having a WB color cast is yet another way to reduce contrast.

Judging from your tonal values and your shadows, I suspect your lighting was 2+ stops below Sunny 16. That, and your camera's meter reading is based upon a middle gray scene average, and will try to place your subject to render toward an overall middle gray value (which your whites do have near middle gray values).

Individually, any one of these factors can have an impact on your contrast by itself. But, by the time you stack on all these factors, it can really add up.

1) Soft subject
2) Soft light
3) Soft aperture
4) Image stabilization
5) Underexposure
6) Color cast
7) Under-processing contrast / sharpening for above conditions

Understanding which, when and how much influence each of these variables are contributing to your image, then affords the option(s) to make necessary adjustments ... both @ capture & processing ... to achieve your optimal results.

Karen's recommendation for flash augmentation will address "freeze" motion a bit as she mentions. But, it also can address lighting contrast and lighting color, both of which can help your cause. Granted, more specular lighting changes your shadows, but the shadows are also what provide the textural contrast we perceive as sharpness. As an avid shooter of ambient only, the bane of soft light is the low contrast. You may also want to try using a reflector to add a kiss of contrast/exposure without incurring harsh specular shadows of direct flash.

At a minimum, I would strive to ensure a proper exposure via use of something other than your camera's reflective metering in conjunction with a negative EC value. Sunny 16 Rule (and its variants), incident meter reading, gray card reflective meter reading, or chimp / bracket @ histogram readings are all viable options. That, or you may find that dialing in positive EC values for such dominant "white" subjects can work also.

(Interesting story ... I met an old Chinese man in Trinidad who used the back of his hand as a psuedo-gray card (for exposure values). He knew how much deviation his skin tone was from a middle gray value. He took a reading off his hand, then made his exposure compensation (derived from testing) accordingly. Pretty clever that he never left home without his "reference" card.)

Balancing those relationships is a matter of preference, and will likely involve some testing (i.e. structured trial & error), but once you get things dialed in to your preferences, you'll have better command of things. I shoot some "double-soft" stuff, but I usually try to stay out of "triple-soft" as best I can. There seems to be a marked IQ diff once you venture into "triple-soft" (or more) territory.

I've gone long, but hopefully there's a nugget or two in here to aid your plight. I look forward to seeing future efforts. In the meantime, I'll take a rough stab at some diff PP, but one can only enhance (i.e. not fabricate) the detail that is present (i.e. not lost to the "triple-soft") so much before it is merely an exercise in artifact creation.












Jun 04, 2015 at 06:01 AM
lighthound
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · First ever macro shots. C&C plz


Wow! Ok, idk about the OP but THAT is some fantastic information Kent!
Thank you for taking the time to give such a great critique and explanation! Nice job Mr. !

I certainly can not add any more critique for the OP's post but wanted to say thanks for posting your images because in doing so you have allowed me to learn some valuable information!



Jun 04, 2015 at 09:32 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · First ever macro shots. C&C plz


Thanks Dave,

BTW, I got so hung up on assisting with improving the technical aspects, I forgot to comment on the OP's nice eye for form, shape, lines, etc. If it hadn't been for the OP's nice eye ... I wouldn't have invested so much time / effort above.

Technical & Aesthetic ... they kind of are Yin & Yang to one another.

Imo, many folks (not here) often try to discount various aspects of either side of the equation (or over emphasize one vs. the other), but they both really play into (and off of) each others' hand. The better we align our relational understanding of both sides of the equation, the better we can produce our objectives.

Kinda reminds me of how climbing steep hills by using switchbacks takes us in two different directions, but culminates in us moving higher toward our real objective. The path for learning the attributes of each can sometimes seem unnecessarily long or counter to the direction we are trying go, but they still combine to get us closer to our desired higher ground.



Jun 04, 2015 at 10:15 AM
mxwizard1
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · First ever macro shots. C&C plz


Thank-you for the great information Kent. When I have more time I will re-read your post to digest all you have given me....I may have to cut a few of these and bring them into my house and reshot them...As long as the neighbours wont mind. Its funny because I liked the flowing lines and the little touch of the green in the first one, maybe another angle would help.




Jun 04, 2015 at 12:11 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · First ever macro shots. C&C plz


Personally, I dig the first one as is regarding the angle / comp. While there are certainly other angles & perspectives, I wouldn't rush to toss this one out, it has plenty of goodness to it. I'd simply work on a better technical execution of the same ... i.e. I like it with the play of lines & curves, etc.

The scale, balance, mass, weighting, symmetry, etc. ... albeit some may find it a bit formal, formal / classic can still be very nice.



Jun 04, 2015 at 12:46 PM
Squirrely Eyed
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · First ever macro shots. C&C plz


...what Kent said...and thanks for the education! Yet another reason why I love this place.


Jun 04, 2015 at 09:56 PM





FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.