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 2022 · Abstract

  
 
EverLearning
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Abstract


Something a little different for me.

C&C please. As curious, or more curious, about the aesthetic/emotive side of this image as I am about the technical.

Don




  Canon EOS R5    EF100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM lens    100mm    f/22.0    1/250s    1600 ISO    0.0 EV  



Edited on Nov 05, 2022 at 12:29 PM · View previous versions



Nov 01, 2022 at 09:45 PM
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Abstract


it's interesting, with much of its power from the eye like dominant subject

at the same time the wires, the textures around both make it hard to decipher and detract from my tendency to turn it into a living creature
I wonder if a less harsh/contrasty version would be more effective

Scott



Nov 02, 2022 at 07:11 PM
EverLearning
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Abstract


Here is another iteration of this image; one with the Clarity reset to 0 (zero). It is definitely less sharp and less contrasty.

Thoughts?

Don




  Canon EOS R5    EF100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM lens    100mm    f/22.0    1/250s    1600 ISO    0.0 EV  



Edited on Nov 05, 2022 at 12:29 PM · View previous versions



Nov 04, 2022 at 12:39 PM
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Abstract


I prefer the second.
It remains confusing which is not a bad thing.
I keep wanting to make it the eye of an owl, disturbed by the rough wires stretched across.
Fabric??

Scott



Nov 05, 2022 at 07:36 AM
EverLearning
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Abstract


Not wires and not fabric.

Anybody else going to take a guess (and/or provide some feedback!) before the "big reveal"?

Don



Nov 05, 2022 at 09:38 AM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Abstract


Moth or moth species of butterfly.

I like this one, for its shapes, form, etc.

Not sure if it is a heavy crop / PP that makes it look a little "rough". Could be a candidate for a re-shoot with a macro or other closer focus, than a heavy crop, to get a cleaner rendering.

That said, it also might look really good on canvas where precision isn't a priority ... and yet, the detail is in the structure. Just something (too much clarity, etc. ) about it seems like it "could be better", but I can't put my finger on it.

Which lens exif was this shot on?



Nov 05, 2022 at 11:35 AM
EverLearning
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Abstract


Very good Kent. The subject is a closeup of an Owl Butterfly wing and the "wires" are its wing supports.

This was shot at a local butterfly garden during my first outing with the Canon EF 100mm macro lens. I intentionally left out the EXIF info because I thought it would make it too easy to figure out what the image was, but I have added it now. I believe this image was taken with fill flash; likely in 1/16 or 1/32 power setting.

The second image had the Clarity reset to zero. Neither image had any sharpening applied other than the standard export sharpening for screen. Both had a custom curve applied. The custom curve is a more subtle curve than LR's medium curve. They are fairly heavy crops of the SOOC image.

Knowing now what the image is of, how the image was captured and how it was processed, does it still seem rough to you?

Don



Nov 05, 2022 at 12:29 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Abstract


I didn't expect it to be with a macro lens on first viewing.

Looks like diffraction at f/22 got you a bit soft, then whatever additional crop / pp is in play didn't take kindly to starting off soft.
Might want to kick up the light a bit if you are going to go that small with the aperture (see below).

Since this is a flat plane subject (the wing, that is), you could shoot it around f/11 (or less ) and stay out of the hard hit that diffraction makes as you go farther north into f/16 and beyond. With a flat plane subject, you might even get into f/8 - f/4 territory with the macro lens (flat field).

Personally, my testing put me at f/13 as my threshold for diffraction, so I typically don't go past f/11 ... or, at least am very cognizant of it when I do (and my expectations).


As to the lighting. I typically use an underexposure on the FEC to keep things natural looking, similar to what it sounds like you did.

However, if the lens is going to be "soft" because of the diffraction, then I might want my lighting to be of a higher contrast to offset the soft lens.

I recall shooting an old Vivitar zoom, and coming away with an image that looked as sharp as some of my Canon / Zeiss glass. Only to realize that the lighting on that day was strong Sunny 16, strong enough to overcome the shortcoming of my old Viv. Some experimental comps later (won't bore you, more than already am ), and I came to better understand how much influence the quality of light has on things, too.

I shoot much ambient (99.999% these days), but am aware as to when my lighting is soft, or highly specular. In general, artificial flash IS highly specular, and we often like to tame it down some. Here ... shooting f/22 with the softening effects of diffraction ... specular lighting could be your friend, where it often times needs tamed, this time I think it could be even more helpful at f/22.

Shooting at 1/16 or 1/32 power, you were likely using it as fill lighting, with ambient being your key lighting. I might consider to reverse this (or rebalance it, at least), and use your flash as your key lighting, and allow ambient to be your fill. Depending on how you balance them and / or swap the key / fill relationship ... and if you use modifiers (softbox, reflector, etc.) ... can achieve different looks to retain things in a natural realm.


Short version ... more specular (higher contrast) light to offset the effects of diffraction (lower contrast) at f/22 (and ISO 1600).


I think I got my finger on it, now.




Nov 05, 2022 at 01:19 PM
EverLearning
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Abstract


Kent, this was my first outing with this macro lens; in fact, my first outing with a macro lens. There was a lot of experimentation - flash, high speed sync, f stops, distance (curious as to when the hood starts to block the flash), etc. From what I have read, the sensor design has a significant role to play in diffraction. I pulled one quote from one article:

"These physical characteristics of sensor design will have a great impact on the overall sharpness of an image, more than the lens itself will. And, you may not see the effects of diffraction until much later than you technically should."

I found a few things that suggested the lens aperture blade design plays a role too, although none of the articles I came across would be considered tier 1 sources. The implications were that the number of blades and design (rounded vs straight edges) will vary the impact of diffraction.

All of this is to say I wanted to see what the diffraction was like at different f-stops with this camera/lens combo. I experimented all the way up to f/32 and was pleasantly surprised with the output from various high f stops.

Because this outing was more experimentation that creation, there may have been less thought to "proper" or "best" f stop but I did try a number of different f stops when the concept for this image came to mind. Interestingly enough, the one I liked best was the one shot at f/22! I think when one is shooting very close and DOF is very shallow, something that looks like a flat or parallel plane isn't necessarily true to that; probably more from an above/straight/below perspective than left/right because the subject was quite low and kneeling was the best I could do (there were other people around and I wouldn't want to be mistaken for a very large, dead butterfly on the ground .

Since that outing, I have bought a collapsable white diffuser that is kind of pear-shaped, with an opening for the lens within the smaller area of the "pear". Once positioned over the lens, it has a slight downward (forward) angle to it that is said to help direct light past the hood from closer than without it. I haven't had the chance to test that yet.

One thing I find interesting but difficult to reconcile is that Scott felt that a less harsh/contrasty version would be more effective while you felt the image suffered from softness. Is this dichotomy a matter of two different viewers looking for two different things from an image where the image actually lands in the middle of those two expectations?

Don



Nov 05, 2022 at 02:50 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Abstract


EverLearning wrote:
One thing I find interesting but difficult to reconcile is that Scott felt that a less harsh/contrasty version would be more effective while you felt the image suffered from softness. Is this dichotomy a matter of two different viewers looking for two different things from an image where the image actually lands in the middle of those two expectations?

Don


Sometimes, when an image is soft ... play to that, rather than try and make it something it isn't. Trying to overcome softness with PP can work, but only to a point. I think in this case, the existing image is a candidate (to Scott's point) to go with it (i.e. the softness), rather than fight it.

The "harsh / contrasty" aspect of it (I'm guessing) is a byproduct of processing / profile that just looks "off", re-iterating that ISO 1600 is part of the puzzle, too.

Curious to see sooc ... and/or your other shots.



Nov 06, 2022 at 10:27 AM
EverLearning
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Abstract


Kent, I think there are soft images and there are soft subjects. I wonder if this is a case of a soft subject. Some butterflies have large (relatively speaking) scale-like pieces on their wings but such is not the case with the Owl moth; at least not visible at this magnification/crop combination, although there are some distinct, sharp lines visible in the image, like the upper right of the yellow/gold "eye". @Shasoc, if I recall correctly the Owl Butterfly is one of your favourites. What is your experience photographing it? Do you find the patterns to be sharp/crisp or inherently a touch soft and how do your image compare to the second one above for sharpness?

Regarding ISO 1600, whereas with my Canon 7D Mark II 1600 was about as high as I would want to go, I don't think twice about that ISO with the Canon R5 and I normally don't even run 1600 through Topaz DeNoise. Subject dependent, I have even got photos at 12800 that look great after a quick visit to Topaz. So I am comfortable saying that I don't believe ISO 1600 on this camera contributed to any image softness that may exist.

Processing was actually quite minimal; particularly in the second image where I removed my Clarity adjustment present in the first image. Lightroom does a very light sharpen on import. I applied a very light (custom preset) curve to the image. I did not apply any Contrast and did no image sharpening. I selected Sharpen For Screen On Export. That's it. I will post the SOOC image when I can get on the computer (my better half is using it right now).

One thing to note is that there seemed to be spots here and there that looked like flash reflections; almost like specular highlights. I cloned and/or healed the more noticeable ones but left the much smaller ones alone.

Don



Nov 06, 2022 at 11:23 AM
EverLearning
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Abstract


Later than I expected. Here is the SOOC image, other than the crop (one tiny adjustment crop was made after some other changes, so there is a TINY difference in the composition).

I am reposting the second image (no Clarity) too for easier comparing.

Don




  Canon EOS R5    EF100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM lens    100mm    f/22.0    1/250s    1600 ISO    0.0 EV  






  Canon EOS R5    EF100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM lens    100mm    f/22.0    1/250s    1600 ISO    0.0 EV  




Nov 06, 2022 at 06:28 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.