BTW: The quality of the light you're getting is much better Andreas -just needs some fine tuning. That last butterfly shot deserves to be printed large and framed...
Dalantech wrote:
If you under expose by a stop or less then the increase in noise shouldn't be a problem at ISO 100. But you will see a big difference in texture detail because the red channel doesn't have to be all the way to the right of the histogram before you start to lose detail. Also under exposing a little will boost saturation in ways that the saturation slider in post can't. Last, but not least, you will get a break on the specular highlights -less likely to blow them out...
Dalantech wrote:
BTW: The quality of the light you're getting is much better Andreas -just needs some fine tuning. That last butterfly shot deserves to be printed large and framed...
Thank you. It might end up on the wall.
Will try to put some distance between the head and the diffuser and see what happens. I will probaly order the puffers too.
Anden wrote:
What is your verdict on the level of diffusion?
A
I would say excellent though you do get a little bit of hotspot in the middle. As soon as I reinstall my CS3, I'll post a sample. Mind you it could be as early as this coming Friday.
Very interesteing thread you have going on here. But do everyone use Canon and Canon macro flashes? I use Nikon and have a Nikon SB-R1 macro flash. The one without the commander. I use the internal flash to trigger the flashes. .We do not have the nice MP-E65mm macro lense either. So for bigger magnification shots I use reversed 24mm and 28mm on a Nikon PK-13 extension tubes. (Or my Tamron 90mm with tubes).Which also complicates the use of macro flash, since the working distance get a bit small. I have earlier used a SB-600 on a bracket with a LordV type of diffuser on. And that worked nice. But since I have the macro flash, and it costed me a bit of money, I want to make that work too. I tried to make som mini coke can diffusers, but they got to big and was in the way for the object I photographed. So I ordered myself a couple of these from e-bay: http://cgi.ebay.com/2x-Diffuser-for-SBR200SET-for-Nikon-R1-R1C1_W0QQitemZ260447590905QQcategoryZ64354QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp3907.m263QQ_trkparmsZalgo%3DSICDD%26its%3DI%252BC%26itu%3DUCI%252BIA%252BUA%252BFICS%252BUFI%26otn%3D15%26po%3DLVI%26ps%3D54
The diffusers you ordered looks good. I have seen similar diffusers for the canon flash.
The short working distance of the MP-E 65 is good since the light only has to travel a short distance before hitting the subject. I know what you mean. One wants to get the best out of the flashes since it is a big investment. I have seen a big improvement of the light since I started experimenting.
Aden, I think you are getting pretty good light from your setup. I currently diffuse my this way (I only use a Canon 100mm macro at the moment and I'm using both Kaiser risers, but I think when I move to the MP-E I may use only one raiser like John uses...btw, I got the riser idea from John):
Thank you Kurt. We actually have a lot of Ladybirds. It has been a sort of an invation here lately. We are short on metallic beetles though. So far the only thing I have struggled with is the bumble bees and wasps.
Looks like a pretty good torture test for specular highlights, since the flash is having to dump out a lot of power to expose the close to black areas in that scene...
