|
seravid posted:I tried CombineZM and Zerene Stacker. I shoot by hand so they didn't produce any usable results, but they got (surprisingly) close. I imagine they'd be great for tripod work. Hmmm. I'm hoping to shoot by hand as well for insects. I'm a total macro novice, so I'm guessing it's not easy to get a tripod with a macro rail set up to glide in on an insect. I'll definitely try a demo before I buy any software to see if it works for handheld shots.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
Graniteman posted:Does anyone have any recommendations for focus stacking software for macro work? I don't have (and won't buy) Photoshop. Helicon Focus looks neat, and it's only $30, but I don't know what else is out there. You can make do with a steady tripod and a macro rail but if you're going past 1:1 magnification, you see people rigging up hardcore setups with linear stages and micrometer heads. Or you have money you can just buy the StackShot autoslider.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 03:59
|
|
|
I've used combinezm before. It works fairly well if you get the shots right. Here is a quick tutorial with it http://www.digitalgrin.com/showthread.php?t=61316
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 04:41
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:Hmmm. I'm hoping to shoot by hand as well for insects. I'm a total macro novice, so I'm guessing it's not easy to get a tripod with a macro rail set up to glide in on an insect. I'll definitely try a demo before I buy any software to see if it works for handheld shots. If you're starting out, I'd say forget stacking, at least when chasing bugs outdoors. At high magnifications getting one shot in focus isn't particularly easy, so imagine getting multiple shots - with minimal delay and sway - while moving ever so slightly in one direction to capture different areas of the subject. My advice: mess around in broad daylight at magnifications up to 1:1. That'll give you perfect conditions to practice good hand-holding discipline, learn about your subjects' moving patterns and reactions to your approach, curse at the compromise between sharpness and depth of field (aka diffraction), etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 05:05
|
|
|
First couple of attempts with extension rings and kit lens  please be gentle. Cicada by The1KrisRoB, on Flickr  Fly 2 by The1KrisRoB, on Flickr Getting the focus right with such a small DoF is insanely difficult, and I think I slightly missed it on both, but practise should fix that. Going to grab a reverse ring and flash next month. Also on the list is to build a cheap and nasty lightbox, and then there's.... Ohgod why did I take up such an expensive hobby.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 08:07
|
|
|
I've been wanting to get into photography for a while now, so a couple of days ago I went out and bought a Canon 550D. I've been having fun taking macro images and getting up to speed with the deluge of terminology, I would appreciate some feedback on a few of my favourites so far  First up is my favourite. I managed to get the focus just how I wanted it, so I'm pretty happy with this one!  A hedgehog I found outside today (it had been attacked by birds). The red strands are from the pohutukawa tree it was hiding under.    And here's the christmas pudding my dad made tonight - shortly after this picture, he soaked it in brandy and set it alight. Unfortunately, I couldn't quite get the focus right in the photos of it alight, so they're a bit of an embarassing blurred mess  
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 11:03
|
|
|
Santa brought me the Manfrotto 330B Macro Flash Bracket I asked after getting Alctel's recommendation.  I just shot a few pics around the house and I love it so far. Apparently the one thing that I will have to get used to is if I want to shoot a vertical shot, I have to flip the camera and keep the bracket horizontal (instead of rotating the whole assembly of camera, bracket, and flash) A couple of times the flash arm got loose enough to swing down and bang my lens when I was trying to shoot in portrait orientation. This is with my home-made diffuser. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 05:52
|
|
|
Some handheld shots from today. Wind totally sucks when you're shooting macro. 50D, Sigma 105mm and the 580 EXII.  spider by Adam McCarthy, on Flickr  jumping spider by Adam McCarthy, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 10:43
|
|
|
Hungry Spider. Rough Woodlouse. 
ming-the-mazdaless fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Dec 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2011 15:17
|
|
|
I got a late Christmas present in the mail today (Stackshot) and had to try it out. Any guesses as to what these two are (Hint: both from something edible)?  I'm pretty much going to lose my job now because I can't stop taking pictures of stuff in the house. [edit] One last one...this is an Indian sugar candy I [used to] enjoy:  
InternetJunky fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Jan 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
I want to say candied orange peel for the first one. Maybe crackers for the second?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 07:00
|
|
|
HookShot posted:I want to say candied orange peel for the first one.  Second is an almond shell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 16:30
|
|
|
How come I can't get shots that look that good? Do I need A magnifier? I got the canon 100mm macro for christmas and all of my test shots come out pretty boring and standard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
Yawgmoft posted:How come I can't get shots that look that good? Do I need I didn't realize this either when I first started, but macro photography is very much about light and not just getting wicked close to something. Not only is it important for bringing out texture, but having some lighting or flash will help you get a decent shutter speed and at an aperture where more than a tiny bit will be in focus. Also, 3rd party extension tubes a fun and relatively cheap addition if you want really close things. One more thing- use a monopod or a tripod if you can.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
Yawgmoft posted:How come I can't get shots that look that good? Do I need Like all things photography, macro photography is also a bottomless pit of money once you start down that path.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
I think there should be a rule about photographing food with a macro lens. Though I suppose it could be a useful weight loss system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Like all things photography, macro photography is also a bottomless pit of money once you start down that path. Hurray for my choice of hobby!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 02:34
|
|
|
Today's picture -- a 2mm x 2mm piece of spiral shell:
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 05:33
|
|
|
I had a choice this morning...do some work or take macro shots. The sensible option won. Blackberry section:  Almond skin:  Hazelnut skin:  Blueberry:  Almond shell: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
This is now the "Windows 95 texture thread"
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
My first attempts at focus stacking... Focus Stacked Blue Van by The1KrisRoB, on Flickr  Spidey by The1KrisRoB, on Flickr Unfortunately the poor little guy didn't make it through the "chill the bug so they stay still while you shoot them" stage. R.I.P little spidey guy postin' dead bodies itt
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
Mr Asshat NZ posted:
 On an unrelated note, I'm trying to figure out how I can get closer to my subjects. I have a 100mm f/2.8 with a full set of extension tubes, but that isn't close enough for me. Does anyone know anything about lens reversal? If I flip a 50mm around is that going to get me closer? Can I use the extension tubes and get even closer still? Lastly, is a reversal setup going to get closer than the Canon 65mm 1x-5x macro lens?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
Lens reversal does let me get closer, all the macro shots I've posted were done with a reversed lens. Don't see any reason why using a reversed lens and extension tubes at the same time wouldn't work. Would it get you closer than what you're already doing? I dunno about that, but it's a fairly cheap option. I use a pentax 50mm f/1.4 reverse mounted my 18-55mm nikon, with the pentax set wide open and the nikon stepped down as far as possible, and I think it gives me good results. I do have to do some cropping in the end though, some of the reverse mounted lens winds up in the picture. http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrdespair/6261310673/ if you look at original size version of that picture I think you'll get a good idea of the results I get, you can make out the individual rgb parts of the pixels of the lcd screen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2012 05:51
|
|
|
I decided to take some photos of my delicious blood orange today. If you've never had one, I suggest you go and get one immediately; without a doubt one of the best/most flavorful oranges ever. Blood-Orange-30-31-crop by Abnegātus, on Flickr  Blood-Orange/Cellular Membrane-023 by Abnegātus, on Flickr They look like this normally:  Blood-Orange-17-20 by Abnegātus, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2012 09:57
|
|
|
Abnegatus posted:
Here's a shot I'm happy with from today: Jalapeno pepper seeds and inside junk 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
Spent the night with a 50mm reverse mounted on my camera. Started out with some pictures of a pocket knife. Carbon fiber looks pretty cool.  DSC_1183.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  DSC_1182.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr Then I started taking shots of my old camera.  DSC_1178.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  Been there, done that. by MrDespair, on Flickr  Hard Life by MrDespair, on Flickr  DSC_1172.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 06:42
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Spent the night with a 50mm reverse mounted on my camera. I'm still taking pictures of anything that looks interesting. Yesterday I got very excited because I found some mould on a sesame seed bun:  I was able to get a little closer (aside from some stacking artifacts on the edges that were cropped out this is pretty much full frame):  Also, I present a baby potato that has seen better days: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Are these stacked shots or individual? Either way, great detail! I like the gritty texture these shots have. Individual shots, I just had the aperture stopped as far down as possible with the camera on a tripod. Pretty sure some of them are 15-25 second exposures (I really need to get better lighting).
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I was able to get a little closer (aside from some stacking artifacts on the edges that were cropped out this is pretty much full frame):
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:This is a great shot of a spider, dead or alive. I also tried the 'bug in the freezer' trick this last summer and ended up killing the bugs as well. I bet they weren't really dead. I used to have a job sorting insects and they'd go into the freezer until I got to them. Some would come back to life after a month or more in the freezer. Especially grasshoppers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:The 100mm macro is what I shot that with as well, but I also had extension tubes and a macro rail to help me. My peanut is actually 40 separate shots stitched together. All of the pictures here are stunning and just out of curiosity I'm wondering how much money I would have to set aside to take pictures like those. The closest thing I have to a macro is the 70-300mm Sigma AP0, which to my understanding isn't really a macro lens despite claiming to be, because it only goes upto 1:2 magnification.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 08:59
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:All of your pictures are absolutely amazing. What kind of lighting set up do you use? Can you go into a little more detail about the macro rail and set up you use? It almost looks like it was taken through a stereo microscope. What's the total magnification of the pictures of the sesame seed mold? Sorry for asking so many questions, I am just curious as to what kind of gear makes pictures like that even possible. 1.) Stable tripod 2.) Flash 3.) Macro lens (100mm f/2.8) 4.) Kenko extension tubes 5.) Stackshot macro rail 6.) Zerene Stacker software 7.) Cheapo lightbox  I don't really know what the total magnification is with this gear, but as you can see from the sesame seeds that are visible in my bun picture it's not bad (that's as close as I could get with my setup). That bun shot is full frame pretty much. Most of the things I listed are not mandatory to start out. A set of extension tubes and you're good to go, but if you want to do image stacking then a macro rail is super helpful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Really helpful information
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
I actually had to fix the exposure and temperature quite a bit in post because my initial setup was so bad. I should probably make another lightbox and buy some clamp lamps. This was taken with the dcr-250, 100mm 2.8L and 68mm kenko tubes. Honestly the whole setup was quite unruly. I was going to try to focus stack this one, but even with the velbon macro rail it was a pain in the rear end. Incense-025 by Abnegātus, on Flickr Pastry Mistakes fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Jan 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
I have a Sigma APO 70-300mm Macro lens. Where can I read more about what happens when I move the button from normal to macro mode? I can't find the manual and everywhere I look all I get are reviews and advertisements.
Bioshuffle fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Jan 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:I have a Sigma APO 70-300mm Macro lens. Where can I read more about what happens when I move the button from normal to macro mode? I can't find the manual and everywhere I look all I get are reviews and advertisements. The switch should reduce the minimum working distance. In other words, at longer focal lengths you'll be able to get closer to your subjects. A quick search says 150cm in normal mode, 95cm in "macro" mode. Don't know if those are working distances (end of the lens to subject) or 'sensor-to-subject' distances, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 04:55
|
|
|
Took pictures of bubbles and then tried a bunch of different things in lightroom to see what looked good and what didn't.  DSC_1171.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  DSC_1170.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  DSC_1165.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  DSC_1162.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  DSC_1161.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 05:10
|
|
|
seravid posted:The switch should reduce the minimum working distance. In other words, at longer focal lengths you'll be able to get closer to your subjects. A quick search says 150cm in normal mode, 95cm in "macro" mode. Don't know if those are working distances (end of the lens to subject) or 'sensor-to-subject' distances, though. Thank you for this explanation! It finally clicked. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
Cross posting this from SAD Botanic Gardens 6-1 by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
OHGODBEES!!! right? guys... bees?  OHGODBEES by The1KrisRoB, on Flickr  OHGODBEES2 by The1KrisRoB, on Flickr  OHGODBEES3 by The1KrisRoB, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 00:54
|
|