|
theHUNGERian posted:I'm looking for critical feedback because I feel that something in the exposure and/or color is off. While I am not absolutely certain, I think that direct illumination by the sun contributed to it looking off. However, without the direct illumination I could not have captured the shadows and the delicate lines running down the sides of the leaves. I don’t see anything wrong the the color or exposure. It’s possibly a bit too bright when my iPad is in torch mode. This one is my favorite of the bunch: https://geza.zenfolio.com/p425781472/hC6AB342D#hc6ab9961. The darker background is nicer and being able to see the petals around the other side help give the flower some shape. The bright green streak is a bit distracting. It should be pretty easy to brush over that and possibly crop out the green on the left.
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
jarlywarly posted:So I'd rotate it right so the flower is upright, crop so it's most of the picture and increase the contrast. I think you might be right about the crop, I'm unsure about the rotation and contrast. Perhaps the higher contrast will make more sense after the crop. I'll play with it. tk posted:This one is my favorite of the bunch: https://geza.zenfolio.com/p425781472/hC6AB342D#hc6ab9961. The darker background is nicer and being able to see the petals around the other side help give the flower some shape. The bright green streak is a bit distracting. It should be pretty easy to brush over that and possibly crop out the green on the left. Agreed on all points. Brushing over things is a red line I don't want to cross unless it's dust on the lens/sensor, but cropping would indeed be fine. Thanks for the input.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
Anyone have good suggestions for editing tutorials? I guess this is a bit of a general question, but I'm doing almost entirely macro stuff at the moment and want to get better at editing. I'm shooting in RAW and large jpeg at the moment and want to make sure I fully utilize the available software (Lightroom and Photoshop, currently).
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 18:56
|
|
|
Recently picked up a macro lens, still waiting for bugs to come out but at least the flowers have started showing up. It's really getting me to think a lot more about aperture and depth of field than my previous experience with landscapes, looking forward to experimenting more in the spring.  
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
Terrifying Effigies posted:... still waiting for bugs to come out ... Right? Come on. What is taking so long? Get outta there. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 04:13
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:Anyone have good suggestions for editing tutorials? I guess this is a bit of a general question, but I'm doing almost entirely macro stuff at the moment and want to get better at editing. I'm shooting in RAW and large jpeg at the moment and want to make sure I fully utilize the available software (Lightroom and Photoshop, currently). There are a lot of Lightroom & Photoshop tutorials available on YouTube. Check a few out and see whose style works for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 04:27
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:Anyone have good suggestions for editing tutorials? I guess this is a bit of a general question, but I'm doing almost entirely macro stuff at the moment and want to get better at editing. I'm shooting in RAW and large jpeg at the moment and want to make sure I fully utilize the available software (Lightroom and Photoshop, currently). There's also the Post Processing thread where you can ask specific questions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 05:20
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:There's also the Post Processing thread where you can ask specific questions. I somehow missed that thread, thank you. I'll read it over. So many videos either don't explain what they're adjusting and why. For content:  Needle Ice by Kevin Long, on FlickrWent hiking on a trail that ends up being about 6200 feet in elevation and was too cold still to see any bugs or other small critters. Found a lot of needle ice and tried to make a decent pic out of it. Gladly accepting some criticism and suggestions on this pic, did my best with post-processing in PS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 13:27
|
|
|
It's nice but the angle just makes my head want to tilt. I get you can't crop/tilt as it's corner to corner. Anyone got any strong opinions on focus stacking software, Zerene or Helicon? Zerene seems cool but Helicon can input raw, both are expensive. jarlywarly fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Mar 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:It's nice but the angle just makes my head want to tilt. I get you can't crop/tilt as it's corner to corner. Fair. That's actually the angle it was sticking out of the ground, as it was on a bit of a slope. A lot of it grew out at weird angles and I thought it was neat , but maybe I didn't quite capture that i the picture. It's already a bit cropped in, maybe I can find the original and tilt it a bit. Thanks for the input!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:Anyone got any strong opinions on focus stacking software, Zerene or Helicon? Zerene seems cool but Helicon can input raw, both are expensive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:It's nice but the angle just makes my head want to tilt. I get you can't crop/tilt as it's corner to corner. I use Zerene. At the time I was testing Helicon was much faster but the image quality was much worse for hairy subjects with overlapping hairs (spiders). The zerene PMax algorithm was much better. That was maybe 4-5 years ago though and I think helicon has improved since then. Helicon has a much more slick UI and the stacking algorithm was much faster. I was thinking about trying Helicon again this season when I get more subjects. Helicon will output DNG but Zerene outputs 32 bit tiff so I think you get the same IQ. My take was that Zerene is (was) a product developed by a single guy and it had a great stacking algorithm with a clunky java UI. Helicon looks like a more modern software product but the core algorithm was not as good. But if they caught up it would be a better experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:It's nice but the angle just makes my head want to tilt. I get you can't crop/tilt as it's corner to corner. Zerene's the only one with Linux support, but I prefer Helicon's workflow and it's much faster after last year's update. I pretty much only pyramid stack and I don't see much difference in the output.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
First stacking proper try. Man it's time consuming, RAWs to Helicon to LR for editing and then some very odd colour fringes that Lightroom was only showing in export and in library mode, ended up having to go to PS then export to JPG  Toadstool by Aves Lux, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
I've just noticed something odd about that last photo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZolPxUQUcro I did a retouch on the background buit Lightroom is acting odd in develop at fit it looks fine, go to 1:1 and it looks like it did before the retouch, the same is apparent at fit and 1:1 in Library view and when exported (as on my flickrr account) I just exported as TIF and replaced it and this seems to have fixed that oddness. Anyone have any ideas? jarlywarly fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Mar 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 02:04
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:Fair. That's actually the angle it was sticking out of the ground, as it was on a bit of a slope. A lot of it grew out at weird angles and I thought it was neat , but maybe I didn't quite capture that i the picture. It's already a bit cropped in, maybe I can find the original and tilt it a bit. Thanks for the input! I dunno, it made sense to me - if you look at the grass on the bottom, it's upright, I assumed it grew out at a weird angle like that. I like it as it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 08:33
|
|
|
 Kalmthoutse Heide by roland luijken, on FlickrCarl Zeiss 2.4 35mm Flektogon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 10:01
|
|
|
Orions Lord posted:
Love the use of DoF really nice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 00:04
|
|
|
 Bee by Marc, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 12:16
|
|
|
   Olympus 60mm is both frustrating and satisfying to use.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2019 03:35
|
|
|
toggle posted:
Noice  Mantis by Marc, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2019 10:39
|
|
|
How are crabs as pets?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2019 10:42
|
|
|
 lifeline by ms, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
 7-spot Ladybird by Aves Lux, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 11:15
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 13:19
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
Beautiful shots people, love that wing close up and atlatl's are very alien which I like about macro.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 09:15
|
|
|
I'm shooting the oly 60mm with either +5 or +10 diopters, and +10 at 1:1 focus makes grains of sand look huge and most things look like alien monstrosities. I think that works out to about 2:1. It's a monster pain in the rear end to shoot. This one's +10/1:1.  The rest of these were with a +5.   
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 11:55
|
|
|
Are those all aquarium shots? They're pretty fantastic. Finally trying out with actual insects, even if it's just a plain jane Leaf Footed Bug 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
Thanks, they're all out in the wild around Dumaguete in the Philippines. A lot of the dives are mud/sand flats that are terribly uninteresting unless you're into weird small animals, which they have in spades due to being in the coral triangle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 00:28
|
|
|
Atlatl posted:I'm shooting the oly 60mm with either +5 or +10 diopters, and +10 at 1:1 focus makes grains of sand look huge and most things look like alien monstrosities. I think that works out to about 2:1. It's a monster pain in the rear end to shoot. Awesome stuff! I just ordered some diopters for the 60mm. I find it's already a pain in the rear end to shoot with, so I'm dreading the thought of slapping those diopters on there. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2019 09:16
|
|
|
I have been thinking about trying some macro photography. What should I look for in a lens? A quick search for 'nikon macro lens' on ebay brings up some from ~$50 to ~$100 and varying brands like Nikon or Tamron. Are these good enough to start out on or should I be looking at what I assume would be higher quality with a higher price? I have a D3300. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
It depends on what macro you want to do Common macro includes Plants/Insects etc in the field (a lot of what you see here) Studio macro with or without stacking. Extreme (higher than 1:1) macro. Macro is also often (more so than normal photography) a symbiotic relationship between lens and lighting equipment you need both to do good macro, I have more flashes than macro lenses..
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:It depends on what macro you want to do More specifically, macro extension rings can get your existing lenses working as macro-capable lenses cheaply, and with high image quality, but they take a little extra work to get into focus. There are also reversal rings that mount lenses inside out, which I wouldn't recommend. The next step up would be something like a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens. They have infinity focus and can get to 1:1 true macro. I have this one for Canon and am pretty happy with it: Tokina at-X PRO M 100mm F2.8 D Macro Lens - Nikon AF Mount https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000CMNL52/ A lot of those cheap $50 "macro lenses" are lovely magnifying glasses you snap to the front of your lens, and will not give you the results you want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
I want to say that this thread gives good advice and the above advice was given to me a while back and helped. I ended up forgoing other equipment to get a decent flash in my budget, along with some inexpensive diffusers, and it was worth the money. I also have the Canon 100mm 2.8f lens and it only cost me about $200, and it was worth every penny since I've really learned how to take advantage of it. I'll put the flash on and forget to turn it on at first, and when I compare the no-flash pictures to the flash w/diffuser pics, it's a huge difference. Right now it's just mounted on the top shoe but I'm going to work on getting an off-mount setup eventually. I keep meaning to post some pics I've taken. SPIRAL by Kevin Long, on Flickr
Fingers McLongDong fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Apr 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:
     I don't think it's lovely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I'm a big fan of the Raynox DCR-150. That looks quite decent. What did you clip the DCR-150 onto for these?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 04:13
|
|
|
Lawson posted:That looks quite decent. What did you clip the DCR-150 onto for these? An older Tamron 18-270.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 04:52
|
|
|
I will concede that you took some really nice pics with the snap on lens. I've only ever seen blurry, vignetted messes before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 14:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:I will concede that you took some really nice pics with the snap on lens. I've only ever seen blurry, vignetted messes before. Blame flickr users. In other news, who wants to see what a sea cucumber's rear end in a top hat looks like? Well too bad it's happening, also here's the tiny rear end crabs that live inside them.   +10 diopter is basically hell especially with sand particles floating through the focus light beam, I had to give up and go to manual focus and swim very carefully.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 14:33
|
|