First pic

Just bought that first macro lens? Post here to get helpful feedback and answers to any questions you might have.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

johan
Posts: 1005
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:39 am
Contact:

First pic

Post by johan »

Hello,

Very new to taking things above 1:1 (1 week new even) and first shot posted in this forum - taken last Sunday handheld using a reversed Pentax SMC-k 50 1.2 lens, with homemade diffuser on top at 1/8. I got lucky, this is the entire frame. If you click through you should be able to get to the full size which shows a lot more detail in the eye than this resized version.

In terms of critique, the lighting, composition and extra flash all worked ok, but it's a bit underexposed and noisy (my cam struggle with noise in dark areas). On the other hand any more and the reflections in the eyes might have been too much, so swings and roundabouts I guess. The depth of field could have been greater but this was I think f8 so the viewfinder becomes too dark to focus above that and diffraction issues would probably set in too. The 50 reversed seems pretty good (compared to various other 50s I've reversed) but as it was designed for b&w it will always have PF/CA issues and I have not really explored ways to control that yet. I've purchased an el-nikkor 50 2.8 so I should be able to do a comparison between various Pentax lenses and that sometime in the future when and if I finally figure out which stage will work on my tripod.

Thanks for looking. C&C gratefully appreciated.


Image

DQE
Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:33 pm
Location: near Portland, Maine, USA

Post by DQE »

Nice composition, and great result, especially for a first post. I personally enjoy seeing the fly's face emerging from the background - it feels like a natural progression to my eye/brain.
-Phil

"Diffraction never sleeps"

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23608
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Seems to me that your self-critique is pretty good. Every thing I start to write, you've already mentioned! I do like the composition. I find a pleasant tension between the dark subject and the bright stem(?) in the background.

One odd thing I notice in the full-size image is that a lot of the eye facets have a small black dot in the middle of the bright reflection. I'm not sure if its an artifact of over-sharpening or an accurate reflection of some dark area in the middle of the flash. Do you know?

--Rik

johan
Posts: 1005
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:39 am
Contact:

Post by johan »

Ahhh, thank you so much DQE, rjlittlefield for taking the time! Really really really appreciated.

I guess I got lucky with the light so yes DQE, that whole 'coming out the shadows' thing does make it look pretty. The lighting and background are really areas I personally want to work on so I was quite chuffed with this one as it's a start on that transition from a documentational to an aesthetic photo.

Really really good spot there on the eyes rjlittlefield, and I have the culprit! Noise Ninja on an underexposed image.

I basically do exactly the same workflow every time for any photo: RAW -> adjust -> noise removal -> sharpen -> save as at 8 and it turns out that it's the noise removal process I use - "noise ninja" as a photoshop plugin - but only when it's under. By the time that you'd brought this up I'd already retinkered with the original RAW to eliminate the 'underness' and on the retinkered version it doesn't appear. But on the original exposure it clearly manifests itself as soon as I run the noise ninja routine. Great spot - thank you! I'll need to keep an eye out for that :)

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic