Some reworked images

Images of undisturbed subjects in their natural environment. All subject types.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

gardenersassistant
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 5:21 am
Location: North Somerset, England

Some reworked images

Post by gardenersassistant »

I am doing a project at the moment that involves looking through all the close-ups I have made in the past 12 years with various camera models and formats. It is a long job and along the way I am stopping off from time to time to reprocess a few of them to see how they look with my current post processing workflow. Here are five I reprocessed yesterday. (I did another five in the same processing session and I'll post them another day if anyone is interested.)

The raw files were batch processed in DXO PhotoLab, Silkypix and Lightroom, with image-specific adjustments in Lightroom. They have been processed for viewing here at 1024 pixels on the long side. There are larger versions in this album at Flickr. (The A series images are 1400 pixels high. The B series images are 1000 pixels high.)

These are from July 2013 and were captured with an FZ200 small sensor bridge camera and Raynox 150 close-up lens. The first three used a single, hot-shoe mounted flash. The last two used available light and at 1/10 and 1/13 sec I must have used a tripod for those two, but I almost certainly did them "tripod-assisted", with my hands on the camera, rather than hands-off with a remote or delayed shutter release, which is something that I rarely do. The flash shots were quite likely tripod-assisted too as they were fairly slow, two at 1/60 sec and one at 1/80 sec. The camera will sync flash at upwards of 1/2000 sec, and I often use that sort of shutter speed with flash so as to avoid all possibility of available light ghosting. These would have been done slower in order avoid black backgrounds, that I'm not keen on.

The first three were captured in our garden, the other two at a local nature reserve.

Image
1443 C 01 0501 P1030648_PLab SP7 LR 1024w by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Image
1443 C 02 0501 P1030744_PLab SP7 LR 1024w by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Image
1443 C 03 0501 P1040059_PLab SP7 LR 1024w by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Image
1443 C 04 0508 P1100422_PLab SP7 LR 1024w by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Image
1443 C 05 0508 P1100526_PLab SP7 LR 1024h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
Nick

Flickr
Blog
Journey since 2007

Rework and reposts of my images posted in this forum are always welcome, especially if they come with an explanation of what you did and how you did it.

MarkSturtevant
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 6:52 pm
Location: Michigan, U.S.A.
Contact:

Post by MarkSturtevant »

Really good stuff! It is amazing what you can do with a point and shoot camera.
I suppose the green plant bug is feeding on juices left in its own cast skin, retrieving amino acids that it would not get in its plant diet.
I especially like the scorpionfly.
Mark Sturtevant
Dept. of Still Waters

Lou Jost
Posts: 5942
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

I don't think that is its skin, Mark. Look at the wide toe pads of the corpse compared to the slender toes of the adult.

The FZ-200 and now FZ300 have also been my main field cameras, and we have supplied all of our reserve guards with these (and Raynoxes) as well. They are amazingly versatile. Besides fantastic macro photos, the same camera can do stunning bird and animal photos with its f/2.8 600mm equivalent Leitz lens. And the latest version is water resistant.

gardenersassistant
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 5:21 am
Location: North Somerset, England

Post by gardenersassistant »

MarkSturtevant wrote:Really good stuff! It is amazing what you can do with a point and shoot camera.
I suppose the green plant bug is feeding on juices left in its own cast skin, retrieving amino acids that it would not get in its plant diet.
I especially like the scorpionfly.
Thanks. I'm not very observant, and even less knowledgeable, about what I photograph, which leaves me rather stuck in a "let's try and make a pretty picture" mentality I'm afraid. I had assumed, without giving it much thought, that it was another insect whose head had been bitten off. Your suggestion makes sense to me, although I see from Lou's response that perhaps that isn't it.

My choice of camera is fairly well considered. Most of the time for invertebrates I now use an FZ330 (next model on from the FZ200 I used for these). I have micro four thirds, APS-C and more recently a full frame camera and macro lenses and extension tubes for them, along with 1.4X and 2X teleconverters for the APS-C and full frame cameras. I haven't tried the full frame for invertebrates yet, but I have used micro four thirds and APS-C quite a lot for invertebrates. I have spent a lot of time moving back and forth between cameras, formats and lens setups, including reversed lenses, but for invertebrates I keep coming back to 1/2.3" bridge cameras and close-up lenses.

As far as image quality goes (and this often comes as a surprise, because it sounds so unlikely - it certainly surprised me and it took me ages to convince myself that it was true) it doesn't make any discernible difference which of my setups I use. That is because I use single images (no stacking for invertebrates) and very small apertures, equivalent to f/45 full frame. At these apertures loss of fine detail from diffraction dominates image quality and makes all formats and optics more or less equally poor performers (and it puts a premium on post processing to squeeze as much as possible from a not very good starting point). Were I to use larger apertures, or stacking with around sweet spot apertures, then optics quality and sensor size obviously would make a big difference and I probably wouldn't be using a small sensor fixed lens bridge camera.

However, given this fairly level playing field as far as image quality goes (for my sort of approach), the choice of kit then comes down to usability.

I find the FZ cameras have excellent usability for the type of invertebrate photography that I do. With close-up lenses I get decent working distances and good, non-hunting autofocus. I use autofocus almost all the time, and I'm sure for example that I wouldn't do very well with creatures that are moving around if I didn't have autofocus. Autofocus works fine (hand-held btw, and in fairly poor light) down to scene widths of 8mm wide, which is what I get with the Raynox 250, and which of course is around 4:1 in full frame terms. In fact it works beyond that when I use something more powerful like stacked Raynoxes or a Raynox MSN-202 on an FZ camera, not that I do that very often.

As to maximum working distance, it is fixed for a particular close-up lens, independent of scene width/magnification. For example it is around 200mm with a Raynox 150, which takes me down to around 13mm scene width, and is the close-up lens I use most of the time. With the Raynox 250 the maximum working distance is around 125mm for that minimum 8mm scene width.

I intend to try the full frame (Sony A7ii) for invertebrates later in the year to see if it gives me any benefits that would outweigh the disadvantages, although given my experience to date I am not expecting that it will.

I did hope the A7ii would give me an extra something for botanical subjects (which is why I bought it), as I don't use minimum aperture very often and so the diffraction issue is not dominant. However, in a series of like for like comparisons (documented here and here at dpreview, and garnering some interesting discussion), it turned out not to unfortunately, and so I'm using micro four thirds for botanical subjects, with a macro lens rather than close-up lenses, as that seems a better fit to my requirements and preferences, especially now I am using stacking so much for botanical subjects.
Nick

Flickr
Blog
Journey since 2007

Rework and reposts of my images posted in this forum are always welcome, especially if they come with an explanation of what you did and how you did it.

gardenersassistant
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 5:21 am
Location: North Somerset, England

Post by gardenersassistant »

Lou Jost wrote:I don't think that is its skin, Mark. Look at the wide toe pads of the corpse compared to the slender toes of the adult.

The FZ-200 and now FZ300 have also been my main field cameras, and we have supplied all of our reserve guards with these (and Raynoxes) as well. They are amazingly versatile. Besides fantastic macro photos, the same camera can do stunning bird and animal photos with its f/2.8 600mm equivalent Leitz lens. And the latest version is water resistant.
For all-in-one use I think the FZxx0 series are very good. That said, if you can put up with the size (and the cost) I suspect the Sony RX10iv might be better as an all-in-one, with the same reach but a larger sensor, and apparently a very good lens at all focal lengths, and although f/2.8 only at the wide end, it is still f/4 at the tele end. Probably better focusing the FZ200/300 (or FZ1000/2000) if your subjects are moving, especially for birds in flight, most especially if they are against busy backgrounds.

But yes, the FZxx0 series is very versatile, especially if coupled with close-up lenses. Are your people using flash for their close-ups?

Personally, given the kit I have accumulated over the years, I have taken to using different cameras/formats for particular purposes. But of course that isn't any good for people who are out working in the field with photography as just one of their responsibilities.
Nick

Flickr
Blog
Journey since 2007

Rework and reposts of my images posted in this forum are always welcome, especially if they come with an explanation of what you did and how you did it.

Lou Jost
Posts: 5942
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Nick, yes, my guys use flash, often with a home-made plastic diffuser cut from a translucent plastic bottle and stuck between the Raynox lens and its snap-on adapter. This can make really nice light and if the background objects are close, the background is nicely lit as well.

The larger-sensor FZ1000 is also a reasonable alternative. But the FZ200/300/330 really shines in terms of wide-open telephoto optical performance.

It also works as a really spectacular tube lens for a microscope objective!!! Have you tried that? See this post:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... e&start=15

Howard Mayo
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:12 am
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Contact:

Post by Howard Mayo »

I think you really take great photos Nick.
I guess I'm kinda like you (though way less accomplished) in that the names of things are completely beside the point. The value is in the experience of witnessing life in all it's various forms. And of course being able to share that experience with others is a real bonus.

No doubt, Leica and Panasonic teaming up to make a camera has really been a good thing. I'm always amazed at the amount of detail in your images.

The first three shots of this post I find a little on the yellow side and i'm curious to know if it's just me.
Personally I would have made further adjustments as below:



original
Image

lightroom - auto white balance
Image

Photoshop - levels, saturation
Image

Regardless though, I very much enjoy your photos.
Thanks.

Troels
Posts: 600
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 11:06 am
Location: Denmark, Engesvang
Contact:

Post by Troels »

I like your action photos very much.
Interesting details.
Troels Holm, biologist (retired), environmentalist, amateur photographer.
Visit my Flickr albums

Lou Jost
Posts: 5942
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

the names of things are completely beside the point

I think knowing about the creatures adds a nice additional level to the experience, though it is not necessary.

gardenersassistant
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 5:21 am
Location: North Somerset, England

Post by gardenersassistant »

Lou Jost wrote:Nick, yes, my guys use flash, often with a home-made plastic diffuser cut from a translucent plastic bottle and stuck between the Raynox lens and its snap-on adapter. This can make really nice light and if the background objects are close, the background is nicely lit as well.
Simple and small can work well and be very practical. I have a somewhat less practical arrangement (well, it is practical for me, but for someone working out in the field on mainly non-photographic duties it wouldn't be).

Image
1341 02 KX800 diffuser July 2018 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
Lou Jost wrote:The larger-sensor FZ1000 is also a reasonable alternative.
But it only goes down to f/8, rather than the f/16 that would be needed to get the same DOF as the FZ200/300 at f/8, so only half the maximum DOF. That ruled it out for me.
Lou Jost wrote:But the FZ200/300/330 really shines in terms of wide-open telephoto optical performance.

It also works as a really spectacular tube lens for a microscope objective!!! Have you tried that? See this post:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... e&start=15
Interesting thread (what I understood of it!) I bought some microscope objectives (well, I suppose that is what they are) a couple of years ago but I've never made any use of them. I have an MSN-202 and MSN-505, but I've only ever used the 505 for experiments, and only rarely used the 202 out in the field, and when I have I suspect it was at the lower end of the magnification scale, using magnifications that I could achieve with a 250, or a couple of Raynoxes stacked. I have used stacked 250+150 or 250+250 occasionally. But I'm not really into the smaller scale subjects.
Nick

Flickr
Blog
Journey since 2007

Rework and reposts of my images posted in this forum are always welcome, especially if they come with an explanation of what you did and how you did it.

Lou Jost
Posts: 5942
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Yes, the microscope objectives are definitely not field equipment.

I hadn't noticed the large minimum aperture of the FZ1000 lens. Thanks for pointing that out. I have been very happy with the FZ300 and now I am even happier!

Our guards use the built-in flash with their home-made diffuser. The diffuser itself is about as tall as yours, but narrower, and it is in the same place as yours. It can be kept in a large pants pocket when not in use. For our working conditions (always raining, lots of thick vegetation) an external flash would almost certainly break off or fail. But the camera's own flash is surprisingly good when diffused at the lens front.

gardenersassistant
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 5:21 am
Location: North Somerset, England

Post by gardenersassistant »

Howard Mayo wrote:I think you really take great photos Nick.
I guess I'm kinda like you (though way less accomplished) in that the names of things are completely beside the point. The value is in the experience of witnessing life in all it's various forms. And of course being able to share that experience with others is a real bonus.

No doubt, Leica and Panasonic teaming up to make a camera has really been a good thing. I'm always amazed at the amount of detail in your images.

The first three shots of this post I find a little on the yellow side and i'm curious to know if it's just me.
Personally I would have made further adjustments as below:

...

Regardless though, I very much enjoy your photos.
Thanks.
Thanks.

You are right about the yellows. They are horrible. The Choisya bush the insects were on gives me endless problems with colours for some reason. Certainly with the first of those, and possibly the others I don't recall, at least the red channel and possibly more was clipping badly. I pulled the exposure and the highlights down, and tried bringing the yellows down too, but very briefly, and very ineffective, and I gave up quickly as the reprocessing was a bit of a side issue and I didn't want to get bogged down with it. And it was the sharpness/detail/clarity that I was concentrating on. (I've started being much more careful about white balance with my flowers etc, using a grey card to set the white balance scene by scene (ish), with pleasing results. I think it is time I did the same with invertebrates.)

I think your Photoshop one is nearest to the reality, although tbh the colours are hugely varied on that bush, not just as the season moves on, but from leaf to leaf at a particular point in time, so it's difficult to know what the colours actually were for any particular capture.

I would prefer to know about the subjects. I'm sure that would add to the experience for me. Unfortunately I have a life-long memory recall problem and details just don't stick no matter how hard I try (which made managing in the working environment a tad interesting - not really a problem since I've been retired).
Last edited by gardenersassistant on Sun Feb 10, 2019 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nick

Flickr
Blog
Journey since 2007

Rework and reposts of my images posted in this forum are always welcome, especially if they come with an explanation of what you did and how you did it.

gardenersassistant
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 5:21 am
Location: North Somerset, England

Post by gardenersassistant »

Troels wrote:I like your action photos very much.
Interesting details.
Thank you. :)
Nick

Flickr
Blog
Journey since 2007

Rework and reposts of my images posted in this forum are always welcome, especially if they come with an explanation of what you did and how you did it.

gardenersassistant
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 5:21 am
Location: North Somerset, England

Post by gardenersassistant »

Lou Jost wrote:Yes, the microscope objectives are definitely not field equipment.

I hadn't noticed the large minimum aperture of the FZ1000 lens. Thanks for pointing that out. I have been very happy with the FZ300 and now I am even happier!

Our guards use the built-in flash with their home-made diffuser. The diffuser itself is about as tall as yours, but narrower, and it is in the same place as yours. It can be kept in a large pants pocket when not in use. For our working conditions (always raining, lots of thick vegetation) an external flash would almost certainly break off or fail. But the camera's own flash is surprisingly good when diffused at the lens front.
It sounds like Mark Berkery's snout setup (which can be seen by searching for "Velcro" on this page). He gets terrific results. (Mark is one of my macro heroes who has been an inspiration to me over the years) so I can well imagine that it works well for your guys. The whole FZ300/Raynox/on board flash/easy to carry diffuser makes great sense for a wet and rugged environment.
Nick

Flickr
Blog
Journey since 2007

Rework and reposts of my images posted in this forum are always welcome, especially if they come with an explanation of what you did and how you did it.

Lou Jost
Posts: 5942
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

I got the diffuser idea from Andreas Kay. He has used ridiculously simple cameras and lighting to get astounding invertebrate photos in Ecuador's tropical forests:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/andreaskay/
Many of these incredible images of rare (and sometimes new to science) organisms were taken with acheap little point-and shoot pocket camera fitted with a plastic tube holding a Raynox + diffuser.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic