"Bracketing" vs "Tradition"

[Yawns]

Natural light Vs Flash

The shot's were taken in a cast day near sunset .. the light was a bit poor, so the flash picture has a somewhat dark background.

1. 62 photos at f/5.6 differential 2 , no flash natural light, 1/13 speed

2. Single shot, flash on top in the hot-shoe, TTl with -1,7EV negative compensation, 1/125 speed f/10.

Notice there are 4 eggs .. I'm going to watch it as I would love to photograph the larvae someday.

diference by antonio caseiro, on Flickr

----------------------------


62 Photos - 2019-03-17 - C by antonio caseiro, on Flickr

I don't dislike this picture at all.. I like the wasp under the limelight and the more "dramatic" effect.

The bracketing with natural light is just another technical / aesthetically option available.

P3174186 by antonio caseiro, on Flickr

[zzffnn]

Very nice! Why did you use f/5.6 for stacking, instead of f/4 or f/2.8? Is the 60mm macro sharpest at f/5.6, or you simply wanted to stack quickly? Thank you for sharing!

[ChrisR]

It's really very simple;
we take a stack of 50 images
each one bracketed at 5 different exposures,
each one at 5 different apertures so we get the best look
and the flash at 5 different levels to get the "fill" right.

Do it quickly, say within 1ms so the wasp doesn't move much.
That's 6250 images 160 nanoseconds apart.

Then retouch to taste.

[Yawns]

Very nice! Why did you use f/5.6 for stacking, instead of f/4 or f/2.8? Is the 60mm macro sharpest at f/5.6, or you simply wanted to stack quickly? Thank you for sharing!

Thank you...
f/5.6 just for reasons of speed ... to reduce the number of photos. The nest is deep, about an inch. My camera / card combo does like 8FPS .. a sequence of 150 photos takes around 22 seconds. It's an eternity .. I faild some sequences because the wasp moved during the taking of the photos.

Anyway I don't know if it had any influence in the number of photos (probably not) because the focus differential was the same (2) ..
Good question.. need to do a test.

[zzffnn]

Thank you very much, Antonio. You are very helpful.

I am using E-M10 II as well, though with Panasonic 100-300 f/4-5.6 version I + Raynox 150 and/or 250. I get more CA, smaller aperture, worse resolution and more working distance, compared to your O60mm macro.

I found ropes (tied to feet, camera and arm) can help stabilize single frame macro shots quite well, likely more so than using monopod or a stick. I got the idea of using a center horizontal column with weighted tripod from this forum as well, for stacking.

[Troels]

Antonio wrote:

f/5.6 just for reasons of speed ... to reduce the number of photos. (...)

Anyway I don't know if it had any influence in the number of photos (probably not) because the focus differential was the same (2) ..
Good question.. need to do a test.

You don't need to test it. I did it for you.
The actual focus difference between two shots in a bracketing sequence with a certain Differential Step is proportional to the used f-number.

That means that if you have a focus step size of 70-80% of the actual depth of sharpness when using f/2.8 then you will get the exact same safety margen when switching to f/8. That means much bigger focus steps resulting in a need for much fewer exposures.

So when focus bracketing live animals it is certainly an advantage to choose the biggest possible f-number to shorten the needed time.

[Susan Smitha]

You have taken good photographs. Well done!

[MarkSturtevant]

All very interesting.

zzffnn, I would like to learn how you use ropes to stabilize your camera. I use a steadying pole. Lately a monopod with a Y-yoke on top which is better than a simple steadying pole.

[zzffnn]

Mark,

Sorry, I don't have a related photo. The key to using a rope is to pull on the rope, which is tied to one of photographer's feet and both hands.

Basically, I made a rope with a big loop at one end. That loop goes onto my left foot, then gets tied to (or rather held tightly by) my left hand (which is holding lens), then gets tied to right hand (which is holding camera's grip). Then apply pulling (up) force with hands (and resist such force with foot).

Rope length connecting my body parts can be adjusted at will on the fly.

I should have said that a rope is better than a monopod or a stick, for me, at odd positions and heights. With a stick or monopod, I found myself limited to certain angles and heights/lengths. But with a long rope, I have less such limitations. I learned the rope method at mu-43.com and have tried it with with my camera's magnified (10x) electronic viewfinder (focus preview).

[Lou Jost]

Ropes sound like a very interesting idea!

[Yawns]

I heard about it before but I never tried.. anyway I never shoot at anything that is above my waist level...

[MarkSturtevant]

So I did some looking around, and found this trick with a heavy string that seems similar, and is perhaps equivalent. It directly stabilizes up/down movements and is described as also reducing horizontal movements:
https://petapixel.com/2011/01/26/stabil ... nd-string/

[Lou Jost]

Hmm, if you had one under each foot, you'd reduce horizontal movements too. Literally a bipod.

[MarkSturtevant]

There are always pluses and minuses, it seems. Pluses with the rope trick are you are not carrying a stick or monopod around, and it can be faster to set up and change. There will be situations where a stick or monopod interferes with the brush and the rope trick would have less of that.
But the stick/monopod method has its pluses. I really rely on them as a walking stick over irregular terrain. They have made a big difference for this old guy on many occasions. Also they hold the weight of the camera for you while also being used as a stabilizer, and so are less tiring in a session where you are trying to take a lot of pictures.

[Lou Jost]

I'm in that age category too, Mark. In many situations, a stick is actually less likely than a rope to interfere with branches, since you don't need to put the base on your foot. You have an additional degree of freedom to avoid branches.