First macro with extension Tubes

[thartl]

Very nice shots, I'm a bit of a spider fan myself, and this one looks like a wolf spider (Lycosidae) but I cant tell how big the spider is.
Personally I like the second picture, its fabulously done and doesnt need stacking!

Wolf spider might be accurate as they are in my region. Size wise, how do you measure - I don't know the metric system too well - product of the system. Anyway - it is probably 3/4 - 7/8 of an inch wide - as you see it in the first photo - it was dead and its legs were curved in. Somewhat a large spider for our area. Getting a ruler out I would say it was less than 2 cm wide, but longer than 1.5 cm. and that is going from outside leg to outside leg as pictured? Or do you just do the the abdomen?

Thanks for the props, I like that second shot too.......

[thartl]

I don't do any sharpening - I am not a fan of it. ...

You might want to revisit that position, as 99.9% of the world does sharpen digital images. You have to. This is a good intro as to why you need to sharpen. There are many, many words out there about the do's and don'ts but very few about the "not at all"

http://www.bythom.com/sharpening.htm

What do you convert your images with ? Are you sure there is no sharpening happening ? Once you resize you need to sharpen again.


rgds,

Andrew

Yeah - I will have to look at it - I guess I might put me in the not at all category - just because I rarely see the effects of it, and I deal with a lot of large file stuff. And when you print large files 11x14 or larger you notice the sharpening and artifacts alot more.

I use photoshop CS4. There should be no sharpening happening in that program unless I ask it to.

I will find a new subject and try some more. Thanks for the site.

[rjlittlefield]

Rik said that ZS sharpens a bit in the process to - so - I guess there it is.

I think you read something that I did not intend to write.

ZS does not sharpen images. It can blur them, due to resampling during image alignment.

The PMax algorithm in ZS does tend to accumulate contrast. Some people erroneously interpret this as sharpening. The difference is that sharpening increases the contrast of fine detail more than coarse, while the increase for PMax is the same at all size scales.

Can you point me to where you got the impression that I said ZS sharpens?

--Rik

[thartl]

Be aware that most of the high mag stacks you see here on photomacrography.net have been treated with "unsharp mask" (USM) or some similar sharpening method.

You are correct, I will adjust my post earlier. My sincerest apologies for the misquote. I hope I didn't offend you - this is also why I said I had to re-read that post - again I am sorry.

Do you feel if I added an unsharp mask are a smart sharpen that it would improve the last spider I posted - or are there too many artifacts to begin with?

[rjlittlefield]

My sincerest apologies for the misquote. I hope I didn't offend you - this is also why I said I had to re-read that post - again I am sorry.

No problem -- misinterpretations happen all the time. I was kind of hoping I had said something misleading, so I could learn what not to say next time!

Do you feel if I added an unsharp mask are a smart sharpen that it would improve the last spider I posted - or are there too many artifacts to begin with?

I don't know. To my eye most of the spider is improved by something like USM 50% at 1 pixel, threshold 0, but that does produce some sharpening halos on those hard-edged reflections in the eyes. I've heard that "smart sharpen" might avoid those, but I'm still using an older version of Photoshop that doesn't have "smart sharpen" built into it, so I have no experience. Some of our other members do have experience with smart sharpen. Perhaps one of them will chime in?

--Rik

[thartl]

Ok - SUPER excited here - turned out AWESOME (Except the tip of the wing I cut off - but i dont' have focusing rails yet so that part is harder.) Things I did differently:
1) Found a bigger subject - a dead fly....rather large for a fly ....I am thinking 1/2 inch long - maybe 3/4?

2) Diffused more light - I used two pieces of foam padding - not styrofoam - I guess I don't know what its called - should post a photo so you know. I placed this over the top in an arch - I left the bottom open. I used two AB800 strobes at 1/2 power to each side - 1 even height the other above, each with softboxes (one large one small.) the foam really helped.

3.) Smart sharpen - 1 pixel to 40% ---- did not add artifacts - but did make a few more noticible.

4.) 1/160s, f8, ISO 250. stack of 60 images in ZS. (Again equipment is Canon 5dmkii, Kenko Tubes 50mm f2.5 and 1.4 canon extender)



I am much happier with this one - I am thinking size made a big difference and so did light. The reason I feel I had to diffuse more light, is when I look at the darker more shadowed areas such as the mouth, I have a HUGE loss of detail again, where as the wings Are nice.

I cleaned up some dust spots, I don't know if they are on the lens or the sensor?

I have one more subject - a much smaller (and older deceased fly) about 1/2 cm in length. It is currently stacking. I will then stack a front image of this fly.

Not sure I am ready to try the honey trick with live flies yet - but good thing. Its winter here and all/most of the bugs are dead or hiding.

[thartl]

Fly #2 - much smaller than the above, still pleased, although alot less detail. I think I am still too far away for things this small. This is less than 3/8 of an inch I would say long.

Same as above......but sharpened 1 pixel at 50%. This one was also cropped (just a bit, because the bottom had streaking going on, even though the stack was the correct order.) Still like the larger fly better. hahaha.



Then I was looking at 100% views and I saw these on the wing? Are they eggs?

[Peter M. Macdonald]

The "BIGFLYGREEN" post looks good, but it is easy to make it so much better. All it will take is a few seconds in Photoshop.

Perform a Shadows/Highlights adjustment (Image/Adjustments/Shadows). Start at the bottom of the box. Change the value for the Black Clip and White Clip to 0. The default 0.01% has a tendancy to clip too much useful information. For this image, I would zero the Color Correction value as well.

Now for the good part. In the Shadows I tried Amount 35%, Tonal WIdth 31% and Radius 10 pixels. This brings out a vast amount of detail which is only hinted at in the original post. As you have the original fly, you can play about with the two percentages to try to match what you are seeing for colour (Ahh. That feels better, spelling colour correctly this time, rather than the direct quote from Adobespell in the previous paragraph). The amount slider adjusts the strength of the shadow adjustment. The Tonal Width slider adjusts the range of tones which are affected by the adjustment. The default setting of 50% seems much too high for this, and most other, images.

Regards,

Peter

[Cyclops]

Very nice shots, I'm a bit of a spider fan myself, and this one looks like a wolf spider (Lycosidae) but I cant tell how big the spider is.
Personally I like the second picture, its fabulously done and doesnt need stacking!

Wolf spider might be accurate as they are in my region. Size wise, how do you measure - I don't know the metric system too well - product of the system. Anyway - it is probably 3/4 - 7/8 of an inch wide - as you see it in the first photo - it was dead and its legs were curved in. Somewhat a large spider for our area. Getting a ruler out I would say it was less than 2 cm wide, but longer than 1.5 cm. and that is going from outside leg to outside leg as pictured? Or do you just do the the abdomen?

Thanks for the props, I like that second shot too.......

Yea a spider is measured by its legspan, but when spiders die their legs curl under like in your shots making it harder to measure-you have to go by the body only.

[AndrewC]

...

2) Diffused more light - I used two pieces of foam padding - not styrofoam - I guess I don't know what its called - should post a photo so you know. I placed this over the top in an arch - I left the bottom open. I used two AB800 strobes at 1/2 power to each side - 1 even height the other above, each with softboxes (one large one small.) the foam really helped.

Try putting a piece of white paper or crumpled baking foil infront / below the subject to bounce light back up. Or a lot of people use translucent plastic tubes (yoghurt drinks, Styrofoam cups, even eggshells) to diffuse light - IMO they also bounce light around the inside of the tube and give you some gentle wrap around lighting.

Andrew

[ChrisR]

A lot of your anty thing's light is red from bouncing off the flower.
If you move the main light round, nearer the lens axis (but still behind the foam) it'll get more white light, and fill the shadows. That would also help the fly.

Also the "sponge" tool - desaturate. It works wonders on the legs/antennae especially, and the wings if you reduce the flow a lot.
You could use a layer mask and hue/saturation if you prefer.

[thartl]

The "BIGFLYGREEN" post looks good, but it is easy to make it so much better. All it will take is a few seconds in Photoshop.

Perform a Shadows/Highlights adjustment (Image/Adjustments/Shadows). Start at the bottom of the box. Change the value for the Black Clip and White Clip to 0. The default 0.01% has a tendancy to clip too much useful information. For this image, I would zero the Color Correction value as well.

Now for the good part. In the Shadows I tried Amount 35%, Tonal WIdth 31% and Radius 10 pixels. This brings out a vast amount of detail which is only hinted at in the original post. As you have the original fly, you can play about with the two percentages to try to match what you are seeing for colour (Ahh. That feels better, spelling colour correctly this time, rather than the direct quote from Adobespell in the previous paragraph). The amount slider adjusts the strength of the shadow adjustment. The Tonal Width slider adjusts the range of tones which are affected by the adjustment. The default setting of 50% seems much too high for this, and most other, images.

Regards,

Peter

This in interesting - I knew there was a shadows adjustment in adjustments but I can never find it when looking for it - but I don't think I have been looking hard enough.

I am not at a computer with photoshop - nor with the original file, I may open it tonight and repost. THanks for the tip. (And here I thought I knew a TON about photoshop and I am still learning more.)

[thartl]

...

2) Diffused more light - I used two pieces of foam padding - not styrofoam - I guess I don't know what its called - should post a photo so you know. I placed this over the top in an arch - I left the bottom open. I used two AB800 strobes at 1/2 power to each side - 1 even height the other above, each with softboxes (one large one small.) the foam really helped.

Try putting a piece of white paper or crumpled baking foil infront / below the subject to bounce light back up. Or a lot of people use translucent plastic tubes (yoghurt drinks, Styrofoam cups, even eggshells) to diffuse light - IMO they also bounce light around the inside of the tube and give you some gentle wrap around lighting.

Andrew

I tried a few different things, I have silver reflectors and white foam, and white reflectors, gold reflectors, mirrors - but I am having problems mounting them in front of the subject where the light hits the subject but the reflector is not in the way of the camera or subject. I end up hand holding them - and it gets difficult when pressing the shutter and focusing ring while holding a reflector.

I found a yogurt cup - well what I think you mean by yogurt cup (a styrofoam bowl?) However I left it at work yesterday and didn't get to try it out. Again - mounting it might be a problem. All of my clamps and stands are not in the miniature - they are all large.

Thanks for the tips!

[thartl]

A lot of your anty thing's light is red from bouncing off the flower.
If you move the main light round, nearer the lens axis (but still behind the foam) it'll get more white light, and fill the shadows. That would also help the fly.

Also the "sponge" tool - desaturate. It works wonders on the legs/antennae especially, and the wings if you reduce the flow a lot.
You could use a layer mask and hue/saturation if you prefer.

What percentage of flow do you recommend?

I thought the ant or fly or whatever it is was a bit red to begin with. But I would say you are correct - I did get some of the reds off the flower. -

The main light was no where near the lens axis. I will try this - however I am afraid of casting shadows from the camera lens. (My strobes are huge and too bulky for this kind of work- until I find something different to use that fits my liking.)

Speaking of lighting - I found a dual LED lamp on bhphotovideo found here
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/4 ... _Dual.html
but its $245 for something that looks like a book lamp that I think I can find locally for WAY less. They also had one made by novoflex that was 3 light heads, but it was REALLY REALLY expensive.

But I also want to be able to shoot in the field at live subjects, so I have to find something that is practical for that, I am not sure my external flash is going to work - and I do have flash brackets to move it - but not sure there either.

[AndrewC]

...

2) Diffused more light - I used two pieces of foam padding - not styrofoam - I guess I don't know what its called - should post a photo so you know. I placed this over the top in an arch - I left the bottom open. I used two AB800 strobes at 1/2 power to each side - 1 even height the other above, each with softboxes (one large one small.) the foam really helped.

Try putting a piece of white paper or crumpled baking foil infront / below the subject to bounce light back up. Or a lot of people use translucent plastic tubes (yoghurt drinks, Styrofoam cups, even eggshells) to diffuse light - IMO they also bounce light around the inside of the tube and give you some gentle wrap around lighting.

Andrew

I tried a few different things, I have silver reflectors and white foam, and white reflectors, gold reflectors, mirrors - but I am having problems mounting them in front of the subject where the light hits the subject but the reflector is not in the way of the camera or subject. I end up hand holding them - and it gets difficult when pressing the shutter and focusing ring while holding a reflector.

I found a yogurt cup - well what I think you mean by yogurt cup (a styrofoam bowl?) However I left it at work yesterday and didn't get to try it out. Again - mounting it might be a problem. All of my clamps and stands are not in the miniature - they are all large.

Thanks for the tips!

Pipe cleaners, blue tack and Playdoh can all be pressed into service for holding things.

Andrew