graduation inspiration

Carl_Constantine · Post by **Carl_Constantine** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:50 pm

Ok, after all the help I've received in the Using Diopters thread, I wanted to try some things out. I got some inspiration on a subject to use, my old graduation ring :-) it has lots of detail that's perfect for close-up pics.

Here's the setup I used (thanks to PuzzledPaul and Rik for the ideas:

That's one of my daughters, Emily, who was eager to help me out. I used my tripod connector to move my camera between the two blocks of wood and a troublelight for lighting. I also used a remote shutter release so I didn't jar the camera.

The result is a stack of 12 images (moved about .5cm each pic) that I stacked in HF (note the watermark text as my copy has already expired). You can see the troublelight in the reflection of the garnet stone in the centre, but that's fine for testing purposes:

Canon EOS 300D
EF-S 18-55mm with +4,+2,+1 closeup lenses
ISO 100
F16
1/3s

Bill D · Post by **Bill D** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:28 pm

I would be interested to see the same setup repeated. But stop your kit lens down as far as it will go. Should be atleast f29, maybe f32, I can't remember how far down Canon's 18-55mm lens goes. Take one exposure. It will probably be around 10 seconds long. I'd like to see the comparison of the DOFs.

I have shunned the allure of focus stacking programs, thus far. When shooting macro, I live at f32! The reason why I would like to see a comparison, I don't know what the results will be, at f32, using diopters. I haven't used them since the 1970s.

puzzledpaul · Post by **puzzledpaul** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:04 pm

Looking very promising, Carl

First time I've come across the term 'troublelight' btw ...

pp

Carl_Constantine · Post by **Carl_Constantine** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:05 pm

Actually, there's another post/thread on this forum about DOF and F-stop. hrm....let's see, ah yes, it's here and even though you'd think that F32 should give a greater DoF, it doesn't always and doesn't produce all the detail you can get from image stacking.

In this case, shooting at F32 may just work, but I don't know if it would work in all situations.

I'll have to set it back up to see what effect it has, and I'll post the result.

Bill D · Post by **Bill D** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:34 pm

Yes, Carl, I agree, f32 doesn't fix everything, all the time. But, for the set-up you posted above, I think a smaller f-stop would be beneficial.

puzzledpaul · Post by **puzzledpaul** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:59 pm

Just another 'take' on the subject I saw recently.

pp

http://hoothollow.com/Question-November ... tures.html

Carl_Constantine · Post by **Carl_Constantine** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:16 pm

Ok, so the 18-55 goes up to F36:

F36, ISO 100, 1s

Some observations, notice the side detail is not as good. Now, the lighting is slightly different, there was more light coming in the side of the window when I did this shot (thus my speed was only 1s instead of longer), took the picture in Av mode instead of Manual also. Additionally, this is more of a crop for the same setup than the pic above.

All that said, the subject matter here is fine with this lens setup stopped down further. Basically, this mounts to me being able to do macro on the cheap until I get some extension tubes and/or a macro lens. This is good ;-)

Bill D · Post by **Bill D** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:37 pm

Carl- I did not know what you would get with f32 and the diopters. Would the f32 image, if you shot a series, give you better images to then focus stack? I'm not asking you to do your set-up again! You should be able to tell if it will work better.

puzzledpaul- Yeah, you start adding extension tubes or do anything that gets you into extreme magnifications, and smaller f-stops aren't always better.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:14 pm

Bill,

Extreme magnifications are not required. This article illustrates that at 1:1 on an APS-format DSLR, f/32 is extremely fuzzy compared to f/11. This is exactly as one would expect from the diffraction formulas. I suspect that you've been very happy with f/32 for two reasons. First, you probably got in the habit from using 35-mm film, for which f/32 is roughly equivalent to f/22 on the DSLR. But more important, when not stacking one has to balance DOF and sharpness, and a lot of times more DOF at lower sharpness wins out. Stacking lets you avoid having to make that tradeoff. You can have it all (at the cost of working with only static subjects).

--Rik

beetleman · Post by **beetleman** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:03 am

Very nice experimentation Carl, Looks like you will be shooting macro more often. I do not see the watermark in your second picture..does that mean you bought the software?

Carl_Constantine · Post by **Carl_Constantine** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 10:07 am

beetleman wrote:Very nice experimentation Carl, Looks like you will be shooting macro more often. I do not see the watermark in your second picture..does that mean you bought the software?

Thanks Doug. Yes, this means I'll be able shoot more macro with this setup, and believe me, I'm tickled pink about it. No, I didn't buy the software yet. The second image isn't a stack, it's just a straight shot at F36 on that setup. I like the stack better, but for the kind of macro shots I'll be doing, shooting straight with this setup works fine and I'll stack when I need/want to stack.

I might splurge for the software for 1 yr for now as it's only $30 and then upgrade later.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 10:18 am

Carl_Constantine wrote:Yes, this means I'll be able shoot more macro with this setup, and believe me, I'm tickled pink about it.

Excellent.

Closeup lenses have a long and venerable history. Too bad it's getting harder and harder to find combinations that play well together.

I'm glad you finally found a setup that does what you want it to.

--Rik