Just Mum and the lil' ones...

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:09 pm

In my garden, sheltered beneath the wheelbarrow -- it seemed like a nice little family scene...

--Rik

Canon 300D, Sigma 105mm at 1:1, f/22, strobe.

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:17 am

Yep that time of year. I have a few spiders out in the tool shed that look similar to this one here, probably are the same I bet. Haven't seen any young'uns yet though. Nice family image there Rik.

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:00 am

Very nice!

Which DOF you achieved with f/22? Besides, I found this nice site with interesting links for everyone who consider about depth of field and digital photography in general: DOFMaster

salden · Post by **salden** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:16 am

Oh, nice one. The little ones are always cute, but I do not think I would want to have all of them at one time

beetleman · Post by **beetleman** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:20 am

Excellent shot Rik, very detailed. I wonder what they eat when they are this small. Maybe they don`t eat until they balloon away on their own.

salden · Post by **salden** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:25 am

beetleman wrote:Excellent shot Rik, very detailed. I wonder what they eat when they are this small. Maybe they don`t eat until they balloon away on their own.

I think they eat each other and only the strong survive.

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:32 am

Ken Ramos wrote:... Nice family image there Rik.

Uhmmm...

...maybe daddy was eaten.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:29 am

MacroLuv wrote:Very nice! Which DOF you achieved with f/22?

Thanks for comments, everybody!

MacroLuv, according to DOFMaster, total DOF is about 1.7mm .

It's actually more like 2.5mm for this web-sized image, since fewer pixels corresponds to a larger circle of confusion (which DOFMaster won't let me set).

In any case, what my 300D gets at f/22 is about the same as your SP-320 would get at f/11, for this size subject. (The difference is due to sensor sizes, but I don't want to get into that swamp here.)

Trying to get more DOF by stopping down even farther would not be a good idea. At 1:1 and f/22, the image is already getting fuzzy from diffraction -- there's not much detail beyond what I posted. See here for more discussion & illustrations of resolution vs aperture for this lens at 1:1.

--Rik

Carl_Constantine · Post by **Carl_Constantine** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 3:45 pm

You had to have lots of light at F22 because those little ones aren't moving. Normally, at F22 you're looking at a fairly lengthy exposure, but I don't see much movement to implicate that here.

Very nice picture my friend.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:36 pm

Strobe = electronic flash. An ancient Pentax AF200T on manual 1/8 power, held at end of lens. Effective speed around 1/8000 second. Even so, I had gobs of light -- this was at ISO 100.

Thanks for the compliment!

--Rik