|
|
Eb Mueller
{K:24960} 4/19/2006
|
Thanks for the explanation, Joggie! Someday I will run into a macro converter and try it!
Eb
|
|
|
|
Joggie van Staden
{K:41700} 4/19/2006
|
Hi Eb - regarding the F32/45. Most of my earlier macros were taken at between f22 and f32 with very good results. That was with the 105 Nikon micro plus close-up lenses and the built-in flash of the D70. Apart from the sometimes harsh lighting from the flash, I got very good detail, even on the finest hairs. Since I am using the Panagor converter and ringflash, I can go up to F22 max but most of the shots at f11 or f16 - With even better results, mainly due to the softer and more even lighting from the ring flash. Take care.
Joggie
|
|
|
|
|
Joggie van Staden
{K:41700} 4/19/2006
|
Hi Eb - you are perfectly right. If you have a look at my macros, none of them were taken from above, rather from the fron, side or even from beneath. I was commenting on the merits of the specific photo, which i thought could be improved by a larger DoF. Incidently, I photogaphed a very similar fly feeding on pollen this morning, yes, taken from the side - will upload soon. Kind regards and keep them coming!
Joggie
|
|
|
|
Susie OConnor
{K:34798} 4/19/2006
|
Gorgeous macro Eb. I'm seeing mosquitoes as big as butterflys already, so get your camera ready!  )
Susie
|
|
|
|
|
Eb Mueller
{K:24960} 4/19/2006
|
Hi Joggie, I had another though with regard to this subject. I tended to shoot down on the fly to the flower. It seems by doing so that I am increasing the depth that I need to cover for a presentable macro of both subjects. Perhaps it is better to shoot from the side, if possible, and thus get the plane of focus cutting through both flower and fly?
Eb
|
|
|
|
|
Eb Mueller
{K:24960} 4/18/2006
|
Thanks for helping, Joggie. I could and should have gone for f22, and checking back with original exif... I did go to f22! Sorry for the typo. This brings up the issue of f32 or f45. Have you gotten reasonable results with such small apertures? I checked the RAW histogram and it looks like I underexposed about 0.7 to 1.0 stop. I can't claim any foresight in the matter, that's just the way the flash metered the scene (matrix), (even with the gain turned up 1.0 EV on one of the flash.) Do you underexpose in order to gain latitude for increasing saturation, as that is usually my motive?
Eb
|
|
|
|
|
Joggie van Staden
{K:41700} 4/18/2006
|
Beautiful colours and nice details Eb. Looking at your info, I thought you could go for 100th/sec, underexpose by compensation to -0.3 or even -0.7 with the bright flashlights available and stop down to perhaps a f22 for a bit more DoF ( well that's what I normally do). Great work Eb - keep sending them!
Joggie
|
|
|
|
Dave Stacey
{K:150877} 4/18/2006
|
An amazing macro of both the fly and flower, Eb! Great colours! We're just starting to see insects in any numbers, too.
Dave.
|
|
|
|
|
Alicia Popp
{K:87532} 4/18/2006
|
Excelente macro Eb!!!. Las florecillas estupendas su color y su delicadeza. el insecto, una maravilla esas alas con iridiscentes colores!.Felicitaciones!
|
|
0 
