Finally, some REAL macro

[sm4him]

No, I'm NOT suggesting that the rest of you have just been playing at macro and now I'm here to show you how it's done!
Actually, I'm not even claiming these are "true" macros--it's just that *I* have been "playing" at macro for some time now, doing the best I could with the lenses I had and then cropping the stuffing out of them.

This week, I got a REAL macro lens, a Tokina 100mm. Unfortunately, I've had almost no time to use it. I took it out in the backyard on Friday morning for about 20 minutes, and then had about another 20 minutes with it at lunchtime on Friday. Also, these are all handheld, with no flash. Didn't take the time to set up the flash, and I only have an el-cheapo tripod, which I seem to have lost anyway.

Here's a few of the initial results. Since I'm using it on a D5100, I have to focus manually, and I'm finding that to be a real challenge. The other single biggest challenge I'm having, so far, is what aperture to use to get enough depth of field to keep my subject in focus, but not so much that my subject doesn't "pop."

So, here's a few of my first results:

1) 1/640, f9, ISO 100

My focus seems okay on the bottom portion of the center, but the back center is out of focus as is the very middle portion that comes up closer to the lens. I really wanted the whole middle more in focus, and the petals slight oof.

2) 1/1000, f5.6, ISO 100

Again, I wanted the oof front and back petals, but I seem to have missed focus on the center. Or anywhere else. I still like this one, though.

3) 1/200, f13, ISO 250

Focus seems pretty decent, to me. But I think it may be underexposed? Plus, it's a dandelion. How desperate is that?

4) 1/200, f13, ISO 200

Again, focus seems better--except I would like to have had the whole buttercup in focus. Probably underexposed again, and the buttercup in the background is more distracting than I thought it would be.

That's what I think--but C&C from others is welcome, along with advice about how to improve, *particularly* in the area of getting a sharper focus.
There's more on my Flickr page, in the Macros group, for the two of you who might be willing to look! ;-)

 

[cgipson1]

You got it! Cool! Nice shots for first tries!

Typically, when I shoot macro I am at F16 to F22. There will be some diffraction at the higher F-Stops, but sometime the it is a reasonable trade off for the added DOF. You will find that additional light, like a diffused flash... is very helpful also.

 

[sm4him]

Thanks, Charlie and sparky!

Charlie, I definitely plan to add the flash when I get a bit more of a chance to shoot with it. MTVision gave me the same advice about the higher f-stops, so I'll try changing that significantly next time.
It really does seem like a great lens though; I'm glad I decided to go with it!

 

[sm4him]

UPDATE:
I took about another fifteen minutes yesterday to try again--I think the smaller aperture helped. I also used ocf on these; I'm still trying to figure out how to get the best results using my flash off camera. I'm never really sure how to decide where to position it or how much output power it needs for a particular shot. Practice, practice, practice... Oh--I also had exposure compensation on +5/3 for all of these...but it wasn't intentional. I don't remember setting that, but I must have and then forgotten to change it back.

Anyway...first, here's a shot I didn't include the first time, because I just felt I missed the focus entirely (the flower is tiny; you could probably fit about three of them on the head of a penny). It's followed by a re-do shot of the same flower that I think is an improvement:

1. "Before": 1/200, f13, ISO 100, no flash

tinyyellowflower_0031small by sm4him, on Flickr

2. "After": 1/200, f32, ISO 640

tinyflower_0140small by sm4him, on Flickr

Perhaps the aperture was TOO small this time? Maybe I could have compromised at around f22 and not had to bump my ISO up as much?

Here's two other "new and hopefully improved" attempts:

3. Buttercup: 1/200, f32, ISO 640

buttercup_0142small by sm4him, on Flickr

4. Honeysuckle: 1/200, f32, ISO 400

honeysuckle_0167small by sm4him, on Flickr

Personally, I think the honeysuckle was my best effort, in terms of focus, sharpness and lighting.

Other opinions/C&C welcome!

 

[GeorgieGirl]

I'm on iPhone so it's hard to see how sharp they all are but what I see on this tiny screen from today, I like the #2 shot.

 

[sm4him]

Thanks, GeorgieGirl!

 

[LuckySe7en]

I'm not into macro photography but from what I've seen in the past, these could actually be a little more macro as well.

 

[sm4him]

Thanks for the comment, LuckySe7en.
You're right; these are not really what I'd call "true" macro, like those that show the detail in a bug's eye. I mentioned that in my first post, that I don't necessarily consider these truly "macro"--they are just the first attempts with my new macro lens, and I'm trying to get my focus and exposure down before I head any further down the macro path.
To me, it's something akin to not going out and shooting at 1.4 the minute you get that 50 f/1.4, just because you CAN. I like to get more comfortable with my lens before I take it to its extremes. Also, this is the first lens I have that I have to focus manually, and that presents a real challenge to me, so I gotta get that ironed out before I start trying to photograph spider eyes...

That said, these ARE pretty close-up. That first little yellow flower, as I mentioned, is so small about three of them would match the size of a penny.
And that buttercup is a fairly small flower too, a bit smaller than a penny. I was really surprised when I got it on the computer to see those little bugs all over it; they were so small I never even saw them on the flower! Went back out and looked, and sure enough, there they were, but they are REALLY tiny.

Anyone else? I'll take all the C&C I can get, then i hope to try again this weekend.

 

[jriepe]

Sharon, you're off to a good start. Most of my macro shots are f/16 or f/18. I know another macro shooter who captures great images at f/13. Congratulations on the lens. I've read it is a very sharp one. On the one yellow flower shot I saw that at ISO100 and f/13 you had a shutter speed of 1/200 without flash and that tells me you must have had a lot of light probably from the sun. I have found that shooting anything in the bright sun in most cases causes a loss of detail. For any photography I love overcast days.

Jerry

 

[sm4him]

Jerry, thanks. I suspect I'll get my best shots between about f/13 and f/22 with this lens, but I am still really struggling to nail focus at anything approaching f/13. But then, it's only been a week, and I've had very limited time to shoot.

I'm not sure what was up with that first one of the yellow flower. I know I didn't have flash on it, because I didn't have time to get my flash out that morning...but it was still fairly early in the morning, about 8 a.m. and these are in a very shady spot. I must have just caught a section that had the sun on them.

I also love overcast days for shooting, but I've not been able to afford to be picky in the week I've had this lens. I've had approx. 1 hour of free time all week, due to a death in the family recently, and family in town for memorial services. I'm hoping that now life is about to get back to normal (whatever that is!).

I got the chance to shoot some more tonight...some ACTUAL macros this time; I *think* some of them turned out pretty decent, but I'm just about to start processing them, so we'll see.

 

[cgipson1]

Shots are nice.. the "bugs" on Flickr are really good, especially considering what a short time you have had that lens!

 

[jake337]

As far as focusing goes,if your shooting small bugs, try focusing as close as posibble(1:1) and just move back and forth to focus.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

Do you wear readers? I do because of my contacts. I use my strongest readers for Live View when I focus.

 

[sm4him]

GeorgieGirl: No, I wear "glass bottle" lenses--meaning my prescription is so strong, my lenses are really thick, like the bottom of an old Coke bottle! I am legally blind without my glasses, and on top of that, I have a LOT of "floaters" in my vision, more than anyone my eye doctor says he's ever seen! So, really, whether I use the viewfinder or Live View, I'm still really just guessing at the focus. I like the viewfinder because then I can at least see the electronic "focus lock" light, but on this lens, I've never been able to really get it to "lock" on focus--it will blink off and on, like I'm really close to focus, but I can never get it steady.

I suspect that's because of the fact that I haven't yet used a tripod with it. I only had a cheapo tripod and I seem to have lost it somewhere last week.

 

[jake337]

GeorgieGirl: No, I wear "glass bottle" lenses--meaning my prescription is so strong, my lenses are really thick, like the bottom of an old Coke bottle! I am legally blind without my glasses, and on top of that, I have a LOT of "floaters" in my vision, more than anyone my eye doctor says he's ever seen! So, really, whether I use the viewfinder or Live View, I'm still really just guessing at the focus. I like the viewfinder because then I can at least see the electronic "focus lock" light, but on this lens, I've never been able to really get it to "lock" on focus--it will blink off and on, like I'm really close to focus, but I can never get it steady.

I suspect that's because of the fact that I haven't yet used a tripod with it. I only had a cheapo tripod and I seem to have lost it somewhere last week.

Eye floaters!