macro filters....what happened :(

[rdzmzda]

Ok anyways I got some macro filters and started toying around with them and for some reason its all blurred. I see it nice and sharp in the viewfinder but when I take the picture (on a tripod and with a remote) its blurred and out of focus. The setup im using is in this order 5d body, 50mm 1.8f canon lens, uv filter, +10, +4, lens hood. I have never used these macro filters before and so im all confused is the order wrong is it supposed to +4 then +10 or what? does it matter? Does anyone know a good article? Anyways here are three pictures I am attaching that I took.
1.

2.

3.

 

[TJ K]

Can't help you to much not too sure about the filters but did you use auto or manual focus?

 

[rdzmzda]

I used auto focus and like i said they looked good in the viewfinder

 

[TJ K]

Hmm i'm not sure it could just be because of the filter and how the quality is. Have you tried manual focusing to see the results.

 

[kn4ds]

Looks like a really shallow depth of field. You'd want to increase the f-stop (aperture) to get more depth.

 

[Overread]

Agreed - macro work is often done with very small apertures (like f13 - remember smaller aperture bigger f number) due to the very small depths of field at macro sizes.
After that handholding macro shots are nearly always done with flash support - the small apertures used mean that without flash you need a slow shutter speed so that you get enough light into the camera to make an exposure. If your handholding then you have to use flash to artificially boost the light and thus allow you to use a faster aperture.
If your tripod shooting then you can expose for longer, but you have to make sure that camera and subjct remain perfectly still - tiny movements can cause softness and blur in macro work.

 

[SHWELL]

What they said... Aperture should your first adjustment.

 

[tomhooper]

Shooting that close, you probably should use mirror lock-up also in addition to small aperture, slow shutter, tripod, and lots and lots of light. Oh and use a remote trigger too. Macro filters really have a razor thin DOF.

 

[jwsciontc]

isnt f13 a pretty high f stop for macro?

 

[Dubious Drewski]

I always thought macro filters gave terrible images in general. That's why they're so cheap. For the same money I'd use extension tubes anyday.

 

[OldClicker]

All of the above (to summarize):

- They are cheap= not good glass.
- +14 is extreme.
- They produce a very shallow depth of field. Look at the two shoulders on the third one. It is sharp, but only for a few millimeters of depth.
- You need more light.
- You didn't post your shooting data and EXIF was stripped, but use a smaller aperture (higher f-stop number).
- At the shallow DOF, make sure everything - camera and subject - is perfectly still. No breeze, no floor vibrations, etc.

TF

 

[skieur]

Macro filters do a good job but you went too extreme at +10 and +4. The usual route to go is with a +1, +2, +3, and a +4...no higher. You can use them separately or together and the order does not really matter.

Depth of field however is much easier to work with using for example a +2, than a +10. They already provide greater magnification than many macro lenses and the usual method of focus is by moving back and foreward rather than trying to focus manually. Putting even a +1 macro filter on a 200mm lens gives you quite a close-up. Appropriate camera angle, good lighting, and a high f stop are needed for as much depth of field as possible.

skieur

 

[kn4ds]

Also not mentioned, you can use the depth-of-field preview button just below the lens release button on the front of the camera... this will let you see the depth of field in the viewfinder, so you can adjust the aperture if you need to.

 

[rdzmzda]

thanks guys and gals all stuff i didnt think of or know of either way....hmmm ill play around a bit more obviously and retry and post soon