First Attempt at Ultra Macro!

dmanning11 · May 23, 2013

Just got a 4 way focusing rail slider with fine adjustment, and a reverse macro adaptor for my camera.
Camera is a Sony a65 24MP, lens was a reversed Tamron 17-50mm F2.8.

These are two insects I found dead in a mud wasp nest, I managed to prop them up on a needle and took 10 x 4 sec exposure shots at F32, ISO 100, each shot was advanced 0.05mm and then focus stacked in Photoshop.

Please tell me what you think. C&C

1. Ant 4mm long.

2. Jumping spider 3mm long

DGMPhotography · May 24, 2013

That second one is hypnotic! I like it!

I would say maybe try different angles! They're also a tad blurry.

480sparky · May 24, 2013

Why 4 seconds at f/32? I would think diffraction would really kick in. Why not try 1 sec @ f/11?

dmanning11 · May 24, 2013

DOF was too small at anything less than F20, I find 10 images is the upper limit for accurate stacking.
Better to go long exposure ...

cgipson1 · May 24, 2013

dmanning11 said:
DOF was too small at anything less than F20, I find 10 images is the upper limit for accurate stacking.
Better to go long exposure ...

I have stacked up to 75 images... and when stacking, I usually use F11 (f16 MAX).

like this (I think I did about 45 images in the stack on this one, don't remember for sure):

This one was about 60 images or so

Red Poppy on Orange by CGipson Photography, on Flickr
YellowJacket by CGipson Photography, on Flickr

480sparky · May 24, 2013

dmanning11 said:
DOF was too small at anything less than F20, I find 10 images is the upper limit for accurate stacking.
Better to go long exposure ...

Take more images closer together.

Overread · May 24, 2013

I second the others, whilst the depth of field is tiny using a wider aperture will lessen the diffraction softening. That means you'll get significantly sharper shots so that when you stack you get a great result. Even with stacking f32 is just too small an aperture and the diffraction hurts every shot.

Sometimes its also beneficial to mount the subject on the focusing rail instead of the camera - then move the subject closer by tiny increments (since you're subjects are dead and spiked you can really take your time to get the shots)

480sparky · May 24, 2013

Overread said:
I second the others, whilst the depth of field is tiny using a wider aperture will lessen the diffraction softening. That means you'll get significantly sharper shots so that when you stack you get a great result. Even with stacking f32 is just too small an aperture and the diffraction hurts every shot.

Sometimes its also beneficial to mount the subject on the focusing rail instead of the camera - then move the subject closer by tiny increments (since you're subjects are dead and spiked you can really take your time to get the shots)

I know for a fact that f/8 is the sweet spot when I reverse my 28mm Nikkor. At f/11, the diffraction is noticable, and beyond that it renders the images (at least to me) totally useless.

dmanning11 · May 28, 2013

Will give it a go at F8, maybe its my PC that isn't capable of stacking more that 10 * 24MB raw files at a time.
Every time I try the image creates with out of focus areas, or it bugs out and hangs.

You think I should lower the Res and convert to .jpg first before building the stack and auto blending?

480sparky · May 28, 2013

dmanning11 said:
Will give it a go at F8, maybe its my PC that isn't capable of stacking more that 10 * 24MB raw files at a time.
Every time I try the image creates with out of focus areas, or it bugs out and hangs.

You think I should lower the Res and convert to .jpg first before building the stack and auto blending?

That's the way I roll... edit the raw images. Edit one then batch edit the rest. Then convert to JPEG and do the stack from them.