Macro C&C: Morning dew

[FireRunner]

Capturing the morning dew on a small flower at the arboretum this morning.

105mm 2.8/g
ISO 400
1/200
f/4.2

 

[MWG]

Love it!

Flash used?

 

[Smitzel269]

Very Very cool. I like it

 

[FireRunner]

Love it!

Flash used?

Thanks. No flash used. I was able to capture this flower with sunlight beaming through the branches.

 

[FireRunner]

Would appreciate any macro photographer opinions. Thanks!

 

[sleist]

To me, The focus looks a little soft. Was this shot hand-held or with a tripod?.
The focus point appears to be in front of the water drops - see leaf at lower left.
My personal taste would be for a larger depth of field as well.


HTH

 

[FireRunner]

To me, The focus looks a little soft. Was this shot hand-held or with a tripod?.
The focus point appears to be in front of the water drops - see leaf at lower left.
My personal taste would be for a larger depth of field as well.


HTH

This was handheld. The focus is a little soft I noticed too. Having a larger DOF would have made for a better photo. Thanks!

 

[hammondfra]

I love it, reminds me of a watercolor print...

 

[sleist]

To me, The focus looks a little soft. Was this shot hand-held or with a tripod?.
The focus point appears to be in front of the water drops - see leaf at lower left.
My personal taste would be for a larger depth of field as well.


HTH

This was handheld. The focus is a little soft I noticed too. Having a larger DOF would have made for a better photo. Thanks!

Light is always a challenge with macro. A larger DOF will require a smaller aperture and so less light.
If you don't have a tripod, I suggest getting one. The 105mm is easier to hand hold than my Sigma 150mm, but the tripod allows you to play with small variations in DOF and focus point easier that just hand held.
I can be done, but your keeper rate will be much higher with a tripod.

 

[FireRunner]

To me, The focus looks a little soft. Was this shot hand-held or with a tripod?.
The focus point appears to be in front of the water drops - see leaf at lower left.
My personal taste would be for a larger depth of field as well.


HTH

This was handheld. The focus is a little soft I noticed too. Having a larger DOF would have made for a better photo. Thanks!

Light is always a challenge with macro. A larger DOF will require a smaller aperture and so less light.
If you don't have a tripod, I suggest getting one. The 105mm is easier to hand hold than my Sigma 150mm, but the tripod allows you to play with small variations in DOF and focus point easier that just hand held.
I can be done, but your keeper rate will be much higher with a tripod.

Thanks. I do have a tripod, but I wasn't in a situation where I could carry one around Thanks for the feedback!

 

[mrpink]

f/4.2 is razor thin DoF when shooting macros. I will rarely go under f/11. Handholding macro shots is not a bad thing given proper light (which you had in this case)

Do you have the VR version of the 105m Micro? I love mine.





p!nK

 

[Ron Evers]

Focus is soft & DOF way too limited.

 

[rambler]

It is difficult, if not impossible, to get everything in focus in a close-up. There is just not much distance (often less than an inch) between back and front, ie. very little (shallow) depth. Some lenses actually tilt to help solve the problem. The top of the lens will be tilted to be close to the back while the bottom of the tilt is away from the near front! If the subject (the side view of a moth) is parallel to the lens then the focusing issue is solved, too, since all parts of the subject are the same distance from the lens.

I use a telephoto lens and an extension tube for close-ups.

You should google a software called Helicon Focus - extended depth of field, focus stacking, 3D visualization for a fun solution outside of Photoshop.

Ron makes a good suggestion about the f/stop. If you think of a landscape, you use a small aperture to get more depth of field, ie. the background in focus.
It works for macro, too. But, the two thirds rule does not apply in macro, it is more like a "half rule". When you change f/stops the background will change, too, even though it is not in focus. This will alter the effect of your photo. In one the background appears to be all faded color. Change the f/stop and you might be able to pick out more of a defined shape in the background. For example, you might recognize that it is a tree, rather than just a blur of green.
I find that the more of a blur in the background the more the front subject is emphasized, but other times it is nice to know what is behind, even though still not clearly focused.
Note that blurry purple shape in the background of your photo. If you had changed the f/stop to say f/11, the shape in the background would be more defined. We might have seen more clearly that it, too, was a flower. Maybe you want that, but maybe not!