some macro plants, looking to improve

[jeflon1]

macroflower3 by jeflon1, on Flickr


macroflower2 by jeflon1, on Flickr


macroflower5 by jeflon1, on Flickr


macroflower6 by jeflon1, on Flickr


macroflower1 by jeflon1, on Flickr

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Just to clarify, these are close-ups, not macro.

All but the 3rd and 4th are rather underexposed.

 

[jeflon1]

close up is probably more accurate. it was a macro lense

 

[Davor]

Just to clarify, these are close-ups, not macro.

All but the 3rd and 4th are rather underexposed.

Agreed, what you could do is drop your shutter speeds. I can see you where using 1/320 on the first shot, a 1/250 would have worked fine. And if you want true macro i suggest getting a macro lens, they are not that expensive.

 

[jeflon1]

The lense is a tamron 70-300mm with a macro switch. i am beginning to think this doesn't actually mean macro

 

[jeflon1]

as for underexposure, thats where i need help. what parts of the first image are underexposed, i just cannot tell. i would have thought the 4th shot would be more underexposed

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

close up is probably more accurate. it was a macro lense

The EXIF says it was a 70-300mm lens?

 

[jeflon1]

it has a macro mode between 180 and 300 mm. macro was on.

 

[Overread36]

With regard to exposure re-read the manual and keep an eye on the meter that is built into your camera when you are setting the settings for taking a photo. In addition check the manual for the "histogram" and enable viewing this when reviewing your photos on the cameras LCD. You might find this:
Understanding the Camera Histogram
of help with understanding how to read and interpret the histogram - its a very powerful tool and certainly worth learning about using when shooting.


As for the "macro" part there are two kinds of macro in the world. True macro is when the lens reflects an image onto the cameras sensor which is the same size as it is in real life - so a 5mm insect will have an image reflected on the sensor which is 5mm in length. Now this is the magnification that almost all the prime (single focal length) macro lenses on the market achieve.
The other kind of macro is a marketing term applied to zoom lenses (like your 70-300mm) which is not true macro, as above, but is more correctly a close focusing setup within the lens that lets it focus closer than it normally would be able to. These generally (at best) get to around half life size, which makes them good for flowers and similar sized subjects (also because its at the long end of the focusing scale it gives you a pretty strong background blurring effect).

In general terms most people accept photos of butterflies, dragonflies and flowers as "macro" even though they are not true macro shots; its a loose understanding that works in most communities.

 

[jeflon1]

This is where i am confused. The on camera meter was at 0 for each shot and the histograms sit in the middle of the graph. histogram for pic 1 is similar to pic 4. maybe i have some other setting that is throwing things off... i have ;my display set to show the photo with a histogram next to it after the shot
i would like to be able to look at these and tell where the problem areas are, i.e. the leaf, background, certain shadows, etc, so i can make adjustments.

 

[Overread36]

The camera meter can be fooled in certain lighting conditions to under or overexpose a photo - so sometimes you have to temper its reading with a bit of exposure compensation (if you're in aperture or shutter priority mode) or just under/over expose yourself in manual mode. Also with digital its generally considered the best to go for a histogram that is bunched up as much on the right side as possible, rather than going for an even distribution. This means that with the lump on the right (without of course actually hitting the right side and overexposing) you have the most light data as possible from the scene. In editing you can then (as needed) scale that back whilst retaining quality - instead of having to pull up light form darker areas (since this will show up noise far more). This method is called Exposing to the Right.

In the case of your early shots I suspect that the meter might be reading the bright petals and exposing for them - pull up the RGB histogram and have a look at the red channel (red line) and its positioning - often (especially with yellow) one of these can clip and overexpose even when the overall luminescence of the shot is fine (ie not overexposed) - whilst if you compensate to protect the colour channel when taking the shot the overall result can appear underexposed.

EDIT - another factor could well be your screen - if you are using an uncalibrated (by a hardware approach) LCD screen the backlights default to a very bright setting. A hardware based calibrator, such as a spyder 3, can greatly reduce this effect and give a more balanced view (and removes a lot of glare from screens in general that you don't realise is there until its taken away)

 

[crimbfighter]

Aside from the exposure issues, there are some other issues we can address here, too. For one, from what I understand, many third party lenses put the term macro in a lens title, but it isn't a true macro lens. It just allows closer focusing to mimic a macro's capability.

Next, the photos them selves. Couple things I noticed right away. Notice the color in 1, 2, and 5 are drastically different. Even though they were the of the same flowers. This is due to you white balance being off and probably also the difference in exposer contributes to the appearance of color difference through saturation levels. Pay close attention to your WB in post, and if you shoot RAW, it's super easy to get all your WB values the same.

The composition on 1, and 5 are ok, not great, but ok. I think 2, and 4 would be better with a bug or something on them. 4 could definitely benefit from a different crop. Maybe put it on the third and crop off some of the empty space. Number 3 could also use some adjustment. I think the flash makes it appear very flat. Guessing you used on camera flash? Also, something to consider, and I find myself still struggling with this, is to take a moment and evaluate the entire frame before taking the shot rather than just focusing on the subject. I think this one could have been improved by removing the branch in the upper left corner, brining the focus more on the whole bunch of berries. Something you may not even notice unless you take the time to scan the frame from corner to corner.

 

[jeflon1]

1. yes, white balance setting was different in pic 5. understood
2. pic 3 was taken using a macro ring flash (fits around the lens). I think the flatness is also due to the lens, i have seen this issue with other pictures taken with it.
I definitely have some good suggestions to work with now, thanks.

one problem i still have is the under exposure part. i can easily stop down the exposure to compensate, but my problem is being able to tell that it is under exposed. From my eyeball's perspective, pic 2 is the closest to having any underexposure. could someone point out some areas of the pictures that need more exposure? it would greatly help as a future reference when i am reviewing to reshoot with different settings if i know what to look for.