tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19971659932625607912024-03-14T07:03:26.723-07:00Extreme MacroMacro photography tips and tricks.Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.comBlogger304125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-19759654269892705572022-03-01T10:25:00.001-08:002022-03-01T10:25:21.920-08:00New Book at the Apple eBook StoreExtreme Macro the Art of Patience Volume II is <a href="https://books.apple.com/us/book/extreme-macro-the-art-of-patience-volume-ii/id1612026864">available at the Apple eBook store</a> :)Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-56536333137888171652022-01-27T14:15:00.006-08:002022-01-27T14:16:44.779-08:00Topaz Labs ClarityI have some good news! As many of you know I use Topaz Labs Clarity for editing my photos, but unfortunately it has been discontinued by Topaz. I sent an email to them asking about allowing access to the plugin and this is what their tech support said:
<br />
<br />
"Hi John,
<br />
Thank you for your patience as we have been experiencing very high ticket volume over the last month. This has been a highly abnormal season for us and you can expect a follow-up reply within 1 to 2 business days at the latest.
<br />
You can still access the classic products from our <a href="https://support.topazlabs.com/article/26-legacy-downloads">Topaz Labs Legacy Products Page</a>, although it is important to note that these have been discontinued. We cannot guarantee full functionality going forward as computers and operating systems update and advance and the legacy programs do not.
<br />
You can share your license number with your friends that want to use Clarity, 409619-141022-553084-072858-323405
<br />
Please let me know if that helps or if I can do anything else to further assist you. Thanks!"
<br />
<br />
So if you want to use Clarity just go the the link above and use my product key :) Thanks Topaz Labs!Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-10365585899022058892022-01-14T03:29:00.000-08:002022-01-14T03:29:11.314-08:00Light Quality TutorialsI stumbled onto a couple of really good light tutorials on YouTube. If you are havng difficulty getting good light quality these videos may help you sort it out.
<br />
<br />
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EN4NiMf-Apw" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br />
<br />
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tBuz-MPo0DI" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-16644976603204803592022-01-08T04:45:00.000-08:002022-01-08T04:45:08.922-08:00How a Nat Geo Photographer Selects the Best Images from a Shoot | Whittle Down | WIREDSteve Winter has been a contributing wildlife photographer for National Geographic. In this video, shot for Wired, he explains his thought process on composition and how he selects his best images. A lot of what he does I have been doing as well, although I tend to shoot more portraits. Steve says some things about framing with the view finder and cropping that sound familiar to me for some odd reason... ;)
<br />
<br />
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7VVU0DlIWuE" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-33445379281078442282021-12-31T07:50:00.005-08:002021-12-31T08:54:36.315-08:00Extreme Macro the Art of Patience Volume IIIt only took me 12 years, but I finally published Extreme Macro the Art of Patience Volume II today. It is available in several formats and should already be available in Apple eBook format from Blurb (from Apple as well as soon as they accept it). The add for it on the sidebar to the right.
<br />
<br />
In my last post I spoke about my adventures in cropping, something that I had to do for the book to an extent because the 3x2 aspect ratio of my images did not always fit the aspect ratio of the book. But there is another reason why I am going to crop more in the future, and it is an issue of technique. I look at a scene and try to figure out what magnification I need for the shot that is in my head, set the MP-E 65mm to that mag, and then attempt to grab onto whatever the subject is on with my non camera hand. I then rest the lens on that same hand so that critter and camera are on the same "platform". I focus by sliding the camera on my hand and then "bend" the area of acceptable focus by twisting my wrists(s) so that it is falling where I think it needs to be in the frame. Odds are once I get into place I cannot back out and make changes to the magnification without spooking the subject. While photographing this Chafer Beetle eating pollen...
<br />
<br />
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/49711799527/in/dateposted/" title="Chafer Beetle Eating Pollen II"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49711799527_ee61756c69.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Chafer Beetle Eating Pollen II"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<br />
<br />
...I though the framing was not tight enough, so I backed out to increase the magnification. But, unfortunately, the critter noticed me and took off. If I had just stayed where I was and continued shooting, I could have simply cropped in post to get the subject framing that I wanted without spooking the subject. As an added benefit I can take advantage of the depth and detail from shooting at a lower magnification. So, although I will continue to do all of my framing and composition with the view finder, I am going to crop in post more. Since Elements 2022 can upscale a crop to the original pixel count, I do not have to worry about how my images will look in print. So cropping is going to be a win win option for me if I can break some old habits...Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-19518682707046309442021-12-29T06:35:00.004-08:002021-12-29T06:35:43.258-08:00Painting Myself Out of a CornerBack when I started shooting color positive slides in the late 80s there was a lot of emphasis on using the viewfinder for composition, and to crop in post only when necessary. Composing with the viewfinder has made me a better photographer, and in time while framing one scene other compositions would pop into my head. Subject permitting, I can get those scenes into the camera so composing with the viewfinder is a good thing. I also wanted to keep as many pixels as possible because when I make prints, I like to print them poster size (90CMx60CM on matte canvas and gallery wrapped). Back when I was shooting with 10MP and 12MP cameras not cropping in post was beneficial for making those large prints.
<br />
<br />
But not cropping at all in post has been detrimental to my photography because no matter how much effort I put into composing with the camera sometimes I do not see a better way to frame the subject until I can view the image on a bigger screen. Plus, I like to shoot active critters and they do not seem to cooperate. So, nailing the framing with the view finder is not always possible. Also due to the way that I shoot, holding on to the critter's perch with my non camera hand, I must guess what the magnification needs to be to get the framing that I want before I move in to take a shot. Once I am in position it is difficult to back out and make changes without spooking the subject. So, if I start shooting and realize that the framing is not what I want I am better off just cropping in post. Since I am shooting with a 24MP sensor I can afford to toss out a some of the pixels without sacrificing print quality, so I decided to start cropping when it makes sense to do it.
<br />
<br />
I use Photoshop Elements 2022 for my image editing and while cropping a shot I got a nice surprise: If I set the aspect ratio to the same aspect ratio as the original image, at 300 DPI, I end up with a 24MP image even after cropping. Elements must be extrapolating out the data and, so far, it looks good. I have been cropping after color correction and sharpening, and the detail seems to be holding up. One of the benefits of being able to crop and keep the mega pixel count high is that I can shoot at lower magnifications than I normally would and get more depth of field. So, cropping an image in post is going to be good for making the most out of the limited depth in a single frame. I took this shot at about 1.5x and cropped it slightly to eliminate some dead space to the right of the subject. The composition of the original shot is fine, but making it tighter looks better to me.
<br />
<br />
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/51785099788/in/dateposted/" title="Red Beetle"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51785099788_41172d03a3.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Red Beetle"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<br />
<br />
I will still compose with the view finder, but I am not going to avoid the cropping tool if it will make my images look better...Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-72792581982909526142021-11-25T06:03:00.004-08:002021-11-25T06:03:48.582-08:00Bugslife Bug Photography Second Place AwardI <a href="https://www.photocrowd.com/photos/emerging-red-mason-bee-6000471.15cf1f909/">took second place</a> in the Bugslife Bug Photography Awards in the flies, bees. ants, and wasps category for this shot:
<br />
<br />
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/51269717536/in/dateposted/" title="Emerging Red Mason Bee"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51269717536_239018628e.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Emerging Red Mason Bee"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-55704990867649728252021-08-22T00:23:00.002-07:002021-08-22T00:25:52.883-07:00The Global Billboard ProjectI am a contender in the Global Billboard Project. If you like my work, then please go to <a href="https://www.globalbillboardproject.com/vote/global-billboard-project-contender-john-kimbler">the Global Billboard Project web site</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/featureshoot/status/1429224204407238662">the Twitter post</a> and give me a like. Thanks!!!Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-79703653874605119352021-08-14T08:21:00.003-07:002021-08-14T08:21:39.000-07:00I Should Start CroppingThis video pretty much shattered my preconcieved notions about the number of pixels needed for a large print. I have even made poster size prints with 10MP and 12MP images that looked great, so why am I still hung up on not cropping my photos? Maybe I should not be...
<br />
<br />
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/E8Sej2TEes4" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-75275866775393115002021-08-14T05:10:00.002-07:002021-08-14T05:13:11.703-07:00Specular LightI have posted about this before, both here at my blog and on various forums. But for the most part it was in bits and pieces until recently, and I need to not only boil the whole concept down but also to have it in one single article. Nothing here is really new, and the tl;dr is "Stop shooting in bad light". But you might not understand why the light you are shooting in is working against you.
<br />
<br />
Light has two basic properties: It is either hard or soft, specular or diffused. Soft/hard light depends on the size of the light source relative to the subject. The larger the light relative to the subject the softer it will look (called Apparent Light Size) and you can see it in the shadows because they will look kind of grey, and the transition area between what is lit and what is in shadow will be kind of fuzzy. If the light is hard the shadows will be dark and the transition areas between the shadow and the light will be very well defined (almost like a line).
<br />
<br />
If the light is diffused then the specular areas in the scene will have color and texture in them, and the more diffused the light is the smoother the transition between non specular and specular areas. If the light is specular (not diffused well) then the specular surfaces will return the color of the light source and you will lose detail. Also, the transition area between non specular and specular areas will be very short and well defined (easy to see).
<br />
<br />
In a studio, using studio light modifiers, soft light will equal diffused light most of the time. Most studio light modifiers are designed to allow the light from the flash to spread out before it hits the diffusion surface, so the light that the subject sees is even with little to no hot spot in it. The only thing you have to worry about is the size of the light source relative to the subject -the closer you get it to what you are shooting the softer and more diffused it will be.
<br />
<br />
As a macro shooter I see a lot of people using a flash setup that can best be described as soft/specular. Soft because it is large relative to the subject so the shadows will be soft. But since their diffuser is short there is not enough room for the light from the flash to spread out before it hits the diffusion surface that the subject sees. There will be a hot spot due to a poorly diffused flash, that hot spot is acting like a point source, and there will be a loss of detail in the specular areas of the scene. The light is erasing detail in the specular surfaces, and that loss has nothing to do with exposure. I frequently see people who focus stack that lose more detail to poor light quality than I lose to diffraction in my single frame images.
<br />
<br />
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/51331433845/in/dateposted/" title="Sweat Bee in a Geranium Flower"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51331433845_79bcbe2151.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Sweat Bee in a Geranium Flower"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<br />
<br />
If you are shooting in noon day sun, with nothing to diffuse the light, then the big yellow ball is acting like a point source and the specular surfaces in the scene will return the color of the light and not the color of the underlying surface. The result is a loss of detail in the specular areas of the scene. Plus, the contrast will be too high, and the colors will be muted. You can sort of “fix” the color and contrast issues in post -but your images will look much better if you are shooting in diffused sunlight. No amount of under exposure will correct for the detail loss due to harsh (specular) light. I took this next shot when there were some thin clouds acting as a diffuser for the sun.
<br />
<br />
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/51336081237/in/dateposted/" title="Sweat Bee Approaching a Sunflower"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51336081237_fe9d78e9be.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Sweat Bee Approaching a Sunflower"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<br />
<br />
Much better color, contrast, and detail than shooting in harsh light. Do not be afraid to increase the ISO so you can choose the shutter speeds and apertures necessary to get the shot when the light is good.Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-17068414969785187482021-06-23T01:29:00.006-07:002021-07-17T01:35:58.420-07:00It's All About the Light...A lot of you are shooting in natural light that is specular (not diffused) and it is killing your image quality. Bright sunlight is great for getting high shutter speeds and higher Fstops at lower ISOs, but it is terrible in terms of color and contrast. Better to shoot in the golden hour right after sunrise, or before sunset. You can also wait for light cloud cover to act as a diffuser for the big yellow ball or use a scrim (or similar) diffusion material.
<br />
<br />
For those of you using a flash I would say many of you are shooting with light that's "soft specular" -soft because the light source is large relative to the subject, so the shadows are soft. But specular because there is a hot spot in your diffuser, and it is erasing a lot of the detail in your images. The light from that hot spot hits specular surfaces in the scene and those surfaces will return the color of the light source, and not the underlying color of the specular surface. Even if you under expose the shot the light from the specular surfaces in the scene will be the color of your flash/diffuser. I have seen people post triple digit focus stacks that had less detail than my single frame images due to poor light quality.
<br />
<br />
I am like a hamster on a wheel going round and round with my photography. If I am not working on technique, then it is composition or lighting or post processing -you get the point. Now I think that post processing is still my weakest area, but I am at that point in the hamster wheel. I have come to realize that my light quality is good enough, so I can take a break on that one for a little while. That light is allowing me to change my post processing and really improve the overall quality of my photos, and the light is doing most of the heavy lifting. I have started to shoot at F14 to get a little more depth (the MP-E 65mm has a hard time producing a sharp image circle at F16 that cannot be explained just by diffraction) and with the improvements that <a href="https://www.topazlabs.com/">Topaz Labs</a> has made to <a href="https://www.topazlabs.com/sharpen-ai">Sharpen AI</a> this is what I am able to do at almost 3x:
<br />
<br />
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/51266156669/in/dateposted/" title="European Wool Carder Bee"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51266156669_8789ddc8de.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="European Wool Carder Bee"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<br />
<br />
Granted if that were a focus stacked shot the trailing eye would be in focus, but due to the way our brains are wired it does not need to be. Plus, that critter was active and was not sitting still. It was already feeling warm here when I took that shot at 6am this morning. Maybe someday the tech will get good enough and I can take limited stacks of critters in motion. But that day is not here yet, and the stacked images of critters in motion that you see from time to time around the web are staged. Due to the number of people faking images of active subjects I get people asking me if the subjects that I shoot are dead. They are all alive and kicking though, some more lethargic than others due to early morning temps. Some are just hungrier than afraid:
<br />
<br />
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/51180700419/in/dateposted/" title="Feeding Chafer Beetle"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51180700419_3c7427fc2f.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Feeding Chafer Beetle"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<br />
<br />
If you have any questions about diffusing light for field macro, then post your questions here and I will answer them. I have post moderation enabled due to all the spam posts but, if your post is not spam, I will approve it even if it is something negative about me or my photography. Just do not include a link with it unless you want me to look at your gallery.
<br />
<br />
Footnotes: Some of you have gotten bent because I include "This is a single, uncropped, frame taken handheld." with every image I post. I am not bragging or trying to rub your nose in the fact that I do not focus stack. I simply get tired of answering the same questions over and over.
<br />
<br />
I recently had to change the way that I list the magnification that I am shooting at because people see the depth in my photos and think that I am using a lower magnification and including the crop factor of the sensor (1.6x). But cropping does not change the magnification that an image was taken at, it simply creates an enlargement of the subject in the frame. So instead of listing the mag as “2x” or “over 3x” etc. I am now listing it as “set to 2x” or “set to over 3x” to avoid yet another question. The apparent depth in my images is due to the way that I am controlling where the area of acceptable focus falls in the frame, and not due to the lens I am using. At the same Fstops and magnifications Canon’s MP-E 65mm has the same depth of field as any other macro lens.
<br />
<br />
The MP-E 65mm is not less diffraction prone, but it does have a floating lens group that corrects the focus as the magnification changes. Lens sharpness, or lack of sharpness, can amplify diffraction softening. PSA: Even though an extension tube is an air gap it can still decrease image sharpness because all lenses are designed to produce a sharp image circle at a fixed distance from the image plane (film or sensor). So, adding tubes can make a lens “softer”. Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-9267471166967955612020-07-12T03:00:00.004-07:002021-08-07T23:54:09.630-07:00Diffusing a Macro Twin FlashI've probably spent the better part of a decade trying to wrap my head around flash photography and how to diffuse a harsh point source like a twin flash in as short of a space as possible. For field macro you just don't have a lot of room to work, so any diffusion scheme has to be compact. I also like to use a twin flash as two separate light sources, in a key (one head at the top of the lens) and fill (one head off to the side) configuration because it gives me a lot of control over the highlights and shadows. It also allow me to partially wrap light around the subject so that it doesn't look flat. If you place the flash heads on opposite sides of the subject, or fire them through a single diffuser that's connected to the end of the lens, the light will be too even across the subject and will potentially make the subject look flat. I don't focus stack, but for those of you who do flat light is a composition buzz kill. Get everything in focus and evenly lit and your images will look 2D. So here's what I've learned while loosing my mind trying to diffuse a twin flash:
<ul>
<li> The diffusers that Sto-Fen sells, and the set that Cannon supplies with the MT26EX RT, are better at blocking the light than they are at forcing it to spread out. You'll lose about a stop of light with either of them for a very small gain in diffusion and I think the same can be said for just about every hard diffusion plastic. I'm not going to do a "how to" on this one cause I don't want you to blame me if you ruin the diffuser set that comes with your MT26EX RT. I bought a second set from Canon to test out my theory that they weren't really diffusing the light very well, and as soon as I got them I used a Dremel tool to remove the front diffusion plastic so I could use it as a base for my own design (I just needed the frame and the clips that hold it to the flash heads). Due to some shipping issues I ended up paying over 60 USD for the set, but it was worth it cause I was right. If you follow me down this rabbit hole with the only set of diffusers that you have for your MT26EX RT you do so at your own risk...
<li> 1/4 stop white China silk is the only material I've found that can force the hot spot in the MT24EX (and to a greater extent the MT26EX RT because it has a better built in diffuser) to spread out. It's best to use two layers separated by an air gap, preferably with at least a centimeter between them. Putting one layer of silk directly over another will cause the light to drop by at least a stop, so separate them. You can get it at B&H Photo but it's a little pricey and they have to special order it. I've been looking for a better, cheaper source. Note: The MT24EX knock off flash units perform about the same as the MT24EX, so 1/4 stop silk should also work for them but I have no experience with those flashes. At some point I'm going to experiment with other materials because I'd like to find a cheaper material than silk and not all diffusion surfaces are the same. Each of them diffuses the light in a different way.
<li> Gary Fong's Puffer Plus makes an excellent last diffusion stage, if your trying to keep the size of your diffusers as small as possible, because the light transmittal is good and the surface is dimpled (it acts like a much larger diffusion surface). I've been looking for a similar photographic grade material that's not curved, but so far no joy. I've experimented with a lot of different diffusion plastics for that last diffusion stage and none of them performed better than the Puffer Plus. Even just using another layer of 1/4 stop white China silk didn't work as well.
</ul>
Here's where things get "tricky": There's a difference between soft light and diffused light, and they are not the same. Using a diffuser that is large relative to the subject will give you soft light, and you can see it in the quality of the shadows. But diffusing the light means forcing the light to spread out, and a large diffusion surface relative to the subject won't necessarily do that. Diffused light means forcing the light to spread out so that the intensity of the light across the diffusion surface is the same. You can have soft light (soft shadows) and a hard well defined specular area.
<br />
<br />
Understanding the difference between soft and diffused light was a eureka moment for me, because I initially thought that I had hit a hard limit in my diffusion because using a larger diffuser wasn't practical. But my light was soft enough with my current diffusers, or another way of saying it is that my diffusers were large enough relative to the subject, because I was getting soft shadows. Take a look at the shadow under the Sourgrass petal just below the Sweat Bee's antenna:
<br />
<br />
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/49958746503/in/dateposted/" title="Sweat Bee in a Sourgrass Flower VI"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49958746503_bcfe513083.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Sweat Bee in a Sourgrass Flower VI"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<br />
<br />
The shadow is soft, so my diffusers are large enough. But the light that they were creating could best be described as "soft specular" and not "soft diffused" because the specular area is still well defined and almost harsh. My light wasn't really diffused. But after modifying the internal structure of my original diffuser (the details of which I'm not going into) I'm now getting soft diffused light with almost no hot specular highlights (the intensity of the light across my diffusers is almost the same) while only losing about 1 and 1/4 stops when compared to the bare flash heads. Light that's so well diffused I'm having a tough time determining if I've nailed critical focus on some subjects, when viewing images on my camera's LCD screen, because there is no noticeable specular reflection in their eyes.
<br />
<br />
<a data-flickr-embed="true"href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/50108173008/in/dateposted/" title="Foraging Cricket II"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50108173008_4aee94a90b.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Foraging Cricket II"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<br />
<br />
The Death of the Kaiser
<br />
<br />
After some experimenting with a cooperative, and very metallic, Chafer Beetle I've determined that using a Kaiser Adjustable Flash Shoe to elevate the key is working against me in some situations. Depending on the angle that I'm shooting from it can cause the fill light to be too harsh and/or pump a lot of light into the flower that a critter is perched on creating a third specular highlight. So I'm going to be experimenting with the angle of the flash heads more.
<br />
<br />
The quality of your light and the angle between the light, subject, and sensor will determine how much detail you can capture. You can easily lose more detail to poor light quality than to diffraction, and if you focus stack you really should be putting some serious effort into your light. Doesn't make sense to spend all that time to create a stack only to erase detail with poor specular highlights.
<br />
<br />
Note: All of my diffuser design has been geared toward creating a relatively small, compact, diffuser that would give me the light quality that I wanted but still be practical for field macro. However light is light, and I'm sure that the information I've provided in this post can be applied to any diffusion setup that you might build for yourself.
Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-89479252355195798322020-06-14T09:18:00.001-07:002020-06-14T09:18:41.999-07:00Canon MP-E 65mm Macro Lens ReviewHere's my first attempt at a video review of the Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens.
<br />
<br />
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hM8a4tEIDpw" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-71364187048682732552020-06-08T11:58:00.000-07:002020-06-08T11:58:10.558-07:00Ladybug 3D MicroscopeMr. Ahron Wayne contacted me via my <a href="https://www.facebook.com/extrememacro">Extreme Macro Facebook page</a> to tell me about <a href="https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1490222859/ladybug-a-3d-scanning-microscope-for-small-and-huge-things">a Kickstarter project</a> that he and a team of engineering students have been working on. It's a motorized scanning macro camera:
<br />
<br />
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DP-Whj9F3KA" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br />
<br />
I wasn't all that excited, because I shoot single frames of active subjects, until I saw it track a moving critter in the video! Pretty cool :)
<br />
<br />
This isn't a paid add, or an endorsement of the Kickstarter campaign, I just thought it was a really interesting project and I know a lot of you are going to be interested in it as well :)Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-81904516356849532842020-06-05T03:40:00.001-07:002021-08-07T23:51:07.749-07:00Sweat Bees in Sourgrass Flowers Deconstruction<div style="float: right; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px;">
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/49797204947/in/dateposted/" title="Sweat Bee Foraging in a Sourgrass Flower III"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49797204947_5a4ffbef4c_m.jpg" width="240" height="160" alt="Sweat Bee Foraging in a Sourgrass Flower III"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
I want to give you a full breakdown of how I'm shooting active Sweat Bees, and most of what I'm going to cover will apply to just about any active subject. The image to the right was what I was trying to capture, although it's not the frame that's still stuck in my head. I can't control where the critter is going to be, or where the antennas are pointing, so I just have to work with what she gives me. But it's close and I'm happy with it, and here's how I took it.
<br />
<br />
Sourgrass starts growing in my yard in the fall and by early May it's already dormant and waiting for cooler temps and less sunlight. It typically blooms in the early spring, so the peak time for the flowers to be in full bloom is from about mid February to mid April. Most of the ground dwelling bees don't get active until late March. So there is a roughly four week window to photograph female Sweat Bees foraging in Sourgrass flowers for pollen. After the Sourgrass is gone they move on to other pollen sources (like Dandelions). The flowers completely close in the afternoon and don't open until the sun has been up for a few hours and it's already warm. So there's no chance to catch a sleeping bee in one of them unless it rains after the bees get active and there is a temperature drop. So shooting the critters when they are hyperactive and foraging for pollen is the only choice, and it's what I'm looking to capture with the camera anyway.
<br />
<br />
A lot of people will tell you that you cannot shoot macro on windy days, but it's actually not true. Most insects are very sensitive to vibration, and it's easier to photograph them in flowers when I can grab onto the flower's stem with my left hand and then rest the lens on that same hand to keep the scene steady. But when it not windy it's easy for the critter to tell when I've grabbed on, and when they do they'll stop foraging and come to the top of the flower to investigate. More often that not they will be facing away from the camera, but it's not a total loss since I'm holding onto the stem and can gently rotate the flower so that the bee is facing the camera. This is the type of shot that I can get when she figures out that I'm close.
<br />
<br />
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/51263807831/in/dateposted/" title="Sweat Bee in a Sourgrass Flower"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51263807831_61ced521f3.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Sweat Bee in a Sourgrass Flower"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<br />
<br />
Not a bad shot, just not what I'm looking for. To get the depth that you see in that image I'm focusing on the leading edge of bee's mandibles, using my peripheral vision to frame and compose the scene (so I don't have to look away from the focus point), and twisting my wrist (sometimes both of them) to lay the area of acceptable focus over the curve of the critter's head. In that scene I'm tilting the frame toward the top and right without moving the focus that I have on the bee's mandibles, and it's something that I don't have to think about after 14 years of shooting macro (13 of that with just the MP-E 65mm macro lens). I then refocus, reframe, and take another shot if the subject doesn't take off and I can take each shot with less than a second between them because all I have to think about and concentrate on is where I'm placing the initial focus. I'm not shotgunning the shutter release and hoping that I get something to post, and since the bees are in motion if a "spray and pray" technique gave me a usable image it would just be pure luck and that's not how I want to shoot anything. Being able to rapidly reframe, refocus, and take a shot is important because they are in motion and I want to catch them stripping pollen out of Sourgrass anthers with their mandibles like this:
<br />
<br />
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/49768501257/in/dateposted/" title="Sweat Bee Foraging in a Sourgrass Flower"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49768501257_840e063a07.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Sweat Bee Foraging in a Sourgrass Flower"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<br />
<br />
Still not the frame that's stuck in my head, but I'll get another opportunity to photograph them again but it won't be until next year.
<br />
<br />
Note: There are still a lot of you out there who think that all you need is the equipment that I have and images are just gonna magically jump into the camera. Someone recently replied to one of my posts on Reddit indicating that he wished he had my gear, to which I replied that what he really wanted was my 14 years of experience shooting macro. This is what he said:
<br />
<br />
"You don't know me or my want to..... so you may be right but.... I could give you a run for your money with an 8th of the experience!! just give me a camera equally powerful promise il deliver lol"
<br />
<br />
I asked for a link to his gallery and didn't get it, and rightfully so. If he could give me a run for my money with my gear and 1/8 of my experience then he should be shooting at my level already because the equipment I use just makes my style of shooting convenient for me (might not work for you). Notice that in the deconstruction above not once did I mention the hardware I used, and I didn't mention it cause it wasn't relevant to getting the photos. Everything depended on my knowledge of the subject, my ability to get close to an active wild animal, and how to make the most out of the limited depth of field.
<br />
<br />
That next lens, next camera body, next whatever isn't going to make you a better photographer. Learn to use what you have now...Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-91671642799700062412020-05-26T11:51:00.002-07:002020-05-26T11:56:19.780-07:00The Dreaded Error 01I'm back to shooting with the Canon EF-S 60mm + extension tubes because my MP-E 65mm macro has broken again (3rd time). The aperture makes the most God awful crunching sound when I take a shot, and the display reads Error 01 and tells me that there's something wrong with the lens contacts. It's a generic error that pops up when the camera cannot communicate with the lens, and from experience I know it's because the cable that runs between the electrical contacts and the aperture assembly has worn out. I told myself the last time it broke that I was just gonna use the EF-S 60mm and tubes or buy a new MP-E. So I think I'll use the EF-S lens for a while until I decide what to do. Knowing my luck I'll buy a new one and Canon will announce a version for an RF mount...
<br />
<br />
Which brings me to the last topic I want to mention: I'm feeling the need to shoot full frame but I'm not sure about getting a mirror-less camera. I photograph a lot of semi-active to hyperactive subjects and I'm concerned that the display lag between the sensor and an electronic view finder (EVF) will be an issue. For those of you shooting with a Canon mirror-less rig how's the EVF lag?Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-88880258764769430452020-05-25T05:11:00.002-07:002020-05-25T05:11:58.025-07:00Macro Photography Tips Video<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iQtUIiNCSzs" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-62222931677924549382020-05-22T10:42:00.001-07:002020-05-22T10:42:16.646-07:00Bumblebes Foraging in Grape HyacinthOne of the followers of my <a href="https://www.facebook.com/extrememacro">Extreme Macro Facebook Page</a> posted a link to a video that he shot that I just had to share. <a href="https://www.facebook.com/mathias.solstrand">Methias Solstrand</a> did an excellent job of filming Bumblebees in motion foraging on Grape Hyacinth flowers. I always associated pollination with the hairs on bees, but these Bumblebees are clearly pollinating the flowers with their proboscis.
<br />
<br />
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FTrEPsPYk7g" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-21863078941865967832020-04-11T03:55:00.002-07:002020-04-11T04:13:08.984-07:00Let's Talk Technique<div style="float: right; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px;">
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/49718877738/in/dateposted/" title="Sweat Bee in a Sourgrass Flower"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49718877738_4bb3a0266c_m.jpg" width="240" height="160" alt="Sweat Bee in a Sourgrass Flower"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
Due to some of the questions and feedback I've received lately I thought I'd explain what I'm doing with the camera and how I deal with different situations. One of the common comments that comes up is someone will see my photos, and all the depth that I can get at F11, and assume that Canon's MP-E 65mm macro lens can defy physics. But depth of field is strictly a function of magnification and the Fstop. So the depth that I get at 2x and F11 in a single frame with Canon's MP-E 65mm is the same depth of that I'd get with Canon's EF-S 60mm and 37mm of extension tubes (the EF-S 60mm is roughly a 37mm lens at minimum focus). So how do I get so much depth in my images? I pick an area where I want the focus to start and then I twist my wrist to lay the area of acceptable focus over the curve of the subject's face, creating a "magic angle" that makes the most out of the thin depth of field. The image to the upper right is an example, taken at roughly 2.5x and F11. The image below was taken at 3x and F11, and I shot the critter head on.
<div style="float: center; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px;">
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/49756291311/in/dateposted/" title="Sweat Bee in a Sourgrass Flower IV"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49756291311_fdd9c62288.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Sweat Bee in a Sourgrass Flower IV"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
<br />
<br />
Another question I get is about the magnification that I list with my images. If I say that I took a shot at "over 2x", for example, it's because I had the MP-E65mm set to somewhere between the 2x and 3x mark on the lens barrel. I use magnification as a composition tool, and I don't always set the lens to even magnification points. I never take the crop factor of my sensor into account, because cropping an image is not the same as increasing the magnification. Using a smaller than full frame sensor, and cropping a full frame image down to a 1.6x crop, is functionally the same and just creates an enlargement of the subject. Cropping will never reveal more detail in an image that wasn't already there, but increasing the magnification can.
<br />
<br />
One of the many reasons why I don't focus stack is because most of the time the subjects that I photograph are active. Now some of you have been quick to point out that there are macro photographers that shoot active critters, and you're right -kinda. They are focus stacking active subjects when they pause long enough to take a "spray and pray" sequence of images. When I say that I'm shooting active subjects I mean that I'm tracking them with the camera as they are moving. Like this Sawfly that I shot at 4x and F11:
<div style="float: center; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px;">
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/32898755567/in/dateposted/" title="Feeding Sawfly"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/32898755567_1b1f563257.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Feeding Sawfly"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
<br />
<br />
So my definition of "active" might be different from your definition of "active" ;)
<br />
<br />
The <a href="https://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2008/07/left-hand-brace.html">Left Hand Brace Technique</a> that I use allows me to eliminate a lot of motion (excluding subject motion) and get precise control over the framing and where I want the area of acceptable focus to be. But like any technique it has limitations. I've got the critter's perch in one hand and the camera in the other so there's no way for me to change the magnification of the lens. I have to look at a scene, make an educated guess as to what magnification will give me the framing that I want, set the MP-E 65mm to that magnification and then hope I can find a good composition. There are scenes, like this one, that I'd like another chance to shoot:
<br />
<br />
<div style="float: center; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px;">
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/46734556905/in/dateposted/" title="Foraging Sweat Bee II"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/46734556905_06dcd4f3a1.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Foraging Sweat Bee II"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
<br />
<br />
I love everything about that shot, except for the clipped wing at the top of the frame. She was moving so fast, forcing me to re-frame and re-focus every shot, that I'm lucky to walk away with anything. This is the photo that I took before that one, the one that caused me to increase the magnification (note not the same bee or flower):
<br />
<br />
<div style="float: center; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px;">
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/47546416322/in/photostream/" title="Foraging Sweat Bee"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47546416322_ba89f8e84d.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Foraging Sweat Bee"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
<br />
<br />
It's just not the same image. Some days I'm the statue, and some days I'm the pigeon ;)
<br />
<br />
One of the benefits of using the Left Hand Brace Technique is that I can rotate the flower to position the subject so that it's looking into the lens. Some of the Sweat Bees included in this article felt me grab onto the Sourgrass flower they were in (it wasn't windy enough) and stopped foraging. When they come to the top of the flower it's very common for them to be facing away from me. But I can gently twist the flower's stem without spooking the subject, and it doesn't damage the flower. Shooting when it's windy is easier, since the critter can't tell the difference between the vibration induced by the breeze and the vibration that I create when I grab onto the flower's stem.
<br />
<br />
If you have any questions about how I'm shooting just drop me a comment, or join my <a href="https://www.facebook.com/extrememacro">Extreme Macro</a> page on FaceBook and post them there. I have comment moderation enabled here at Blogger to cut down on spam. Rest assured that even if you leave a negative comment I'll post it provided it's not laced with profanity. Until next time happy shooting!
Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-85595272221013132982020-03-23T03:36:00.000-07:002020-03-23T03:36:34.372-07:00Emerging Mason Bees<div style="float: right; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px;">
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/26090503196/in/dateposted/" title="Hatching Female Mason Bee II"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/1669/26090503196_db48662841_m.jpg" width="240" height="160" alt="Hatching Female Mason Bee II"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
Last year when I harvested my Mason Bee cocoons I realized, all too late, that I had a unique opportunity to document the critters emerging but I really wasn't prepared for it. I was just shooting on the fly, with no real thought about the compositions that I was looking for. As a result the image to the right is the best shot that I took last spring, and I'm not happy with it.
<br />
<br />
After reviewing the images I took, and kicking myself for not doing a better job, I was determined to put some real effort into documenting my Mason Bee's first day. So off and on over the summer and into the winter months I thought about the compositions I wanted to get, angles that would make their emergence easy to see and understand. But I gotta admit that luck also played a part in the photos I was able to create, cause I managed to be mentally "in zone" during some pretty unique situations. Like when this Mason Bee was chewing its way out of the cocoon:
<br />
<br />
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/49672912163/in/dateposted/" title="Emerging Blue Mason Bee X"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49672912163_5ef49c4731.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Emerging Blue Mason Bee X"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<br />
<br />
There was also the time I was unrolling a paper insert and the paper broke right at the point where a Mason Bee had taken the top off of his cocoon:
<br />
<br />
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/49574656638/in/dateposted/" title="Emerging Blue Mason Bee III"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49574656638_8c74a8eb60.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Emerging Blue Mason Bee III"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<br />
<br />
Then the tricky shots, like trying to get as much of the bee's antenna in the plane of focus as it was actively emerging from a cocoon:
<br />
<br />
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/49648360437/in/dateposted/" title="Emerging Blue Mason Bee IX"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49648360437_24a6b034a4.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Emerging Blue Mason Bee IX"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<br />
<br />
I captured a lot more images, ten in the first series that I posted to <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/">my Flickr gallery</a>, and I'm saving some to post this fall when all the critters are gone. I get all of my Mason Bee supplies from <a href="https://crownbees.com/">Crown Bees</a>, and this article is not sponsored by them. I'm giving them a plug because their customer service is excellent and they provide a lot of online information to make raising your own Mason Bees easy. We have a small garden that produces more vegetables than we can eat and it's due to all of the solitary bees that visit my yard.
<br />
<br />
In addition to photographing them emerge I also got a few shots of newly emerged Mason Bees.
<br />
<br />
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/49652326451/in/dateposted/" title="Newly Emerged Blue Mason Bee III [6000x4000] [OC]"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49652326451_378ec1a1f4.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Newly Emerged Blue Mason Bee III [6000x4000] [OC]"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<br />
<br />
It was also a good opportunity to photograph them warming up on my finger before they took off and joined the rest of the bees in my yard.
<br />
<br />
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/49584513961/in/dateposted/" title="Newborn Blue Mason Bee"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49584513961_8d3a5f61a5.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Newborn Blue Mason Bee"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<br />
<br />
I'm really happy with the emergence images that I created this year, and always happy when I can look back over my photos and see improvements in my image quality. As always those photos are single, uncropped, frames taken hand held. I usually pick an area to lock the focus, like a bee's mandible, and then twist the camera in my hand to lay the area of acceptable focus over the critter's face. The end result is a "magic angle" that makes the most out of what little depth exists above 2x and F11. So for those of you who look at my photos and think that Canon's MP-E 65mm can somehow defy the laws of physics and provide more depth of field than other macro lenses, well, it's not the lens ;) Until next time happy shooting!
<br />
<br />
Footnote: Lately I've noticed a disturbing trend to pose dead insects and photograph them in such a way that it looks like they're flying, or in one case a "fight" between a jumping spider and bug. Although I think it's pretty creative, and when it's done right the images are really impressive, it's misleading to try to trick the viewer by not being honest about how an image was taken. I'd hate for someone who's new to macro to see those kind of shots and think that it's actually possible to take a focus stack of a subject that's in motion, especially after spending thousands on gear to take images that are impossible unless the subject is dead. Granted I'll bait a subject so that it will let me get close, but when I do bait them you know I've done it because I tell you. IMHO it's important for a photographer to be honest about their work. One easy way to tell if a shot has been faked is to see if it is a focus stack, especially if the scene is a dynamic one. Maybe one day the hardware will get to a point where it will be possible to capture frames fast enough to focus stack a moving subject. But that tech isn't here yet. So when you see a photo of a flying insect and it's razor sharp with a lot of depth know that it's a fake.
<br />
<br />
Footnote part due: Thanks to everyone who has reached out during the pandemic to ask how I'm doing! Italy has been hit pretty hard, and unfortunately it's not over. But me and mine are well, and we're fortunate to live in a villa that has a yard. It's gotta be really tough for those who are quarantined with only a balcony! Stay safe everyone, limit your contact with others, and wash your hands religiously...Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-6700164001314221762019-09-08T05:30:00.000-07:002019-09-08T05:43:08.710-07:00Photographing Honeybees on their Comb<div style="float: right; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px;">
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/48658993816/in/dateposted/" title="Honeybee Birthday"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48658993816_ea24883bd6_m.jpg" width="240" height="160" alt="Honeybee Birthday"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
Last spring we spent a long weekend at an <a href="https://www.walksofitaly.com/blog/hotels/what-is-an-agriturismo">Agriturismo</a> and across the fence from us was a row of honeybee hives. As luck would have it one morning the beekeeper came out to inspect the hives and I struck up a conversation with him. After showing him some of my photos he was interested in me photographing his honeybees, but later on in the year when it was warmer. That opportunity came last weekend and he cracked open no fewer than five hives to inspect the girls and to let me try my luck at shooting them. I say luck because his bees were very nervous and most of the time they were in constant motion. Although I didn't get any really good shots of his queens I did manage a few "honeybee birthdays" like the one to the right. Even when thet did stop to work some of them kept an eye on me :)
<br />
<br />
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/48683984337/in/dateposted/" title="Busy Bees"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48683984337_c14e097cf5.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Busy Bees"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<br />
<br />
I was also getting pelted by the bees, like little bullets they were slamming into my bee suit. At one point while I had the camera, and the veil, pressed against my face one of the girls stung me on the nose. Fortunately I didn't have much of a reaction to it, it just stung a little. Worth it though, because although it wasn't easy to photograph them I still had fun and it was a good learning experience. I plan to go back to the same hives next June to photograph the drones (males).
<br />
<br />
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/48672427707/in/photostream/" title="Honeybee Birthday II"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48672427707_7f35ae2353.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Honeybee Birthday II"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<br />
<br />
If you're going to photograph honeybees on their comb then definitely wear a beekeeping suit. I had on a top, gloves, head covering with a veil, and bluejeans. It's best to at least buy your own gloves, since any gloves that the beekeeper owns will have propolis on them and it will get on your camera. Even better if you have your own gloves and top. Don't stand directly in front of the hive (stand behind it) and pay close attention to any instructions that the beekeeper gives you since they know their bees. If the bees start to swarm you, like they did me, ask the beekeeper to hit you with some smoke. It's easier to photograph the girls if the comb can be laid down flat without crushing the bees on the reverse side. The beekeeper I was working with had a stand that he used to hold the comb after taking it out of the hive and the top of the stand worked pretty well. Take a lot of photos, and don't worry about your "keeper rate" -you pretty much have to be one with the universe and the delete key on your keyboard when shooting active subjects, especially ones that are not too happy about you being right next to their home.
<br />
<br />
Until next time folks, happy shooting!
<br />
<br />
Footnote: Jennifer, my youngest daughter, wanted to get some shots of the beekeeper and I while I was shooting the bees. But I was concerned about her getting stung since I didn't have a beekeeping suit for her, so this is the view from where we were staying:
<br />
<br />
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/48698910192/in/dateposted/" title="Shooting Honeybees on their Comb"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48698910192_bb94d67e55.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Shooting Honeybees on their Comb"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-71119209137013677892019-08-18T02:09:00.001-07:002019-08-18T02:54:34.267-07:00Do No Harm<div style="float: right; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px;">
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/32898755567/in/dateposted/" title="Feeding Sawfly"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/32898755567_31aed3ab5f_m.jpg" width="240" height="160" alt="Feeding Sawfly"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
National Geographic posted an article concerning <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/07/ethical-wildlife-photography/">How to photograph wildlife ethically</a> and I wanted to write on the subject from the perspective of a macro photographer. If I'm being completely honest, and if I didn't want to stress out any of my subjects, I probably wouldn't shoot any higher than 1/3 life size and I'd use a 300mm prime that would give me a working distance of about two meters. Sometimes I get lucky while photographing a dormant subject and it wakes up either completely acclimated to me, or I'm so large in its field of view that it really can't recognize what I am. That's pretty much what happened with the Sawfly pictured to the right. It just woke up and decided to have breakfast. But not every dormant subject that gets active finds my presence acceptable. When this European Wool Carder Bee managed to get its metabolism going it went into full "fight or flight" mode, and I barely had time to take this single frame...
<br />
<br />
<div style="float: center; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px;">
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/48088018997/in/dateposted/" title="Wool Carder Bee on the Move"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48088018997_3f6b89a715.jpg" width="333" height="500" alt="Wool Carder Bee on the Move"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
<br />
<br />
While talking to my wife about not stressing out the critters by getting too close she reminded me that gardening does the same thing...
<br />
<br />
<b> Bating Subjects</b>
<br />
<br />
Taking macro photos of insects that are already active, and by active I mean they are in motion all the time (lets exclude the occasional cooperative jumping spider), is pretty much impossible without a little help in the form of bait. But there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. One of the better ways to give a critter a reason to stick around is to inject a flower with either some simple white sugar syrup, or Agave Nectar. It will modify their feeding behavior, because they'll start passing over flowers that haven't been injected in favor of the ones that have. But at least the resulting image will be of a bee feeding on a flower and after a little while they'll go back to their normal foraging habits.
<br />
<br />
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/26739569324/in/dateposted/" title="Feeding Honeybee VIII"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/26739569324_32e8439a0e.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Feeding Honeybee VIII"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<br />
<br />
I'd avoid indiscriminate spraying of plants with sugar water though. The resulting images will be of an insect licking a leaf, which they normally don't do, and it's a big departure from their normally feeding behavior. It's also a bad idea to put out so much bait that you end up emptying out a hive or attracting a swarm. One word of caution though: Sometimes baited bees start aggressively competing with other insects for the sweet stuff, and they might not recognize you as the one that's putting it out. So if they do seem to be getting aggressive, and increasing in numbers, it's best to back off and try again some other time. Sometimes they'll realize that you're the one putting out the bait, and you can pull off shots like this one...
<br />
<br />
<div style="float: center; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px;">
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/22090031715/in/dateposted/" title="Finger Fed Bumblebee"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/22090031715_6c880281bb.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Finger Fed Bumblebee"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<b>Focus Stacking</b>
<br />
<br />
If you follow my photography you know I don't focus stack. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with it (almost, will cover that in a second), it's just that focus stacking comes with some of the same limitations as using a tripod and a focusing rail -you gotta find a subject willing to sit still long enough to finish all the frames for a stack. Since I prefer to shoot semi-active to hyperactive subjects that are moving, focus stacking pretty much isn't an option. But if you stack you can do it in an ethical manner. Photographers like <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/LordV/">LordV</a> (Brian Valentine) helped to popularized focus stacking more than a decade ago and Brian, to my knowledge, has never harmed a subject for a photo. He's always left them like he found them, alive and kicking. But there's been a disturbing trend over the years to take ever increasingly sharp images of the small world's inhabitants that's led a lot of focus stackers to either refrigerate, or euthanize, their subjects. IMHO macro photographers have a responsibility to change hearts and minds concerning insects, to get people to see them as more than "just bugs" before we send them all into history by either poisoning them out of existence with chemicals or starving them to extinction by reducing their habitat. Killing a critter for a photo sends the wrong message, and people are pretty much bored with seeing razor sharp photos of dead insects. Some of you may claim that you're killing and focus stacking your subjects in order to catalog them. But the folks at the <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usgsbiml/">USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab</a> are not only doing a better job of photographing dead critters than 99.9% of you, they are infinitely more qualified. Add to that the backlash I've seen on social media to dead insect photography and you're better off switching to lethargic subjects to get your focus stacking fix. Although the general perception is that the subject is dead in every focus stacked image, and it makes me feel sorry for the folks that have some genuine skill focus stacking live critters.
<br />
<br />
As always if you have comments or concerns just post them. Comments are moderated, but I post all of them unless you're selling yourself (that's the reason why moderation is enabled -sigh). Until next time happy shooting!
<br />
<br />
Footnote: I can't help but think that some of the people who focus stack are taking an ungodly number of frames just to one up each other, or for bragging rights. There has to be a point of diminishing returns, and it makes me wonder if they're into macro photography just to focus stack. Kinda boring, to be honest...
Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-63272753133104713572019-08-13T10:39:00.002-07:002019-08-13T10:39:34.261-07:00Another National Geographic Daily Dozen<div style="float: right; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px;">
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/48460468552/" title="Snoozing European Wool Carder Bee VI"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48460468552_1711b871d7_m.jpg" width="160" height="240" alt="Snoozing European Wool Carder Bee VI"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
The image to the right was selected by National Geographic for their <a href="https://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/daily-dozen/2019-08-13/">August 13th Daily Dozen</a>.Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-69385108491753588152019-08-11T03:37:00.001-07:002020-05-07T09:32:54.739-07:00Sharpening a Diffraction Limited Image<div style="float: right; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px;">
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/48309579592/in/dateposted/" title="Leaf Cutter Bee IV"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48309579592_dd23d51167_m.jpg" width="240" height="160" alt="Leaf Cutter Bee IV"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
I've been shooting single frame macro for over a decade, and yet I still get asked "How many frames did you take for that focus stack?". There are two key aspects to getting a lot of apparent depth and detail in an image. The first is looking for and/or creating <a href="http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2009/11/magic-angles.html">Magic Angles</a>. I'll frequently look for an area in a scene where I want the focus to start, lock that area so that it stays in focus, and then twist and turn my wrist to push another edge of the camera's sensor deeper into the frame. A recent example is the image to the right. I focused on the leading mandible, locked that part of the scene in place, and then pushed the upper left corner of the camera deeper into the frame while twisting my wrist to the left. Very minor movements to be sure but once you build up the muscle memory for it gets easy, and after a while you'll create those magic angles without having to really think about it.
<br />
<br />
The second thing you can do to make people think that you focus stack when you don't is to get good at sharpening your images in post. I want to make it clear that what I'm about to tell you won't allow you to recover detail that you didn't capture with the camera. Once you press the shutter release you've captured all of the detail that you're gonna get. Sharpening an image will highlight edges and fine details so that you can see where one element of the subject stops and another one starts. Like the edges between a critter's compound eyes. But diffraction, to varying degrees, is going to eliminate some texture detail. I keep my flash as close to the subject as I can (to keep the duration of the flash to a minimum) and use techniques that keep the motion in the scene to a minimum so that diffraction doesn't get amplified by motion (an effect that I call Macro Motion Blur). So the detail that I'm losing to diffraction is kept to a minimum, so all I have to do is carefully sharpen an image so that the edges between different features in the subject are clearly defined. The hard part is sharpening an image without introducing any obvious artifacts that are going to make a shot look over sharpened. To see how I do it lets start with what is pretty much a worse case image for me, a shot at 5x and F11. For this first image I've adjusted exposure in the Photoshop Elements RAW editor, and I've rubbed out the dust spots. But there is no in camera or in post noise reduction or sharpening.
<br />
<br />
<div style="float: center; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px;">
<img src="https://i.imgur.com/VAV3ZMFl.jpg">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://i.imgur.com/VAV3ZMF.jpg">Link to full size image.</a>
<br />
<br />
Now I'll be the first to admit that I need to get better at post processing, in fact I consider it to currently be the weakest area of my photography. But I am learning, and one of the things that I've realized is that it's better to sharpen an image in stages than to do all of the sharpen at once. To do that I use two Topaz Labs plugins, applications that I bought and paid for with my own money (so this isn't an add in disguise). The first is Topax Labs Denoise AI. It's really good at removing image noise and preserving detail, and I like to remove sensor noise before I apply a sharpening layer. But Denoise AI is going to sharpen the shot a little. Here's the same image as the first one but I've created a new layer and I ran Denoise AI:
<br />
<br />
<img src="https://i.imgur.com/Q0yZjlbl.jpg">
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://i.imgur.com/Q0yZjlb.jpg">Link to full size image.</a>
<br />
<br />
I then created a new layer from the one and ran Topaz Labs Sharpen AI. Sharpen AI has some pretty cool features that can allow you to recover an image even if there is motion blur. Not gonna recover any lost detail, obviously, but it could potentially mean the difference between having a photo you can use verses one that you sent to your digital trash can. Here's the frame after sharpening with Sharpen AI using the focus option:
<br />
<br />
<img src="https://i.imgur.com/LSq8bErl.jpg">
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://i.imgur.com/LSq8bEr.jpg">Link to full size image.</a>
<br />
<br />
The last thing I do is duplicate the layer that I sharpened and run Topaz Labs Clarity, mostly for contrast and saturation adjustments but it too will sharpen an image a little bit more. Here's the final shot:
<br />
<br />
<img src="https://i.imgur.com/NW3fpgVl.jpg">
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://i.imgur.com/NW3fpgV.jpg">Link to full size image.</a>
<br />
<br />
Not too bad for a photo taken at 5x and F11, and I could probably sharpen the image a little more but didn't want to push it. That's all for this one folks, until next time happy shooting!
<br />
<br />
Footnote: The quality of the light that you're using also plays a part in how much detail you can capture with the camera, as well as how much you can push the sharpening in post. A poorly diffused light source creates a lot of micro contrast (areas in the scene where the pixels are blown out). A photo with a lot of micro contrast will look "artificially sharp" and at first I thought it wasn't a bad thing. But all those little areas of blown out pixels not only rob the scene of detail, but they also limit how much an image can be sharpened in post before it looks over sharpened. So light that's very diffused actually works best, even though the out of camera sharpness seems reduced when compared to an image taken with less diffused light. So many variables...
Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1997165993262560791.post-33351219014367286692019-08-05T05:38:00.000-07:002019-08-10T00:47:02.419-07:00What do the Tech Specs Mean?Before I get into the "meat and potatoes" of this article I gotta explain a few things. How I take a photo, or how anyone takes a photo, doesn't matter. The only thing that does matter is the final image. So why post the tech specs with my photos? Well for two reasons really. The first is so that I have a historical record of how I took a shot, and in the future if I want to have another go at a particular composition I at least have a starting point. The second is that inevitably someone is gonna ask me how I took a particular image, either because they are a macro shooter or they just took an interest in one of my photos. People generally don't care about how an image was taken unless there is something about it that gets their attention. With that being said I'm going to explain, in some detail, what the tech specs mean and try to give you a sneak peak into my thought process. So lets use a photo that I posted just this morning.
<br />
<br />
<div style="float: center; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px;">
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/48460468552/in/dateposted/" title="Snoozing European Wool Carder Bee VI"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48460468552_1711b871d7_z.jpg" width="427" height="640" alt="Snoozing European Wool Carder Bee VI"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
<br />
<br />
This is what I posted with that image:
<br />
<br />
A snoozing European Wool Carder Bee. This time I set my Canon MP-E 65mm to 5x.
<br />
<br />
Tech Specs: Canon 80D (F11, 1/250, ISO 100) + a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens (5x) + a diffused MT-26EX-RT with a Kaiser adjustable flash shoe on the "A" head (the key), E-TTL metering, -1/3 FEC, second curtain sync). This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held.
<br />
<br />
<b>Canon 80D (F11, 1/250, ISO 100)</b>
<br />
<br />
I start out by posting the camera I used to take the shot and how I have the camera configured. For this image I set the Fstop to 11. I really don't care about diffraction softening since the techniques that I use allow me to take control over the motion in the scene, my motion and the subject, so diffraction softening isn't going to be that bad. Most of the image softness that gets blamed on diffraction is actually an effect that I call macro motion blur. The flash isn't going to be able to freeze all the motion, especially as the magnification goes up since the flash is going to have to turn on longer to expose the scene. The longer the duration of the flash the more of a problem motion becomes. 1/250 of a second because that's the max flash sync speed for the Canon 80D. If I could sync the flash at a higher speed I would, since I want to avoid any natural light being recorded by the sensor for that photo. High Speed Sync (HSS) does not work for this type of shooting, since HSS pulses the flash while the shutter is open and any movement will get recorded. A single burst of light from the flash is better for freezing motion. ISO 100 just because I want to take advantage of the low noise and high dynamic range of the 80D at that ISO. Although I can get perfectly usable images all the way to ISO 400, I prefer to shoot at ISO 100.
<br />
<br />
<b>+ a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens (5x)</b>
<br />
<br />
The Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens is the reigning king of macro lenses. I'm not a Canon fan boy, I'm just spoiled at being able to look at a scene and simply dial the magnification to exactly what I know I'll need for the framing that I want. Also note that when I say 5x, or almost 3x, or whatever I'm listing the magnification that I read from the lens barrel (the MP-E 65mm has magnification markings on it). Some of you, incorrectly, think that the crop factor of your sensor is giving you more magnification. But you'll never reveal more detail in a scene by cropping it, either with a smaller than full frame sensor or in post (both cropping mechanisms are the same). There are lot of misconceptions about <a href="http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-crop-factor-myth.html">crop factor sensors</a>.
<br />
<br />
<b>+ a diffused MT-26EX-RT with a Kaiser adjustable flash shoe on the "A" head (the key), E-TTL metering, -1/3 FEC, second curtain sync)</b>
<br />
<br />
I've been using macro twin flashes for a long time, not because it's the best flash for macro but simply because they fit my photographic style. I spent, off and on, about three years experimenting with different diffusion materials to get to the diffusers that I use today. I like shooting with two light sources in a key and fill configuration, just like portrait photographers use, because it allows me to partially wrap light around the subject and I have a lot of control over where the highlights and shadows are going to be. Putting the key on a Kaiser Adjustable Flash Shoe allows the key to be at a different angle relative to the fill, and makes the subject look more 3D. I use E-TTL metering, along with a little Flash Exposure Compensation (FEC) because I don't have time to adjust the flash manually when dealing with semi active to active subjects. Second curtain sync just helps to give me a sharp image if there happens to be enough natural light for the sensor to record -the flash will fire right before the shutter closes so any motion is frozen at the end of the movement by the flash. You can see a video of my current rig, and get some more info on the light, in <a href="http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2019/07/current-macro-rig-and-diffusers.html">this blog post</a>.
<br />
<br />
<b>This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held</b>
<br />
<br />
All of my images so far have been single, uncropped frames, taken hand held (except for some water drop splash shots I took several years ago using a table top support). I don't focus stack for the same reason I don't use a tripod: Both are just too limiting. I also don't allow myself to crop in post, and prefer to do all of my framing with the view finder. Anyone who tells you that cropping is suppose to be a part of your post processing is trying to sabotage your photography. Framing with the view finder will hone your composition skills, and framing with the cropping tool in post won't. Also I frequently see other compositions while I'm framing for a shot, and if I were to see those same compositions while cropping an image in post it would be too late to take them.
<br />
<br />
That's all for this one, if you have any question just post them and I'll get to you as soon as I can. Until next time happy shooting! :)
<br />
<br />
Footnote: Here's a short video showing the field studio that I set up for the image in this article.
<br />
<br />
<div style="float: center; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px;">
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PzR9eD8mrJA" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</div>Dalantechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17491343159917303555noreply@blogger.com0