Finally, I think my lighting is getting better

I would say better and looking good imo, but I do wonder if you reduce image size a bit too much, maybe I'm wrong. From this set the wasp/bee and weevil are great.
 
Graham said:
I would say better and looking good imo, but I do wonder if you reduce image size a bit too much, maybe I'm wrong. From this set the wasp/bee and weevil are great.
Click to expand...

Thanks Graham:) No.2 is a big crop but the rest are not. Why do you think the sizes are reduced a lot? The quality of the whole or the lighting?
 
Looking good but hey, that is the power of drinking chocolate Hoftwi;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
hoftwi said:
Thanks Graham:) No.2 is a big crop but the rest are not. Why do you think the sizes are reduced a lot? The quality of the whole or the lighting?
Click to expand...
I'm sure you reduce a fair bit as I see a good few photos in one thread on here whereas I only get about 5 shots Max and if you are reducing size wouldn't that impact on quality on here? Send like your hot chocolate diffuser is working well.
 
Ajophotog said:
Looking good but hey, that is the power of drinking chocolate Hoftwi;)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the comment:) chocolate with whipped cream:beer:

Graham said:
I'm sure you reduce a fair bit as I see a good few photos in one thread on here whereas I only get about 5 shots Max and if you are reducing size wouldn't that impact on quality on here? Send like your hot chocolate diffuser is working well.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would affect the quality on here............no idea:D
 
hoftwi said:
So, what do you think?
Click to expand...

They look better to me. In a lot of cases the hot flash areas are nice and soft, and where there are harsh hotspots they look smaller than previously. An exception may be the first one. Not sure what is going on there. Is that a fairly sharp-edged reflection of the flash I see in the eye? It is quite large compared to the hot spots on the shiny surfaces on #7 and #11 for example.

Graham said:
I'm sure you reduce a fair bit as I see a good few photos in one thread on here whereas I only get about 5 shots Max
Click to expand...

Could you explain this a bit please Graham? Do I understand it right that you are saying that Icy must be cropping a lot because she posts a lot of images from a single shooting session? I don't understand why that would be. Perhaps she has a lot of subjects available where she is/goes. And perhaps she spends many hours looking around for subjects. Or have I misunderstood?

Graham said:
and if you are reducing size wouldn't that impact on quality on here?
Click to expand...

If this refers to cropping, then yes, but with a good image to start with, I would have thought images from Icy's D7100 should take a quite significant crop and still produce good results at web viewing size.
 
GardenersHelper said:
They look better to me. In a lot of cases the hot flash areas are nice and soft, and where there are harsh hotspots they look smaller than previously. An exception may be the first one. Not sure what is going on there. Is that a fairly sharp-edged reflection of the flash I see in the eye? It is quite large compared to the hot spots on the shiny surfaces on #7 and #11 for example.



Could you explain this a bit please Graham? Do I understand it right that you are saying that Icy must be cropping a lot because she posts a lot of images from a single shooting session? I don't understand why that would be. Perhaps she has a lot of subjects available where she is/goes. And perhaps she spends many hours looking around for subjects. Or have I misunderstood?



If this refers to cropping, then yes, but with a good image to start with, I would have thought images from Icy's D7100 should take a quite significant crop and still produce good results at web viewing size.
Click to expand...


Thanks Nick for the comment again:) I don't understand why the flash reflection is that obvious and big on the wasp's eye compared to others o_O. I will keep an eye of it and hope to find out the reason soon. But overall, I am happy with the result as the light is softer and evener. I am sure there would be some more alterations to do in the future in order to achieve better result but so far I am glad to get rid of the very harsh light. I have to give a big thanks to @Tintin124 , as he keeps reminding me about my lighting and helps me to improve (that I should do something about it rather than being lazy :D).

I think Graham means no harm, he was wondering why I could post that many photos in one post, maybe it's because the sizes of my images are small due to the big cropping.

Anyway, thanks again Nick, greatly appreciated your comment;)
 
Very nice Icy and from such a simple diffuser

The wasp reflections in the are prabably due to the diffrerent make up of the eyes compared to flies
 
alfbranch said:
Very nice Icy and from such a simple diffuser

The wasp reflections in the are prabably due to the diffrerent make up of the eyes compared to flies
Click to expand...

Thanks Alf:) I have thought about the possibility about the eye nature but not quite sure. Have to take more photos of different bugs to find out:D

LeeRatters said:
Nice work. More patience than me ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks Lee:) lol, the macro is the only hobby that lasts over a year for me:p
 
GardenersHelper said:
Could you explain this a bit please Graham? Do I understand it right that you are saying that Icy must be cropping a lot because she posts a lot of images from a single shooting session? I don't understand why that would be. Perhaps she has a lot of subjects available where she is/goes. And perhaps she spends many hours looking around for subjects. Or have I misunderstood?
If this refers to cropping, then yes, but with a good image to start with, I would have thought images from Icy's D7100 should take a quite significant crop and still produce good results at web viewing size.
Click to expand...
Hi Nick, I said nothing about cropping, I was referring about image size (resizing)
here is a image I took of my image resizer tool. ( I use Microsoft picture it 9 or 10 for mine)
View attachment 39710
I use the middle option, Pixel dimensions.
Thats why I was saying, would resizing a shot cram all the pixels into a smaller shot ?
I hope I am clear about this.
Sorry Icy and I dont mean any harm by what I write, cant fault what you find, its amazing :)
 
Last edited:
These look pretty good to me Icy, I think you've very nearly nailed your lighting.(y)

One thing that I have done when making up diffusers that makes a huge difference is to have an extra layer of diffusion material, but make sure there is space between the layers (that is the important bit). This gives the light a chance to spread out a bit more before it goes through the next layer and in turn helps to diffuse the light considerably more. You'll still get plenty of sparkle into your shots but any highlights will have softer edges to them and it'll help throw more light into the shadow areas. Might be worth a try.

George.
 
Nice shots Icy and yes the lighting is improving all the time.

G.K.Jnr. said:
These look pretty good to me Icy, I think you've very nearly nailed your lighting.(y)

One thing that I have done when making up diffusers that makes a huge difference is to have an extra layer of diffusion material, but make sure there is space between the layers (that is the important bit). This gives the light a chance to spread out a bit more before it goes through the next layer and in turn helps to diffuse the light considerably more. You'll still get plenty of sparkle into your shots but any highlights will have softer edges to them and it'll help throw more light into the shadow areas. Might be worth a try.

George.
Click to expand...

George is spot on regards the diffusion layers, I's also be inclined to expand the diffusion at the end with something like a foil lined takeaway container. At the moment the light is traveling down the hot chocolate tub getting defused but it's still passing through a relatively small hole at the end which isn't much bigger than the flash head.

I think spreading the flash more will greatly aid your lighting.
 
Graham said:
Hi Nick, I said nothing about cropping, I was referring about image size (resizing)
here is a image I took of my image resizer tool. ( I use Microsoft picture it 9 or 10 for mine)
View attachment 39710
I use the middle option, Pixel dimensions.
Thats why I was saying, would resizing a shot cram all the pixels into a smaller shot ?
I hope I am clear about this.
Click to expand...

Thanks Graham. I just thought again about what you wrote - "I'm sure you reduce a fair bit as I see a good few photos in one thread on here whereas I only get about 5 shots Max". I think I understand now, using small images allows more images in a post. I imagine that is because you are using attachments. (Don't know though, as I've never used attachments.)

icy is linking images from Flickr and (like me and others I think) is using 8 images max in each post - I think this is a fixed maximum, irrespective of image size. This way we can post big at Flickr and link a smaller size into our posts here. In fact, I've just noticed that Icy is posting full size images at Flickr, 8600 x 5200.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
These look pretty good to me Icy, I think you've very nearly nailed your lighting.(y)

One thing that I have done when making up diffusers that makes a huge difference is to have an extra layer of diffusion material, but make sure there is space between the layers (that is the important bit). This gives the light a chance to spread out a bit more before it goes through the next layer and in turn helps to diffuse the light considerably more. You'll still get plenty of sparkle into your shots but any highlights will have softer edges to them and it'll help throw more light into the shadow areas. Might be worth a try.

George.
Click to expand...

Thanks George for the info:) Ok, next attempt, need to put one more layer inside the tube:D I will give it a try but worry about not enough power. I have to wait and see and share with you all later after it has been done.
 
Neil Burnell said:
Nice shots Icy and yes the lighting is improving all the time.



George is spot on regards the diffusion layers, I's also be inclined to expand the diffusion at the end with something like a foil lined takeaway container. At the moment the light is traveling down the hot chocolate tub getting defused but it's still passing through a relatively small hole at the end which isn't much bigger than the flash head.

I think spreading the flash more will greatly aid your lighting.
Click to expand...

Thanks Neil for the advise and suggestion:) I finally get a lightly better result of my lighting and now have to think of a way to spread the flash more, when will it end? I know I know, it will only make it better but I am no good at DIY and changing:p:D
 
hoftwi said:
Thanks Neil for the advise and suggestion:) I finally get a lightly better result of my lighting and now have to think of a way to spread the flash more, when will it end? I know I know, it will only make it better but I am no good at DIY and changing:p:D
Click to expand...

How about not adding anything else and just make the foam at the end domed so elastic band it a tad further back this will increase the diffusion layer size and should provide a larger light source...

and FWIW it never ends... I'm on about my 6/7 latest designs all trying to beat the previous iteration.
 
hoftwi said:
Thanks George for the info:) Ok, next attempt, need to put one more layer inside the tube:D I will give it a try but worry about not enough power. I have to wait and see and share with you all later after it has been done.
Click to expand...


You'll have plenty of power if your using the "Nissin i40" Icy, I've got one of these units for my Fuji-X cameras and it's got more than enough power and more in reserve. You'll have no problems in that department.(y)

George.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
You'll have plenty of power if your using the "Nissin i40" Icy, I've got one of these units for my Fuji-X cameras and it's got more than enough power and more in reserve. You'll have no problems in that department.(y)

George.
Click to expand...

Thanks George again:) What setting do you use of your i40? I found the TTL is not very good as it is underexposure quite a bit so I used manual. As the above photos, I used manual 1/4, F.16,1/200 and auto iso but they all need to increase exposure in PP . I definitely will try to add one more layer to it and hope I can achieve a better result.
 
Tintin124 said:
How about not adding anything else and just make the foam at the end domed so elastic band it a tad further back this will increase the diffusion layer size and should provide a larger light source...

and FWIW it never ends... I'm on about my 6/7 latest designs all trying to beat the previous iteration.
Click to expand...

Thanks Byrn:) I will give it a try when I have some free time today and tell you about the result.
 
hoftwi said:
Thanks George again:) What setting do you use of your i40? I found the TTL is not very good as it is underexposure quite a bit so I used manual. As the above photos, I used manual 1/4, F.16,1/200 and auto iso but they all need to increase exposure in PP . I definitely will try to add one more layer to it and hope I can achieve a better result.
Click to expand...


I shoot 100% manual Icy, even when I'm not doing macro work.

I have tried the TTL settings though with the camera set to 1/180th (sync speed) @ F11, 200-ISO and found the exposures to be very accurate. I just prefer to shoot everything manual and be in complete control of what is going on.

My go to aperture for macro work is F11 and when using the i40 unit with my X-T1 the power setting would be about 1/4 power 200-ISO depending on the magnification that I am working at, ie the higher the magnification the more power needed. Please bear in mind though that my unit would be mounted on a bracket attached to very near the front of the lens so would need less power as the light from the flash has less distance to travel when lighting the subject.

If you take a look at the "Show Us Your Macro Rig" part of the forum post-#458, you can see how my i40 unit is set up on my X-T1 with the diffusion in place.

Hope this helps.,

George.
 
Last edited:
hoftwi said:
Yes, I turn it on. But I used to have a Tamron 90mm non-vc one, I don't see the help with stabilizer as my hands shake quite badly.
Click to expand...
do you like the 105mm sigma better than the 90mm tamron for macro work
 
iwols said:
do you like the 105mm sigma better than the 90mm tamron for macro work
Click to expand...

To be honest, there are pros and cons:

Sigma 105mm OS - I love the image quality and the longer focal length, the sturdy build but it is a bit too heavy for me. For guys, I think it is ok but with the flash on top, or with tubes/bracket,it gets a bit much for me.I am trying to get used to it at the moment and still debating whether to stick with it or have a 60mm instead.

Tamron 90mm (non-vc) - This is also a very good lens, produces sharp images but I think the Sigma is slightly better.

Certainly both are very good lens and I love them both. If you don't mind to spend a bit, I will vote for the Sigma. However, if you don't want to invest too much as you are not sure whether you like the macro or not, the Tamron won't let you down and the 2nd hand price is quite reasonable. Hope it helps:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top