Critique Ladybird in the garden today - playing around with flash

[Son_of_Thor]

Taken with a Nikon D810 and 105mm macro with 1.7x TC handheld. Single shot @ F16. Really struggling with acquiring focus and depth of field with a single shot at these working distances. Not impressed with the amount of detail I'm getting but I'm sure it's user error, certainly in this instance. Couldn't have got the tripod where I needed to be to take the shot and it was awkward getting to the angle I wanted. Still, plenty to work on.

Ladybird in the garden - playing with flash by Simon Lundbeck, on Flickr

Trying to improve, so any constructive criticism welcome

 

[GardenersHelper]

Taken with a Nikon D810 and 105mm macro with 1.7x TC handheld. Single shot @ F16. Really struggling with acquiring focus and depth of field with a single shot at these working distances. Not impressed with the amount of detail I'm getting but I'm sure it's user error, certainly in this instance. Couldn't have got the tripod where I needed to be to take the shot and it was awkward getting to the angle I wanted. Still, plenty to work on.

Ladybird in the garden - playing with flash by Simon Lundbeck, on Flickr

Trying to improve, so any constructive criticism welcome

I think you got the focus just right on this, with the antennae and eyes in focus. (An alternative would be to have the eyes at the nearest focus distance and then some more in focus going backwards, with the antennae out of focus. I think either would be fine, although with finer detail much more evident in the antennae than - even were it in focus - behind the eyes, my personal preference would be to have it the way you have it here.)

And the exposure looks fine too.

So I'm not thinking of user error here.

Let's think this through. The D810 has a 36 megapixel sensor. I'm going to assume for now (and obviously correct me if I'm wrong, because much of what follows will be wrong too) that what we are seeing here is a crop, not a downsized version of the whole frame. The full size version over at Flickr is 2048 x 1367 (which coincidentally is around the output height that I use for my insect etc close-up/macros, so it is a size of image that I'm used to looking at).

Note: There are generally complications to do with the aperture set on the camera (the nominal aperture) and the effective aperture (the one you are actually using), with the effective aperture depending on the magnification. However, you are using a Nikon camera and I'm going to assume (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you are using a lens and teleconverter which communicate with the camera, in which case, with this being a Nikon camera, what the camera shows as the aperture will be the effective aperture (what you see is what you get as far as aperture is concerned, whatever the magnification), and so this complication does not arise. I am therefore simply going to talk about "aperture" here.

If it is a crop, and if we are looking at is what is left after the crop, unresized, then this is the extent of the crop.


NOT MY IMAGE - Son_of_Thor - Ladybird, Extent of crop by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

If my assumption is right then we are looking at a 100% crop, and this is a big crop. That will have two effects (at least):

• In the parts of the image that are most in focus (see next point), there will be less detail than if we were looking at the same framing with an uncropped or less cropped higher magnification image.
• The depth of field is greater than it would have been if we were looking at the same framing (with the same aperture) with an uncropped or less cropped image higher magnification image. So, more will be in focus, front to back, than would have been the case with a more magnified image, but none of it will be as detailed as what is most in focus in the more magnified image.

You might want to look at this Crop for magnification post in my Journey thread which illustrates some aspects of this.

You used flash and a shutter speed of 1/250, so motion blur from movement of the subject and/or the camera should not have been an issue.

So, how to get more detail?

• Magnify more and get better fine detail, but less in focus front to back.
• Capture an image with less magnification and crop it more. I think you've probably already got to about the limit of that option
• Use a smaller aperture. You will get greater depth of field but lose detail from diffraction softening. With insects etc that is my approach. You can to some extent reverse, or at least hide, the softening effects of diffraction with post processing. You used f/16. I imagine the 105 macro you are using goes to f/22. With a 1.4X teleconverter this would be f/32, and with a 2X teleconverter it would be f/45. So with a 1.7X teleconverter presumably you have up to around f/38 available. You might want to try using it. (I use an aperture which would be f/45 on your system.)
• Focus stack. You will see stacks using many tens of images, especially with dead insects, using a mechanical and possibly automated rail that can move in tiny increments, but you do also see outdoors stacks which use quite a lot of images, achieved either by moving the camera, or having the camera stationary and moving the focus between shots, either by hand or with the camera doing it automatically (focus bracketing). If you camera does not do focus bracketing natively you might be able to get an app which does this. However, you can significantly increase the depth of field by using just a few shots, as few as two or three can make a big difference. As you know it is difficult to get the centre of focus exactly where you want it, it tends to wander around a bit, not just side to side, but front to back. With stacking you may be able to turn this to your advantage. Take a number of shots and then see if you have some that you can stack (this would exploit the front to back wandering - good stacking software will handle the side to side and up/down wandering). The more shots you take, the more likely you will be able to stack some of them without leaving gaps. You may be able, especially if you are using a tripod, be able to combine this with using a larger aperture which will give you more detail than f/16. The price of this is thinner depth of field for the individual shots and so more shots needed to cover the distance you want to cover without gaps.

That's all that comes to mind just now.

 

[Son_of_Thor]

I think you got the focus just right on this, with the antennae and eyes in focus. (An alternative would be to have the eyes at the nearest focus distance and then some more in focus going backwards, with the antennae out of focus. I think either would be fine, although with finer detail much more evident in the antennae than - even were it in focus - behind the eyes, my personal preference would be to have it the way you have it here.)

And the exposure looks fine too.

So I'm not thinking of user error here.

Let's think this through. The D810 has a 36 megapixel sensor. I'm going to assume for now (and obviously correct me if I'm wrong, because much of what follows will be wrong too) that what we are seeing here is a crop, not a downsized version of the whole frame. The full size version over at Flickr is 2048 x 1367 (which coincidentally is around the output height that I use for my insect etc close-up/macros, so it is a size of image that I'm used to looking at).

Note: There are generally complications to do with the aperture set on the camera (the nominal aperture) and the effective aperture (the one you are actually using), with the effective aperture depending on the magnification. However, you are using a Nikon camera and I'm going to assume (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you are using a lens and teleconverter which communicate with the camera, in which case, with this being a Nikon camera, what the camera shows as the aperture will be the effective aperture (what you see is what you get as far as aperture is concerned, whatever the magnification), and so this complication does not arise. I am therefore simply going to talk about "aperture" here.

If it is a crop, and if we are looking at is what is left after the crop, unresized, then this is the extent of the crop.


NOT MY IMAGE - Son_of_Thor - Ladybird, Extent of crop by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

If my assumption is right then we are looking at a 100% crop, and this is a big crop. That will have two effects (at least):

• In the parts of the image that are most in focus (see next point), there will be less detail than if we were looking at the same framing with an uncropped or less cropped higher magnification image.
• The depth of field is greater than it would have been if we were looking at the same framing (with the same aperture) with an uncropped or less cropped image higher magnification image. So, more will be in focus, front to back, than would have been the case with a more magnified image, but none of it will be as detailed as what is most in focus in the more magnified image.

You might want to look at this Crop for magnification post in my Journey thread which illustrates some aspects of this.

You used flash and a shutter speed of 1/250, so motion blur from movement of the subject and/or the camera should not have been an issue.

So, how to get more detail?

• Magnify more and get better fine detail, but less in focus front to back.
• Capture an image with less magnification and crop it more. I think you've probably already got to about the limit of that option
• Use a smaller aperture. You will get greater depth of field but lose detail from diffraction softening. With insects etc that is my approach. You can to some extent reverse, or at least hide, the softening effects of diffraction with post processing. You used f/16. I imagine the 105 macro you are using goes to f/22. With a 1.4X teleconverter this would be f/32, and with a 2X teleconverter it would be f/45. So with a 1.7X teleconverter presumably you have up to around f/38 available. You might want to try using it. (I use an aperture which would be f/45 on your system.)
• Focus stack. You will see stacks using many tens of images, especially with dead insects, using a mechanical and possibly automated rail that can move in tiny increments, but you do also see outdoors stacks which use quite a lot of images, achieved either by moving the camera, or having the camera stationary and moving the focus between shots, either by hand or with the camera doing it automatically (focus bracketing). If you camera does not do focus bracketing natively you might be able to get an app which does this. However, you can significantly increase the depth of field by using just a few shots, as few as two or three can make a big difference. As you know it is difficult to get the centre of focus exactly where you want it, it tends to wander around a bit, not just side to side, but front to back. With stacking you may be able to turn this to your advantage. Take a number of shots and then see if you have some that you can stack (this would exploit the front to back wandering - good stacking software will handle the side to side and up/down wandering). The more shots you take, the more likely you will be able to stack some of them without leaving gaps. You may be able, especially if you are using a tripod, be able to combine this with using a larger aperture which will give you more detail than f/16. The price of this is thinner depth of field for the individual shots and so more shots needed to cover the distance you want to cover without gaps.

That's all that comes to mind just now.

Nick - thanks so much for taking the time out of your day to put together such a detailed response. I'll aim to give it a proper read through later and reply properly

 

[davholla]

One other thing to think about, if you had taken it from the side, it might not have looked so good - but it would have been more useful for ID purposes - a bit of a dilemma this one.

 

[Son_of_Thor]

I think you got the focus just right on this, with the antennae and eyes in focus. (An alternative would be to have the eyes at the nearest focus distance and then some more in focus going backwards, with the antennae out of focus. I think either would be fine, although with finer detail much more evident in the antennae than - even were it in focus - behind the eyes, my personal preference would be to have it the way you have it here.)

And the exposure looks fine too.

So I'm not thinking of user error here.

Let's think this through. The D810 has a 36 megapixel sensor. I'm going to assume for now (and obviously correct me if I'm wrong, because much of what follows will be wrong too) that what we are seeing here is a crop, not a downsized version of the whole frame. The full size version over at Flickr is 2048 x 1367 (which coincidentally is around the output height that I use for my insect etc close-up/macros, so it is a size of image that I'm used to looking at).

Note: There are generally complications to do with the aperture set on the camera (the nominal aperture) and the effective aperture (the one you are actually using), with the effective aperture depending on the magnification. However, you are using a Nikon camera and I'm going to assume (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you are using a lens and teleconverter which communicate with the camera, in which case, with this being a Nikon camera, what the camera shows as the aperture will be the effective aperture (what you see is what you get as far as aperture is concerned, whatever the magnification), and so this complication does not arise. I am therefore simply going to talk about "aperture" here.

If it is a crop, and if we are looking at is what is left after the crop, unresized, then this is the extent of the crop.


NOT MY IMAGE - Son_of_Thor - Ladybird, Extent of crop by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

If my assumption is right then we are looking at a 100% crop, and this is a big crop. That will have two effects (at least):

• In the parts of the image that are most in focus (see next point), there will be less detail than if we were looking at the same framing with an uncropped or less cropped higher magnification image.
• The depth of field is greater than it would have been if we were looking at the same framing (with the same aperture) with an uncropped or less cropped image higher magnification image. So, more will be in focus, front to back, than would have been the case with a more magnified image, but none of it will be as detailed as what is most in focus in the more magnified image.

You might want to look at this Crop for magnification post in my Journey thread which illustrates some aspects of this.

You used flash and a shutter speed of 1/250, so motion blur from movement of the subject and/or the camera should not have been an issue.

So, how to get more detail?

• Magnify more and get better fine detail, but less in focus front to back.
• Capture an image with less magnification and crop it more. I think you've probably already got to about the limit of that option
• Use a smaller aperture. You will get greater depth of field but lose detail from diffraction softening. With insects etc that is my approach. You can to some extent reverse, or at least hide, the softening effects of diffraction with post processing. You used f/16. I imagine the 105 macro you are using goes to f/22. With a 1.4X teleconverter this would be f/32, and with a 2X teleconverter it would be f/45. So with a 1.7X teleconverter presumably you have up to around f/38 available. You might want to try using it. (I use an aperture which would be f/45 on your system.)
• Focus stack. You will see stacks using many tens of images, especially with dead insects, using a mechanical and possibly automated rail that can move in tiny increments, but you do also see outdoors stacks which use quite a lot of images, achieved either by moving the camera, or having the camera stationary and moving the focus between shots, either by hand or with the camera doing it automatically (focus bracketing). If you camera does not do focus bracketing natively you might be able to get an app which does this. However, you can significantly increase the depth of field by using just a few shots, as few as two or three can make a big difference. As you know it is difficult to get the centre of focus exactly where you want it, it tends to wander around a bit, not just side to side, but front to back. With stacking you may be able to turn this to your advantage. Take a number of shots and then see if you have some that you can stack (this would exploit the front to back wandering - good stacking software will handle the side to side and up/down wandering). The more shots you take, the more likely you will be able to stack some of them without leaving gaps. You may be able, especially if you are using a tripod, be able to combine this with using a larger aperture which will give you more detail than f/16. The price of this is thinner depth of field for the individual shots and so more shots needed to cover the distance you want to cover without gaps.

That's all that comes to mind just now.

Thanks for the comments re: focus point - antennae and eyes in focus is what I was going for (it seemed the best option for a single shot). Using the OVF I couldn't really see whether this was spot on or there or there abouts, so took a few short bursts and then reviewed on the LCD. Re: exposure, I was trying not to blow the highlights with the flash. I'm using the onboard flash in commander mode to trigger a pair of SB-R200 speedlights front mounted with diffusers and the power dialled reasonably far back (-2ev for this shot I think). Ended up boosting the exposure of the background by around 0.25ev to balance it a little. I find the highlights around the face a little distracting and suspect the flash may need more diffusion over a larger surface area to tone that down a little, I'd be interested in your thoughts on that.

You are correct, the D810 shows the effective aperture with the lens and TC I'm using and the lens stops down to f32 so there is plenty of scope to stop down a lot more than I did for this shot. Something that I'll have a play around with along with PP to see how far I can push things.

I do wonder about the use of the teleconverter, the Nikon 1.7x and 2x TC's aren't known for their sharpness. I started with a 1.4x TC and decided I wanted the subject larger in the frame. Unfortunately my Raynox 250 won't fit on the front of the lens with the flash attached. I may have to look at whether I can fit it with step down rings or an alternative method for mounting the flash.

This was a crop, albeit not a massive one and more for rotation/framing than showing the subject larger in the frame (there was an element of that too). This shows the extent of the crop:

Ladybird in the garden - playing with flash (showing crop) by Simon Lundbeck, on Flickr

I tend to output for Flickr with 2000px short side and then share on sites like TP with a smaller sized images. I've uploaded the full size exported image to Flickr, see below:

Ladybird in the garden - playing with flash (large) by Simon Lundbeck, on Flickr

I'm afraid I don't seem to be able to link to the full-size version so you'd need to click through to Flickr to see it.

Re: focus stacking - that is something I've played around with to some degree usually on a tripod with a simple focus rail and found it somewhat clunky and time consuming (but effective) with the kit I have. I've also tried it by gently rocking backwards and forward when shooting handheld and had limited success with that, but again something to try and improve on. Perhaps next time I should pick a subject where the parts I want in focus aren't black on a black background (to go a little Douglas Adams) to make life easier!

I do wonder whether other aids that my camera doesn't support like focus peaking and auto-stacking could be useful, but I'd like to improve using the kit I have for now...

All in all it's been nice to have something small to aim the camera at and I've got started much earlier this year than last

Again, many thanks for your time and input - it's been very helpful

 

[Son_of_Thor]

One other thing to think about, if you had taken it from the side, it might not have looked so good - but it would have been more useful for ID purposes - a bit of a dilemma this one.

That is a fair point and something I'll give some thought to in future - in this instance I was trying to work on lighting and focus, trying a few things out. I'll try and remember to take a side-on shot in future so I can refer back

 

[GardenersHelper]

Thanks for the comments re: focus point - antennae and eyes in focus is what I was going for (it seemed the best option for a single shot). Using the OVF I couldn't really see whether this was spot on or there or there abouts, so took a few short bursts and then reviewed on the LCD. Re: exposure, I was trying not to blow the highlights with the flash. I'm using the onboard flash in commander mode to trigger a pair of SB-R200 speedlights front mounted with diffusers and the power dialled reasonably far back (-2ev for this shot I think). Ended up boosting the exposure of the background by around 0.25ev to balance it a little. I find the highlights around the face a little distracting and suspect the flash may need more diffusion over a larger surface area to tone that down a little, I'd be interested in your thoughts on that.

Worth experimenting with. I've tried quite a lot of alternatives but I've pretty much reconciled myself to the fact that shiny surfaces are going to give reflections that I don't like. It makes me less enthusiastic about photographing shiny beetles. If you can spread the light over a larger surface that may help. I understand it is the size of the surface as seen from the perspective of the subject that matters so if you can move the diffusion layer nearest to the subject closer in towards it, that too may help.

You are correct, the D810 shows the effective aperture with the lens and TC I'm using and the lens stops down to f32 so there is plenty of scope to stop down a lot more than I did for this shot. Something that I'll have a play around with along with PP to see how far I can push things.

Since the crop wasn't as big as I thought, you might want to try cropping down to 1:1 and see how it goes. That depends whether sharpness/detail of what is in focus or amount that is in focus front to back is more important to you. But in any case a very big crop might prove educational.

I do wonder about the use of the teleconverter, the Nikon 1.7x and 2x TC's aren't known for their sharpness. I started with a 1.4x TC and decided I wanted the subject larger in the frame. Unfortunately my Raynox 250 won't fit on the front of the lens with the flash attached. I may have to look at whether I can fit it with step down rings or an alternative method for mounting the flash.

I used step rings for my Raynoxes for many years. It's only relatively recently that I've started using the adapters again, in order to be able to swap close-up lenses quicker.

This was a crop, albeit not a massive one and more for rotation/framing than showing the subject larger in the frame (there was an element of that too). This shows the extent of the crop:

Ladybird in the garden - playing with flash (showing crop) by Simon Lundbeck, on Flickr

I tend to output for Flickr with 2000px short side and then share on sites like TP with a smaller sized images. I've uploaded the full size exported image to Flickr, see below:

Ladybird in the garden - playing with flash (large) by Simon Lundbeck, on Flickr

I'm afraid I don't seem to be able to link to the full-size version so you'd need to click through to Flickr to see it.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately I got "This photo is private. Oops! You don't have permission to view this photo."

Re: focus stacking - that is something I've played around with to some degree usually on a tripod with a simple focus rail and found it somewhat clunky and time consuming (but effective) with the kit I have. I've also tried it by gently rocking backwards and forward when shooting handheld and had limited success with that, but again something to try and improve on. Perhaps next time I should pick a subject where the parts I want in focus aren't black on a black background (to go a little Douglas Adams) to make life easier!

It sounds like you have all the techniques covered, suggesting that what is needed now is .ot's of practice and experiment (and patience).

I do wonder whether other aids that my camera doesn't support like focus peaking and auto-stacking could be useful, but I'd like to improve using the kit I have for now...

All in all it's been nice to have something small to aim the camera at and I've got started much earlier this year than last

Sounds good. It's time I took a camera out again.

Again, many thanks for your time and input - it's been very helpful

It's a pleasure. I enjoy thinking about and discussing this stuff (and learning new stuff along the way).

 

[Son_of_Thor]

Worth experimenting with. I've tried quite a lot of alternatives but I've pretty much reconciled myself to the fact that shiny surfaces are going to give reflections that I don't like. It makes me less enthusiastic about photographing shiny beetles. If you can spread the light over a larger surface that may help. I understand it is the size of the surface as seen from the perspective of the subject that matters so if you can move the diffusion layer nearest to the subject closer in towards it, that too may help.



Since the crop wasn't as big as I thought, you might want to try cropping down to 1:1 and see how it goes. That depends whether sharpness/detail of what is in focus or amount that is in focus front to back is more important to you. But in any case a very big crop might prove educational.



I used step rings for my Raynoxes for many years. It's only relatively recently that I've started using the adapters again, in order to be able to swap close-up lenses quicker.



Ladybird in the garden - playing with flash (showing crop) by Simon Lundbeck, on Flickr

I tend to output for Flickr with 2000px short side and then share on sites like TP with a smaller sized images. I've uploaded the full size exported image to Flickr, see below:

Ladybird in the garden - playing with flash (large) by Simon Lundbeck, on Flickr

I'm afraid I don't seem to be able to link to the full-size version so you'd need to click through to Flickr to see it.

Unfortunately I got "This photo is private. Oops! You don't have permission to view this photo."



It sounds like you have all the techniques covered, suggesting that what is needed now is .ot's of practice and experiment (and patience).



Sounds good. It's time I took a camera out again.



It's a pleasure. I enjoy thinking about and discussing this stuff (and learning new stuff along the way).

Plenty of food for thought here, thanks. I'll have a further play around with the crop. I'm thinking a larger rectangular diffuser between the flash and the subject may be worth playing with although that'd be likely only useful in the garden.

Interesting that you tend to avoid those sorts of subjects due to the effects of the lighting. My main targets tend to be Damselflies, Dragonflies and Butterflies up to now with the odd Bee and Hoverfly, but I'd like to have a go at the smaller insects and beetles too.

Having looked at the front-mount adapter for my Nikon flash again, there is no thread on the front of it so it looks like it'll be back to the drawing board regarding using the flash units and Raynox together.

Looks like lots of experimenting and practice is in order which is fine - I love this sort of photography for the technical challenges (something I've missed over the Winter with subjects being few and far between).

I've corrected access to the larger version of the image on Flickr, thanks for the heads up.

 

[GardenersHelper]

I'm thinking a larger rectangular diffuser between the flash and the subject may be worth playing with although that'd be likely only useful in the garden.

This is the diffusion setup I use, which is fairly large, but I use it out on the nature reserves. (I use it with the front diffuser more curved than shown here, but I don't know if that makes any practical difference to the illumination.)


1341 01 KX800 diffuser July 2018 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1341 02 KX800 diffuser July 2018 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

There are extra diffusion layers inside the boxes.


0975 22 Flash head diffuser by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

 

[Son_of_Thor]

This is the diffusion setup I use, which is fairly large, but I use it out on the nature reserves. (I use it with the front diffuser more curved than shown here, but I don't know if that makes any practical difference to the illumination.)


1341 01 KX800 diffuser July 2018 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1341 02 KX800 diffuser July 2018 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

There are extra diffusion layers inside the boxes.


0975 22 Flash head diffuser by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

That setup really makes it look like you mean business! Looks bulky, but I daresay it doesn't weigh a lot..

I'll have a play, thanks for sharing. My wife does a lot of sewing so I may try and rope her in to help with fashioning something!

I'm also thinking I might need to sort a constant LED light as on the KX800 to help illuminate the subject to help with composition/focusing, ideally something similar on a flexible/bendy arm. Mounting it might be tricky, possibly off the hotshoe or L bracket somehow - needs some research.

 

[GardenersHelper]

That setup really makes it look like you mean business! Looks bulky, but I daresay it doesn't weigh a lot..

No, it's quite light.

I'll have a play, thanks for sharing. My wife does a lot of sewing so I may try and rope her in to help with fashioning something!

I'm also thinking I might need to sort a constant LED light as on the KX800 to help illuminate the subject to help with composition/focusing, ideally something similar on a flexible/bendy arm. Mounting it might be tricky, possibly off the hotshoe or L bracket somehow - needs some research.

I find the research and experimentation side of things interesting and enjoyable in its own right. YMMV of course. Help from your wife sounds good.

 

[Son_of_Thor]

No, it's quite light.



I find the research and experimentation side of things interesting and enjoyable in its own right. YMMV of course. Help from your wife sounds good.

Yes, it all adds to the interest, especially when you get pleasing results

 

[GardenersHelper]

Yes, it all adds to the interest, especially when you get pleasing results

Yes, that helps.