Where am I going wrong? - Big thread with lots of examples!

Messages
398
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Guys, sorry for the monster thread i'm about to create, but just want some good solid pointers on where i'm going wrong and how to improve... I've basically had time to get my macro lens out today and have a little play in the back garden... shooting handheld, with semi decent light and a flash to assist where the light wasn't forgiving...
Shooting handheld I really struggle with live view, so opt for the viewfinder...
I am shooting on a D3300 with a Sigma 105mm F2.8.

Literally out of the 78 photos I shot... some of them were way off and hand shake was the culprit.. the other 17 are just a bit off and lacking sharpness.... and 3 of them I actually don't mind. (but still don't love)

DSC_9001.jpg by Andrew Gray, on Flickr

So this shot... It's a brick... my hands resting on the wall, but still not tack sharp.. I'm putting this down to hand shake?

DSC_9010.jpg by Andrew Gray, on Flickr

This fly for me, it seems sharp in places, but it's just lacking that punch to it... I increased Fstop to get more in focus for the next image... This resulted in too much hand shake and was an unusable image.

After this I started to shoot some plants and seen an ant among them... so layed flat and very still I went at him using my viewfinder for focus in natural light.

DSC_9017.jpg by Andrew Gray, on Flickr

giving the same results, A disappointing unsharp image.

Next I did get the image sharp... however i was 100% convinced this ants eyes were in focus...

DSC_9028.jpg by Andrew Gray, on Flickr

However focus was missed on a stationary ant.

DSC_9034.jpg by Andrew Gray, on Flickr

Now with this image It looks like I did catch the focus, however It just seems soft..

DSC_9040.jpg by Andrew Gray, on Flickr

I believe this is an aphid... I actually nailed this one.. I'm not sure how or why this is different... but I am happy with this, although the subject isn't the best!

At this point with editing I feel that the image which had a good result was a lucky mistake by me, and the rest are actually how I shoot?

DSC_9041.jpg by Andrew Gray, on Flickr

Back to my normal shooting with another non sharp image (shot in the same reel)

DSC_9051.jpg by Andrew Gray, on Flickr

You can see on here that the focal plain has caught the eye, but it still doesn't look sharp.
 
DSC_9052.jpg by Andrew Gray, on Flickr
And the same above, non flattering image.

DSC_9057.jpg by Andrew Gray, on Flickr

This one again I was 100% sure this was locked on the subjects eyes, yet it's caught it's rear end.. (yet the rear end still isnt sharp)

At this point you can tell I'm using a flash and shooting at 1/200th of a second and using the bounce card and built in flash diffuser to bonce down light

DSC_9070.jpg by Andrew Gray, on Flickr

This is one of the images I am happy with... I've came out of "Macro" now (1:1 ratio) and shooting larger subjects...

Back to the really small stuff...

DSC_9077.jpg by Andrew Gray, on Flickr

DSC_9080.jpg by Andrew Gray, on Flickr

Two images of the same subject both taken the same but still different results?


Now the one image below which I am happy with to some extent... It's in focus, It's a good image and totally luck it landed..
However... it isn't 1:1 which slightly bothers me... I'd have loved this subject really close up...

And my other problem... It's not tack sharp.

DSC_9082.jpg by Andrew Gray, on Flickr


and another version... Slightly less sharp...

DSC_9085.jpg by Andrew Gray, on Flickr


and I really got excited about this angle... however...

DSC_9086.jpg by Andrew Gray, on Flickr
 
Lost focus again?

DSC_9089.jpg by Andrew Gray, on Flickr


Now below is some examples of ones I shot on my 18-55 with extension tubes of a fly...

Bluebottle with unknown bug on leg by Andrew Gray, on Flickr

Bluebottle with unknown bug on leg 2 by Andrew Gray, on Flickr


I'm really dis-heartened by some of these images... I know my camera can bring sharp results.. I know the lens should be able to perform well.. However i'm just wanting them delicious sharp macro images... I know it is possible hand-held... and I know it is easier with a tripod and live view, however I only have a full size tripod and feel a lot of the macro action is on the ground and out of it's reach.

If anyone is willing to spend some time and go through these images it would be greatly appreciated! I can take criticism and can take advice and would welcome it!
I do know my editing doesn't do these images justice, but i don't want to pour loads of time into these images which I'm not happy with in camera.. I've always believed, get the image sharp and how you want it in camera, then use the edits to refine it... (like polishing a dull penny) however I don't think a dented penny should be polished.

Many thanks and apologies again for the monster post.
 
No its not easier with a tripod or with live view.

Macro IS NOT EASY.

Your hit rate is not at all unusual especially as you trying handheld stalking live insvertibates in less than ideal conditions.

Have you read this

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/we-need-you-in-draft-want-to-get-into-macro.551944/

Do have a flash?
Or do you have the cash to buy a basic one and the skills to make a diffuser?

Have a look here
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/show-us-your-macro-rig.132158/
 
Do have a flash?
Or do you have the cash to buy a basic one and the skills to make a diffuser?

Ive got a few flashes, a couple of manual ones and a ittl one (I found for macro it works best shooting at +1 exposure compensation with it) if using ittl.
The others I generally use trial and error.

Ive tried diffusers before, failed at a milk carton one, tried the pringles tube snoot style diffuser.. This seemed to work well when using the 18-55 but not tried it with the sigma.

I did try using the flash on some of the images (the back half of them) using the bounce card to bring light down to achieve the 1/200th of a second shutter.
 
Some thoughts.

You say this one is not tack sharp. I went to Flickr zoomed in and took a screen shot. I am seeing rather fine detail, including the rather small facets of the eye. By "not tack sharp" do you mean it is lacking in fine detail, or that not enough of it is in focus/showing detail (i.e. not enough depth of focus)?


NOT MY IMAGE - Andrew Gray - screenshot of crop
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Subjects the size of the springtails (after your "Back to the really small stuff... ") are really difficult. I mean, very difficult. Extremely difficult. They are HARD! I get very, very high failure rates with subjects like that. Others may have better hit rates than me, but you are not alone in finding it difficult to get anything good with subjects like that. Implication? You need (well, I need, perhaps some people don't need) to capture lots of images. Shedloads. Really. With really small subjects like that I might get one half decent one in 20, or 40, or ... it varies. Good days and bad days. Subjects that move around a lot and subjects that stay still for a bit. Stuff getting in the way, or not, Subjects in awkward to get at to places that mean my hands/arms/legs or whatever start to shake before too long.

Ants? Another tricky subject. Quite small - the ones I see anyway. And they move around a lot (ditto). And they don't move around in a nice, slow, stately fashion. They rush around. I haven't got many decent ant shots.

The two fly images at the end. Good detail in both, but detail of different areas. That is shallow DOF. You have to live with that. (Unless you stack, and I wouldn't try going there, not yet at least, with subjects that are either moving around or liable to not be in the same place for long.) To get more DOF you can shoot from further away and crop more. You lose detail, so you have to find where the balance lies. Similarly, you can use smaller apertures, but you lose detail there too. You can use alignments on the subject (e.g. side on) that give a greater impression of depth of field, or you may be able to use such angles, depending on how the subject is oriented and what angles you can get on it. And yes, you can stack, with suitable subjects. (It is quite often done with dead subjects. Not too keen on doing that myself but YMMV of course, and it can be done with live subjects. Well, some live subjects at least.)

And you may not want to spend lots of time on post processing, fair enough. But it can make a very big difference.

Macro is about compromises of one sort and another. And practice. Lots and lots of practice. Eventually (well, quickly for some people, but it wasn't for me) things that seemed impossible prove to be possible, sometimes, and in some cases even quite easy eventually. But it takes time. And practice. And experiments. There are lots of different ways of tackling these things - tripod, or not, or some other means of support, or not, flash or not, lots of different flash configurations, autofocus or not, apertures of various sizes, subject of different shapes and sizes, using various ISOs, discovering how slow a shutter speed you can use at various magnifications. It takes time to get a feel for how these things work, and how they work in combination with one another. For you. Different things work for different people. And people have different amounts of available cash to throw at the problems. And different amounts of time available. And different shooting/subject opportunities.

There are lots of trade-offs. Everyone has their own way, their own favoured subjects, their own techniques. It all takes time.
 
Last edited:
This is a tricky area to get right as other members have explained.
I do use the pringal tube which works well for my and I can use High Speed Sycn if there is too much light, though that is not a common situation my speedlite has that function.
I stop down the to f5.6 to f9 or even f11, shutter over 1/250. ISO on auto, AF points on expanded.
If you are using a APSC camera then cropping in you loose detail, ans as mentioned above aputure, focus distance, shutter speed are all variables to balance out on the day.
I own eos 7Dii and use for macro my ef100mm f2.8 I am macro lens, sigma 17-70 contemporary, and even Tele zoom 70-300L f4-5.6 IS USM.
I use the lenses depending what I am shooting, where and light conditions.
Sharp hit rate is every low and I too suspected I was just poor at it, well I still might be ! ! : (

IMO the wasp side on looks like a Dof issue and the top down view looks sharp to me.
 
Last edited:
I haven't been doing macro for long, I've come to the conclusion that it's a frustrating genre to perfect.
I nearly always use flash with a pringle tube for insects. I use manual mode when using flash, I set the aperture to around f/11-16, a shutter speed of 1/80-1/200 (depending on if I want to use ambient light in the background), ISO 100-400 again depending on ambient light. As you can see in my settings, there's no set figure/setting, there are too many variables. But I try to keep around those settings.
Take a look at my crab spider post, that's 3 photos out of about 25-30 that I consider sharp enough to share. The spider wasn't moving, the light was good (although it didn't matter that much because of the flash), no wind. The only thing that was a problem was the position I had to stand in, it wasn't the best and there was a good deal of wobbly hands.
Maybe you need to practice on your focusing technique, I set the lens to 1:1 or there abouts and just move in and out taking shots when I think I've got focus.
 
Your SS is way too slow for handheld macro. High magnification magnifies everything... including camera motion.

For handheld, what you really need to do is record less ambient light (lower ISO) and use flash at a low power (close) to light the subject/scene. This will get you an effective SS of 1/4000+ (the reduced power flash duration).
 
The advise I would suggest is ..........practice makes perfect! I know it is not the answer what you are looking for, hoping some tips will help but in macro, you should try out the advises above then you will develop your own set of skill. Me for instance, I have never used tripod, always handheld but my hands shake like nobody business, but practice enough, you will find a way that will help you 'overcome' the shake, i.e. how to and when to take a shot even with unstable hands. I use Sigma 105mm too and loving this lens, tho I haven't been doing my bugs hunt for a long time. I think a stronger flash and light PP will help with the sharpness and makes the photo 'wow'. For a beginner, you are doing very well but you need to try different methods first and settle for the one that suits you. My setting is F.11 -F.16, 1/200 with manual flash in i40 (1/2 or 1/4).
 
Your SS is way too slow for handheld macro. High magnification magnifies everything... including camera motion.

How would you combat the need to use a flash? the problem I have is if I shoot at a high shutter speed I need to increase the ISO... My solution to combat this would be to introduce a flash, however I am unable to increase my shutter speed past 200 as this is my cameras sync speed? So i'm always stuck between ISO or Flash (personally I prefer to use the flash as I feel it freezes that motion) but it doesn't mean this is necessarily the best option?

I appreciate the feedback though guys.
The thing I do love about macro photography, it doesn't take planning, it doesn't take time... You can pick your camera up and find something interesting anywhere if you look hard enough... It's just having the skillset to achieve it.
(I did attempt to hand shoot a hover-fly mid flight) after chasing it about for 10 minutes.... The results were not great!
 
How would you combat the need to use a flash? the problem I have is if I shoot at a high shutter speed I need to increase the ISO... My solution to combat this would be to introduce a flash, however I am unable to increase my shutter speed past 200 as this is my cameras sync speed? So i'm always stuck between ISO or Flash (personally I prefer to use the flash as I feel it freezes that motion) but it doesn't mean this is necessarily the best option?

Not sure I understand the problem. If flash is the dominant light source then the fact that the fastest shutter speed you can use is 1/200 sec doesn't matter, because the effective shutter speed is the length of the flash pulse, which will generally be a lot quicker than 1/200 sec.

In fact, you can use a slower shutter speed than 1/200 sec, for example if you want to raise dark areas that are too far away for the flash to reach. Using a slower shutter speed gives time for the natural light to take the edge off of dark areas. You have to work out how slow you can go before "ghost images" illuminated by the natural light become a problem. If you can't slow the shutter speed down enough you can raise the ISO. It takes practice to work out what will work and what won't. I find the safest thing is to start with the flash being dominant, using the flash sync speed, to be sure of avoiding ghost images, so I (hopefully!) get something "in the bag", albeit maybe with some ugly dark areas. Then after a few of those (doing a few to increase the chances of getting one that works ok), if the subject is still there I decrease the shutter speed, maybe in stages, getting progressively more adventurous. That way I can minimise the risk of ending up with nothing useful, a risk which is much higher if I start out straight away with a slow shutter speed.
 
How would you combat the need to use a flash? the problem I have is if I shoot at a high shutter speed I need to increase the ISO... My solution to combat this would be to introduce a flash, however I am unable to increase my shutter speed past 200 as this is my cameras sync speed? So i'm always stuck between ISO or Flash (personally I prefer to use the flash as I feel it freezes that motion) but it doesn't mean this is necessarily the best option?
You must have misunderstood... I said the solution to the slow SS issue is to use the flash from a very short distance, at a low power, with ISO/Ap/SS settings that limit the ambient light recorded... yes, you can only go so high w/ the SS so Ap/ISO are the primary controls for limiting the ambient exposure.
Using flash is recording a double exposure... you have the ambient exposure; e.g. 200, f/16, 1/200, which is too slow to freeze motion and is recording too much light (based on the BG exposures in many of your examples). And then you have the light the flash adds; e.g. 200, f/16, power/duration... the duration of the flash is effectively the flash exposure shutter speed. And for a typical speedlight it ranges from ≈ 1/250 at full power to in excess of 1/8000 at minimum power. Whichever of those two exposures is the brightest will be "on top" as the most visible/prominent.
 
Last edited:
the effective shutter speed is the length of the flash pulse, which will generally be a lot quicker than 1/200 sec

Now this I didn't know!
Very useful and very interesting.

How would this work for example in a dimly lit room shooting at 1/10th exposure for example?
I'm assuming the subject would get the light from the flash at its pulse speed. Then the rest would be lit ambiantly? Do you have any examples of the ghosting you mentioned?
 
In fact, you can use a slower shutter speed than 1/200 sec
And for a typical speedlight it ranges from ≈ 1/250 at full power to in excess of 1/8000

These 2 pieces of information have just blown my mind.

Basically my mentality has been this...
I want to freeze motion, and I need to use a flash to do this as my exposure is too dark and I'm introducing too much noise.
I switch to manual mode, I dial in my apeture for my. DOF, I then go to 1/200th of a second because this is my camera sync speed and I think this is the best way to freeze motion. I then use my manual flash to brighten the image (normally at a high ish power to provide enough light)

Now what's blew my mind... From what I understand, if I lower my shutter speed to day 1/60th of a second, I'll be able to reduce my flash power (because my shutter let's in more ambiant light) and my doing this my flash will pulse faster and freeze motion better?

If the above is the correct understanding that is literally a game changer for me.
It will mean less harsh light, softer shadows and reduced camera shake?
 
Macro can be incredibly difficult and frustrating, you'll have great sessions where you're just on form and nail the most tricky shots with ease, and other - more often - days where nothing goes right. There's the little bit too much of a breeze, the bugs are just not playing ball and flying off soon as you get close, your flash keeps mis-firing or not at all etc .. Just keeping steady for that split second yourself while trying to hold focus within that razor thin plain of focus can be exhausting. I won't offer any technical advice as others with much more experience in this field already got you covered, but I will say you do get much better with perseverance. You will begin to nail that focus much quicker each time you head out to shoot macro. But you need to take little breaks when out there too, even just in your own garden. If you're getting frustrated and nothing is coming up sharp, take 10 minutes out. Go have a cuppa! The bugs will still be there when you return :) and it wont seem so tiring.
 
the bugs are just not playing ball and flying off soon as you get close
Just found a spider in the house then... About an inch in size so I've got it on a sheet of paper to do some test shots.. Got a few shots taken.. Go to take another thing, I see what can only be described as a small monster running to my lens due to its magnification... Now I'm not scared of spiders, but that wasn't expected haha.
 
Now what's blew my mind... From what I understand, if I lower my shutter speed to day 1/60th of a second, I'll be able to reduce my flash power (because my shutter let's in more ambiant light) and my doing this my flash will pulse faster and freeze motion better?
This is both correct, and incorrect. What you stated is absolutely true, however, it will not help your issue. That is because by recording more ambient light at a slower SS the ambient exposure will be both blurrier AND a more prominent portion of the double exposure. What you need to do is more the opposite.

High speed photography is typically done in a near dark environment (or camera settings that record a black frame w/o flash) and with the flash very close to the subject. Placing the flash closer allows you to reduce its' power setting... that's why flashes for macro are placed out at the end of the lens (extending the flash with some kind of diffuser does not place the source any closer).
 
extending the flash with some kind of diffuser does not place the source any closer

So this essentially means the flash would have to be brighter to compensate for the distance away from the subject (like the inverse square law) which in turn slows down the pulse speed?
 
So this essentially means the flash would have to be brighter to compensate for the distance away from the subject (like the inverse square law) which in turn slows down the pulse speed?
Yes. Which also why smaller lower power flashes are problematic... because they have to be run at a higher power setting.
You probably don't have to go to the extremes high speed photography require. Just more in that direction by recording less ambient (first)... for all I know your flash might be running at 1/128 power already because of how bright the scene is (but I doubt it). Even just getting down to 1/4 power is going to be a flash duration of around 1/3000 for most speedlights.
 
Now this I didn't know!
Very useful and very interesting.

How would this work for example in a dimly lit room shooting at 1/10th exposure for example?
I'm assuming the subject would get the light from the flash at its pulse speed. Then the rest would be lit ambiantly?

In very broad terms, yes.

It's a bit more complicated, to do with the proportion of the illumination coming from flash versus the proportion coming from the ambient illumination. That proportion changes as the distance from the flash lights increases. But I think what you said is a reasonable first approximation.

Do you have any examples of the ghosting you mentioned?

No, I don't have any examples I'm afraid. They get thrown out.
 
I cracked out the pringle diffuser this weekend when I seen a jumping spider in my house and managed to get it to stand still for half a second after about 20 minutes of it jumping about and not playing ball...

Here are the results, taking advice from the form I do think the sharpness has been improved greatly from some of my test shots, This was a very difficult subject aswell as it didn't want to stay still, or it wanted to move as soon as I went to press the trigger...

DSC_9363.jpg by Andrew Gray, on Flickr

DSC_9359.jpg by Andrew Gray, on Flickr
 
I cracked out the pringle diffuser this weekend when I seen a jumping spider in my house and managed to get it to stand still for half a second after about 20 minutes of it jumping about and not playing ball...

Here are the results, taking advice from the form I do think the sharpness has been improved greatly from some of my test shots, This was a very difficult subject aswell as it didn't want to stay still, or it wanted to move as soon as I went to press the trigger...
Definitely an improvement. Nice job!
 
Back
Top