I'm running out of critters around my house, so I went for a wander down Lake Tuggeranong this evening. Found these little guys having a bit of a blue theme.
I'd like to see the full shots. Assume you're cropping these down a fair bit, because of the noise visible?
I know they're skittish and it's all easier from a little more distance, but honestly the quality of your shots will improve out of site if you can get closer and crop less. That noise will disappear so the image will look cleaner, and the details will be sharp/crisp.
I'd like to see the full shots. Assume you're cropping these down a fair bit, because of the noise visible?
I know they're skittish and it's all easier from a little more distance, but honestly the quality of your shots will improve out of site if you can get closer and crop less. That noise will disappear so the image will look cleaner, and the details will be sharp/crisp.
How close are you getting to them at the moment?
Thanks guys. yes, noise is bugging me (cool pun huh?) I'll post the full and unprocessed shots tonight Troy. I am getting to within a few to a couple of inches, crawling down low through the grass on my knees or my belly. Feels weird when there are people walking around the lake looking at me like I am some kind of loon....stalking in the grass along the waters edge...freezing when I spot something tiny...weirdo..
Riiiight. Gotcha. Still a bit underexposed, and you're lifting the exposure in post-processing - that may be amplifying the noise. The better you can expose the original shot, the less noise you'll end up with. Don't know what settings you had for taking these shots, but I'd crank up the ISO maybe, but not over 800.
What's that? Flash? Yeah, that'd work a treat! And a macro lens? Yeah, that's what you want. You know it. You know...
Oh, and PS - get used to the weird looks. I'm known as "the weird bug man" in the park outside our townhouses. People will come up and talk to you, though. If they come up to you while shooting to ask what you're up to, just lower the camera, go really cross-eyed, turn slowly to them and explain that you thought you were shooting landscapes but were having trouble getting your new camera to focus. AHahhaaaha. It's all fun.
Riiiight. Gotcha. Still a bit underexposed, and you're lifting the exposure in post-processing - that may be amplifying the noise. The better you can expose the original shot, the less noise you'll end up with. Don't know what settings you had for taking these shots, but I'd crank up the ISO maybe, but not over 800.
What's that? Flash? Yeah, that'd work a treat! And a macro lens? Yeah, that's what you want. You know it. You know...
To be very honest mate, I have been avoiding the flash because I am scared of it.... I think it's called flash exposure compensation... ..wouldn't know where to start or when is the time to use/not use it. It's the on-camera built-in anyway which I am told can easily wreck macro stuff?
I haven't been using the flash for the Horsehead nebula even though that's pretty dark....
I have been using natural light, and setting the aperture, ISO and shutter speed until the light meter indicates 0 or maybe a stop or two under....not right?
I didn't want to pop the ISO over 800, (yay I got that right ) as I thought it would only introduce more grain or noise...
Baz.
Last edited by bloodhound31; 25-11-2009 at 06:11 PM.
Firstly - if you're shooting natural light as you are, you shouldn't be underexposing a stop or 2. That's only if you're using flash. For natural light, you should be exposing so the light meter reads 0. I reckon that's why your shots are a little dark.
Flash is nothing to be scared of, it's very useful and almost essential if you're serious about this macro stuff. You're joking about the Horsehead, but I've seen a serious question asked on POTN about flashes and the moon shots. Not kidding.
I'd steer clear of the on-camera flash for macro, in fact I steer clear of it full stop. I have seen some guys with real ghetto flash diffusers to utilise their on-camera flash. Not worth it IMO.
If you only want it for macro, and not normal photography where you might want to use "bounce" flash which needs swivelling heads etc, you can pick up a cheap little Sunpak ETTL PZ42 series flash for around US$150 I think, cheaper used. My wife has one and it works a treat with the Lumiquest softbox. If I get a chance I'll take some pics with this setup and the Sigma 105 this weekend for you.
PS - I'm thinking about selling my beloved Canon 100mm macro lens. I have access to my wife's Siggy 105 and I'm thinking about getting the Sigma 150. I have the MP-E 65 for really high magnification.
Firstly - if you're shooting natural light as you are, you shouldn't be underexposing a stop or 2. That's only if you're using flash. For natural light, you should be exposing so the light meter reads 0. I reckon that's why your shots are a little dark.
ahhh...so that's where I have been going wrong! I thought I heard/read/picked up along the way to have it an exposure stop or two under 0! I'll try again and ensure it's bang on. Thanks Troy.
At this stage I have an appointment with a bank manager to look at loans for a range of things for the house, including the new camera and lenses. If that doesn't work out and I'm not happy with his terms, I might wait until after the Christmas rush and exercise a bit of consumer conservatism.
Once I consider the warranty issues, your 100mm lens might be on the cards then if you are still parting with it.
I can vouch for Troy - his gear is in top quality condition and very well looked after. I doubt very much there'd be any issues. He's a solid, reliable and honest guy.
I can vouch for Troy - his gear is in top quality condition and very well looked after. I doubt very much there'd be any issues. He's a solid, reliable and honest guy.
Sorry, mate. No idea. I have no experience with those close-up filters. My initial thoughts would be not to stack them, because the more glass you put between what you're shooting and your sensor just degrades image quality a little. I assume the "+4" is the highest mag one? I'd do some testing with it on and off. I did it when I got my extension tubes.
Be methodical. Just get a ruler and place it on a table side on to you so you can see the scales and they will all be in focus for your shots. Shoot it as close as you can, without the filter on, at 18mm and 55mm. Then do the same with each of the filters on at the same zooms. Just to give you a feel for what sort of magnification you're getting. If you know your sensor width, and you see what dimension along the ruler you're shooting, you can work out what mag you're getting.
making me very proud.
I think it's called flash exposure compensation...
..wouldn't know where to start or when is the time to use/not use it. It's the on-camera built-in anyway which I am told can easily wreck macro stuff?
