Furry White Moth

[garuda]

This tiny little guy was about the size of your thumb nail or a dime. One pic has what appears to be wing fringe, but I believe that shot was wing movement and my shutter was slightly too slow. He kept fluttering his wings. Surprisingly, in some pics even at f/13, part of moth was too soft, and was not due to the fluffy texture of the furry coat Portions of antennae were too soft. So my f/13 theory ref. DoF may be wrong.



Close-up:


Tight closeup:


Different angle:


Another diff angle:

.

 

[Kevriano]

Cute beastie. The trouble with insects etc, and DOF, is that it's really hard to judge if you are square on to them, and they have so many sticky out bits (technical term) that picking a good central point of focus, that will keep everything in the focus plane, is tricky on a small critter. I shoot a lot of Butterflies and always struggle to get wing tips in focus, even at f16 sometimes.

 

[Alan Clark]

The problem with macro photography is that it is impossible to get good dof with a single shot. At x1 the dof at f16 is only about 2mm, and also, diffraction means that lenses do not give the best results at small apertures.
That is why focus stacking is a useful technique for macro. You can shoot at f5.6 or f8, giving better lens performance, shorter exposure times, and unlimited dof. I started using this method a few years ago, here is an example of what you can do:

 

[garuda]

I love your technical terminology!
And getting body axis on the focal plane is particularly challenging in my OVER-GROWN tomato garden. I can't even get in there to pick tomatoes, let alone maneuver around to get the best shot angle. So, I must accept the blurs and softness. At least I'm getting the bug's head in focus (mostly), since I installed the new firmware update for Moth-Eye AF. .... Well, maybe that's not exactly true.

 

[garuda]

.... and insects have so many sticky out bits .....

Although “sticky out bits” does serve as an adequate description for the insect parts, I feel we have a moral obligation to our forum members to use the scientific name used by professional entomologists for properly naming these “sticky-out-bits”: Appendectomies.

 

[Kevriano]

Although “sticky out bits” does serve as an adequate description for the insect parts, I feel we have a moral obligation to our forum members to use the scientific name used by professional entomologists for properly naming these “sticky-out-bits”: Appendectomies.

Out-of-focussy Bits

 

[garuda]

Although “sticky out bits” does serve as an adequate description for the insect parts, I feel we have a moral obligation to our forum members to use the scientific name used by professional entomologists for properly naming these “sticky-out-bits”: Appendectomies.

Okay.... my futile attempt at malapropism didn't work well this time. I couldn't think of a word closer to "appendages" which may have made it work better. Oh well....

So Kev.... we'll stick with your apt tech term "Out-of-focussy Bits" from now on. Besides, it actually describes the issue better.

 

[Kevriano]

Okay.... my futile attempt at malapropism didn't work well this time. I couldn't think of a word closer to "appendages" which may have made it work better. Oh well....

So Kev.... we'll stick with your apt tech term "Out-of-focussy Bits" from now on. Besides, it actually describes the issue better.

Appendicies

 

[garuda]

Appendicies

You got it! Upstaged again. No matter how hard we Americans try, we simply cannot out-dance you guys from the UK. ...... I give up.

 

[garuda]

The problem with macro photography is that it is impossible to get good dof with a single shot.....

View attachment 11074

Hi Alan, I'm not so sure I agree w you. After seeing the dragon shots by Kevriano (Kev) and WeeMalky (Malcolm) — I'll have to say they have successfully discovered the workaround for close-up/macro shots of insects. Their DOFs are quite impressive IMO. In fact, if THEIR DOFs were any deeper or IQ sharper, they would have to resort to an alternative universe. That's how sharp their IQs are on their dargons, IMO.

Check out the dragon shots of these two guys on either the Macro or Wildlife genres. I think you'll change your mind that DoFs are impossible w single shot images vs focus stacking being the only solution.

In fact, the real acid test might be to compare your praying mantis shot (which you used "focus stacking" on), with Kev's and Malcolm's dragons. These guys have figured out how to shoot the bugs. You and I both can likely learn a lot from them. Check them out and let me know what you think. Then maybe I'll switch to focus stacking, who knows?

Here's a sample of Kev: (This is a copy of Kev's copy, so isn't quite as good as his original; so see his & Malcolm's Originals)

 

[Alan Clark]

Garuda, you really can't compare Malcolm's dragons with my mantis. Look at his first dragon. Unlike my mantis, the dragon does not fill the frame, it is actually very small in the frame, so not strictly macro, which will give a very much greater dof. But despite that, the wing tips are out of focus!

More Bugs & Butterflies taken 4/7/21 in a local meadow in Ayrshire Scotland

www.alphashooters.com

As for Kev's dragon, the magnification is still far less than x1, and although it is all in focus, the only way that he was able to achieve it is by carefully positioning the camera so that the subject is all in the focal plane. If he had attempted to photograph it head-on then the head and tail would certainly not have both been in focus.

I can assure you that there is no way to get my mantis shot entirely in focus with a single shot.

And another thing. With focus stacking, you can shoot at f2.8 if you want, so you can throw the background even more out-of-focus, which would arguably have benefited some of Malcolm's shots.

 

[garuda]

Garuda, you really can't compare Malcolm's dragons with my mantis....

First, before risking a launch into a bloody combat, I want preface w this. I am only discussing method or technique used to produce these highly-focused photos by Kev and Malcolm. I am NOT in any way pitting your shooting skills against theirs. Let me emphasis this again. This is ONLY about capture techniques for IQ and DOF and NOT about people or personalities.

When I implied that these guys’ techniques may contradict the focus-stacking technique only in terms of DOF (while IQ also comes along for the ride), I’m not saying these guys are necessarily more skillful than you, but rather their workaround technique seems to contradict your claim about “stacking” being the only solution for DOF. (by comparing the best images on both sides of the fence).

The goal here is for everybody to determine together the best techniques to max both DOF and IQ. We are NOT trying to determine who is the best DOF guru, or IQ guru. But rather which technique might be best to achieve the desired outcome using either technique. We’re pitting “techniques” here, not personal skills. This understanding may avoid bloodshed.

And let’s remember now, Tim Mayo hates it when we get his forum software model wet with that red stuff, because when it eventually dries then the software pointers/address registers get sticky and forum navigation becomes slow and sloppy.

Back on point now. Carefully check out these three pics by K and M. And tell me what you think of the images in terms of DOF and IQ. I’ve zoomed and filled the frames just as did you w the mantis.

And let’s not be splitting hairs on definitions over words like macro and close-ups. If we compare images that are roughly the same size, what does it matter whether they’re captured with a tele, a macro, ext tubes, or a microscope. All we’re looking for is DOF primarily, and focus IQ thru the DOF range.

I can assure you that there is no way to get my mantis shot entirely in focus with a single shot.....

As soon as I can locate a mantis, I'm going to use the single-shot technique and post the results here to stem the controversy.
And I might be wrong... who knows. But shot perpendicular at 600 w ample light at f/13 (or f/22 if necessary), I think it can be done.
.
Check these out and compare: (remember, these are copies of copies, not the originals)

 

[Alan Clark]

Garuda, don't worry, I am not trying to start a fight. My first post in this thread was to point out how the OP could have dealt with the faults that he points out in his own photos. The photos that you point to on other threads are very, good, I would have been proud of them, but focus stacking can give results that are impossible by any other method. At 0.5x at f16 the dof is only about 5mm, and focus stacking is the only method that can give you more dof, that is why people use this technique. Of course, it also involves more work and is more difficult, so it might not appeal to everyone.

 

[garuda]

.... The photos that you point to on other threads are very, good, I would have been proud of them, but focus stacking can give results that are impossible by any other method....

(Short version) To say that Kev & Malcolm's images could be better, maybe it's simpler to merely forget the mantis, and have you shoot a dragon w Stacking so I can put it against the K & M images for comparison.

And pls don't lose sight of the issue here: "Good DOF is impossible w single shot." I've already seen it done by K-M. That's the extent of my argument — and NOT whether Stacking can do it slightly better. Your word "Impossible" is what kicked this off, not the merits of Stacking.

At 0.5x at f16 the dof is only about 5mm, and focus stacking is the only method that can give you more dof......

I doubt I can challenge this claim because I'm neither knowledgeable about DoF, nor Stacking. As for DoF, my calculator claims that my Riv and 135 GM set at f/11 has a DoF of 4 inches @ 5.9 feet from subject (portrait distance) (CoC=.0290mm). That's 2 inches in front and 2 inches behind the focal plane. And granted, a long lens can do some strange stuff, with or without an Ext Tube. So pls steer me to the DoF calc you are using to get 5mm at f/16. And what is your "0.5x" based on? My interest in this aspect is merely to fine-tune my own knowledge of DoF.

But I still contend, K & M's DoF looks pretty darn good to me, based merely on the 3 pics in the above post. And we haven't even seen their best work at capturing cracking dragon shots until they're sober. That may even surpass Stacking IQ. Although Malcolm slipped up a bit by displaying his bottle of "magic sauce" earlier. So maybe it'll go the other way. .......

 

[garuda]

Garuda, don't worry.....

Alan, I keep forgetting what camera stuff you have.

Try this if you like.

 

[Alan Clark]

(Short version) To say that Kev & Malcolm's images could be better, maybe it's simpler to merely forget the mantis, and have you shoot a dragon w Stacking so I can put it against the K & M images for comparison.

And pls don't lose sight of the issue here: "Good DOF is impossible w single shot." I've already seen it done by K-M. That's the extent of my argument — and NOT whether Stacking can do it slightly better. Your word "Impossible" is what kicked this off, not the merits of Stacking.


I doubt I can challenge this claim because I'm neither knowledgeable about DoF, nor Stacking. As for DoF, my calculator claims that my Riv and 135 GM set at f/11 has a DoF of 4 inches @ 5.9 feet from subject (portrait distance) (CoC=.0290mm). That's 2 inches in front and 2 inches behind the focal plane. And granted, a long lens can do some strange stuff, with or without an Ext Tube. So pls steer me to the DoF calc you are using to get 5mm at f/16. And what is your "0.5x" based on? My interest in this aspect is merely to fine-tune my own knowledge of DoF.

But I still contend, K & M's DoF looks pretty darn good to me, based merely on the 3 pics in the above post. And we haven't even seen their best work at capturing cracking dragon shots until they're sober. That may even surpass Stacking IQ. Although Malcolm slipped up a bit by displaying his bottle of "magic sauce" earlier. So maybe it'll go the other way. .......

Garuda, please look at the dof table here:

Depth of Field in Depth! - Bob Atkins Photography

www.bobatkins.com

Note how dof at f16 is a mere 1.6mm at life size, but if you reduce the magnification to 1/4 then dof is increased by a factor of TEN to 16mm, and at 1/6 magnification it increases to 33.6mm.

So you cannot compare macro photography at around x1 of the moths, with mere close-up photography of dragons at a modest fraction of life size. The difference of dof is so great that everything changes substantially. It is a lot easier to get good dof on the dragons than with the much smaller moths.

 

[garuda]

......focus stacking can give results that are impossible by any other method. At 0.5x at f16 the dof is only about 5mm, and focus stacking is the only method that can give you more dof,....

Alan, according to Bob Aktins website per the URL you gave me, Atkins' calculator computed my camera and 135mm GM at 6 feet from subject at f/11 results in a DOF of 5.811 inches --- a bit wider DOF than the 4 inches that I told you my calculator rendered. My reflected this below:

.... As for DoF, my calculator claims that my Riv and 135 GM set at f/11 has a DoF of 4 inches @ 5.9 feet from subject (portrait distance) (CoC=.0290mm). That's 2 inches in front and 2 inches behind the focal plane.

This where I stated my calculator reflected that my cam & 135mm GM lens at 6-feet from subject results in a DOF of 4 inches

So pls steer me to the DoF calc you are using to get 5mm at f/16. And what is your "0.5x" based on? My interest in this aspect is merely to fine-tune my own knowledge of DoF.

I then asked for your DOF calculator source that results in DOF equaling 5mm at f/16. You replied this (below):

Garuda, please look at the dof table here:

Depth of Field in Depth! - Bob Atkins Photography

www.bobatkins.com

Note how dof at f16 is a mere 1.6mm at life size, but if you reduce the magnification to 1/4 then dof is increased by a factor of TEN to 16mm, and at 1/6 magnification it increases to 33.6mm.....

I then went to Bob Atkins' website and used his DOF calculator to compute the same numbers I told you earlier. And low and behold, Atkins' calculator put the DOF at 5.811 inches (for the same values I used to calculate the 4 inches of DOF. See the documentation below:

Am I missing something here? Is one of us doing the calculation wrong? See below please.

 

[garuda]

I don't see anywhere to enter a signature on the drop-down panel.


View attachment 11210

Alan, please remove this post from this thread, for fear it might confuse others. You have only screen-copied part of the thread of instructions and it will leave others "hanging" if they try to use this partial image. Nobody else seems to have problems with this link, as far as I know. So something must have gone wrong in linking to it.

And lastly, our conversation seems to be going nowhere. You are certainly welcome to reply to my last post, but after that I'm not sure it will be productive w any further exchange ref DOF. But I did enjoy our chat thus far.

 

[Alan Clark]

Garuda, I have removed my earlier post, as you requested.

Regarding dof, There are two things to remember:
1. The result of the calculation depends on the size of the circle of confusion, ie how much out-of-focus you allow. Different people use different values.
2. As you know, wide-angle lenses give very much more dof than long lenses. However, this is only true at large distances, with macro shots the difference disappears. At x1 a 50mm macro will give virtually the same dof as a 200mm macro.

I expect this explains the differences in your calculations.

I agree that our discussion has reached the end of the rails, so I am happy for it to end here.