My first macro attempts

[mjh96701]

These are my first attempts at macro photography. Suggestions for improvement are always welcome.

• ILCE-6600
• 105mm F2.8 DG DN MACRO | Art 020
• 105.0 mm
• ƒ/11
• 1/160 sec
• ISO 1250

• ILCE-6600
• 105mm F2.8 DG DN MACRO | Art 020
• 105.0 mm
• ƒ/11
• 1/160 sec
• ISO 2500

• ILCE-6600
• 105mm F2.8 DG DN MACRO | Art 020
• 105.0 mm
• ƒ/11
• 1/160 sec
• ISO 1600

• ILCE-6600
• 105mm F2.8 DG DN MACRO | Art 020
• 105.0 mm
• ƒ/11
• 1/160 sec
• ISO 1250

• ILCE-6600
• 105mm F2.8 DG DN MACRO | Art 020
• 105.0 mm
• ƒ/11
• 1/160 sec
• ISO 2500

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Hi mike,
Not bad attempts as a newbie to Macro.

i note you were at f11 for these shots and whilst that is not too problematic given the subjects you have chosen do not have much background ..... there is a balance to achieve Between the sweet spot for your lens between f5.6-8.0 to sharpen your foreground subject and the proximity of your background and sharpness of it at higher f numbers creating distraction from your main foreground subject. Ideally you want to try to create bokeh/blur your background where it is not an integral part of your foreground subject.....

The sharpness of your foreground subject will also tend to diminish as you move beyond the lens sweet spot and whilst you will get a benefit of a higher depth of field and more of your foreground subject will be sharp it will be A marginal depth of field increase beyond f8 And in the extreme lens diffraction will kick in around f16-22 Leading to image softness in any event.......

bottom line, most macro shooters will tend to shoot at f8 for this lens,your iso seems high also so I can only guess you were shooting with natural light and not with flash.........

the above would be the only improvement suggestion I would make at this early stage as your images are certainly not bad ....

 

[mjh96701]

Hi mike,
Not bad attempts as a newbie to Macro.

i note you were at f11 for these shots and whilst that is not too problematic given the subjects you have chosen do not have much background ..... there is a balance to achieve Between the sweet spot for your lens between f5.6-8.0 to sharpen your foreground subject and the proximity of your background and sharpness of it at higher f numbers creating distraction from your main foreground subject. Ideally you want to try to create bokeh/blur your background where it is not an integral part of your foreground subject.....

The sharpness of your foreground subject will also tend to diminish as you move beyond the lens sweet spot and whilst you will get a benefit of a higher depth of field and more of your foreground subject will be sharp it will be A marginal depth of field increase beyond f8 And in the extreme lens diffraction will kick in around f16-22 Leading to image softness in any event.......

bottom line, most macro shooters will tend to shoot at f8 for this lens,your iso seems high also so I can only guess you were shooting with natural light and not with flash.........

the above would be the only improvement suggestion I would make at this early stage as your images are certainly not bad ....

Thanks for the guidance. I noticed the high ISO also. I was using a flash with a diffuser, but had the flash in manual and set at 1/128 power. I think I needed to add more flash to bring the ISO down or put the ISO at 100 and adjust flash power to compensate. Plus opening uo to f/8 as you suggested might also help the ISO. Still learning, thanks.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Agree they are not bad first attempts. However, I disagree about using a larger aperture (f8 insted of f11). In fact, my advice is the exact opposite. In all of these shots except the last one, there is not enough depth of field which means you need a smaller aperture to get more in focus. In my opinion, f16 or f18 or even f20 would yield better results. In my personal experience, the degradation from shooting at or near smallest aperture is minimal. In the case of these shots, the apparent sharpness from increased depth of field would outweigh any loss of shaprness from diffraction.

So you have two opinions here (and likely more to come). The only way to know what works best is to experiment. Since these are all static subjects, it would be easy to shoot each one at a series of apertures and compare the results. Then you will know what works best for you.

The ultimate solution if you get serious about macro is to use focus stacking (in which case you could shoot at f8). However, that's a more advanced technique that requires specific software to complete. If you are serious about macro (with subjects that don't move) that may be something to look into.

Finally I am not sure your flash at 1/128 power is doing anything, especially with a diffuser. If it is a traditional flash mounted on top of the camera, it is likely unable to cover the bottom of the subject at these close distances (even with a diffuser). You need a lens-mount (or dual side mount) macro-specific flash setup, which you may or may not have (you did not specify).

 

[mjh96701]

Agree they are not bad first attempts. However, I disagree about using a larger aperture (f8 insted of f11). In fact, my advice is the exact opposite. In all of these shots except the last one, there is not enough depth of field which means you need a smaller aperture to get more in focus. In my opinion, f16 or f18 or even f20 would yield better results. In my personal experience, the degradation from shooting at or near smallest aperture is minimal. In the case of these shots, the apparent sharpness from increased depth of field would outweigh any loss of shaprness from diffraction.

So you have two opinions here (and likely more to come). The only way to know what works best is to experiment. Since these are all static subjects, it would be easy to shoot each one at a series of apertures and compare the results. Then you will know what works best for you.

The ultimate solution if you get serious about macro is to use focus stacking (in which case you could shoot at f8). However, that's a more advanced technique that requires specific software to complete. If you are serious about macro (with subjects that don't move) that may be something to look into.

Finally I am not sure your flash at 1/128 power is doing anything, especially with a diffuser. If it is a traditional flash mounted on top of the camera, it is likely unable to cover the bottom of the subject at these close distances (even with a diffuser). You need a lens-mount (or dual side mount) macro-specific flash setup, which you may or may not have (you did not specify).

Thanks for the input. As far as flash goes, I am trying different things to see how they impact results. Always trying to learn new things. Thanks.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Hi Mike,
Consenting adults are entitled to have differing opinions, and it is
certainly a fact in photography as you are no doubt very aware.

My advice above is based upon maximised sweet spot sharpness within
the available DOF, recognising the diminishing DOF benefit as the aperture
is closed down above 8,for the reasons stated. f11 for sure is a marginal
difference and usable but as you close down further yes the DOF will
increase but also any background will become "sharper" as opposed to
blurred and may distract from your subject....which at the end of the day
magnifying and emphasising your subject is the purpose of Macro.

Increasing the depth of field by stopping down the aperture at a lower image
quality (which is a fact of light physics) may work for some whilst others may
take a different view....the trick is to decide what is important to you as a
Macro photographer as you develop your skill set.

I personally do not know of many macro photographers who routinely shoot
beyond f8 and yes issues such as focus stacking may come into play dependant
upon the nature of your subject and your tolerance to a greater or lower level
of subject sharpness and area covered(or not) of your entire subject.

There is no argument, as Fred indicates, experience will ultimately lead you
along your personal macro journey.

As an aside and one point i did not raise last night is the position of you
camera relative to your subject. Given the low DOF's in Macro any out
of parallel alignment between your camera sensor and your intended subject,
or part thereof, can substantially reduce the DOF in focus area(s).
thereof

 

[mapleleaf56]

Hi Mike
Following on from the above suggestions. I usually have my flash set between 1/4 to 1/16 and aperture between F5 to F11 and iso around 200 to 400..
Those settings usually work well for me..

 

[Brownie]

Looking at some reviews it appears that this lens doesn't suffer much from diffraction at normal apertures. One review shows IQ peaking around f/9 with f/8 and f/11 being virtually identical. Here's an excerpt from another review on camera jabber, the last sentence is very interesting:

Although macro photography traditionally involves using small aperture settings, the Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro Art performs extremely well wide-open. In fact, there seems to be little or no benefit to sharpness if you close the aperture down from f/2.8 to f/4 or f/5.6. The detail is also maintained reasonably well into the corners of the frame, and again, I could see no discernable benefit from closing the aperture down from the maximum setting.

By the time the aperture is closed to f/11, there’s a very slight hint of detail-softening impact of diffraction if you examine images at 100% on-screen. Closing down to f/22 makes the softening more apparent at high magnification, but it’s not a major issue. In fact, when comparing images shot on the 61Mp Sony A7R IV at different apertures, it takes a very keen eye to spot a difference in the central sharpness of an f/22 image and an f/4 or f/2.8 image when they are sized to fill a 27-inch screen.

Since you're using this on an APS-C sensor, you have the added advantage of cutting the deep corners out of the equation.

Link to complete review:

Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro Art Review

Sigma has redesigned it popular 105mm macro lens to suit mirrorless cameras and introduced it in the L and Sony E mounts

camerajabber.com

 

[MrFotoFool]

This is an intersting discussion, not just for the person who started it, but I think for anyone interested in macro. The statements posted made me curious as to how often people do shoot macro at smaller vs larger apertures. My memory made me think a lot of macro shots I have seen published in awards or books were at small apertures like f/16, but memories can be misleading. I did a quick search and found this link to the 27 winning images from the competition Closeup Photographer of the Year 2021: https://newatlas.com/photography/close-up-photography-awards-macro-winners-2021-gallery/#gallery:1 (The gallery has 28 images, but they list the winner twice, so it's really 27).

I admit this is only one small sample and not an exhuastive search. What is interesing is that the apertures are all over the place. Some very large at f2.8 or f4 and some very small at f16 and even f29. What I take away from this is use whatever works for the given situation! Here is the breakdown of the 27 winners:
f2.8 (2 images)
f4 (3 images)
f5.6 (1 image)
f6.3 (3 images)
f7.1 (1 image)
f8 (1 image)
f11 (1 image)
f13 (3 images)
f16 (3 images)
f22 (2 images)
f25 (1 image)
f29 (2 images)
no info (4 images)

 

[Brownie]

As an oddball side note:

I don't shoot much macro. Other than messing around in the backyard my macro is limited to scanning negatives when I develop a roll of film. Because of this my only Macro is the Minolta Maxxum 50/2.8. The shorter FL and smaller aperture don't affect me since the negatives are always backlit with a light table on my copy stand. Indeed, it helps to keep stray ambient light out of the shot since the lens is so close.

Anyway, I read Ken Rockwell's review of the lens after I bought it, and he believes it stops itself down to f/5.5 when it's focused to 1:1. Weird, eh? Although since this was the world's first marketed AF Macro and and the Maxxum was designed so that anyone could shoot an SLR and get great results, it's not surprising they built-in a deeper DOF for the casual user. They did other things too, like program a minimum shutter speed into their automatic mode that was based on whatever lens was mounted, kind of a first attempt at stabilization.

 

[mjh96701]

Wow, such great information from the community. I really appreciated all the mentoring from more experienced photographers and hope that no egos were harmed in my training. Alpha Shooters is definitely a great community group.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Hi Mike
Following on from the above suggestions. I usually have my flash set between 1/4 to 1/16 and aperture between F5 to F11 and iso around 200 to 400..
Those settings usually work well for me..

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

This is an intersting discussion, not just for the person who started it, but I think for anyone interested in macro. The statements posted made me curious as to how often people do shoot macro at smaller vs larger apertures. My memory made me think a lot of macro shots I have seen published in awards or books were at small apertures like f/16, but memories can be misleading. I did a quick search and found this link to the 27 winning images from the competition Closeup Photographer of the Year 2021: https://newatlas.com/photography/close-up-photography-awards-macro-winners-2021-gallery/#gallery:1 (The gallery has 28 images, but they list the winner twice, so it's really 27).

I admit this is only one small sample and not an exhuastive search. What is interesing is that the apertures are all over the place. Some very large at f2.8 or f4 and some very small at f16 and even f29. What I take away from this is use whatever works for the given situation! Here is the breakdown of the 27 winners:
f2.8 (2 images)
f4 (3 images)
f5.6 (1 image)
f6.3 (3 images)
f7.1 (1 image)
f8 (1 image)
f11 (1 image)
f13 (3 images)
f16 (3 images)
f22 (2 images)
f25 (1 image)
f29 (2 images)
no info (4 images)

Hi Fred, further examination of your image samples reveals there are only 13 or so images taken with true macro lenses (including 2/3 objective lenses) most of which utilised FNos below 11. All the other images were taken with 60-600mm, 70-300m, and a fisheye lens or similar non-macro lenses and therefore I am sure you will agree this sample is not representative of the macro principles we were discussing from the outset in this thread.

 

[Alan Clark]

This site has test images for many lenses, as well as MTF graphs. It shows the effect of varying aperture, and how performance varies from centre to edge.

Sony FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Sony FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com