Is it me or my equipment?

[Boo]

Ok, I think I know the answer to that one

However, I could do with understanding a little more of the effect of zoom lenses compared to prime. My sigma 70-300mm lens has macro on it and whether I use a tripod or not, nothing seems to be in focus. I even use MU with the tripod but its still not right.

I've tried small apertures, large apertures, fast shutter speeds, slow shutter speeds, different focal lengths even wide angle, macro, non macro, with and without closeup diopter, shooting outside, inside, used tripod and handheld. I'm flumuxed.

I would post some pictures but binned them all in frustration. My first shots - my flowers are the only ones I can give examples of

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=69700

When I see those compared to pictures like these:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=69118

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=766899#post766899

I'm blown away by how pathetic mine are!

Bazz777 - there is nothing out of focus with his shots and the fantastic limited DOF on Zarozina's images along with fantastic colour and 3D effect of both just blows me away.

I can't figure out what it is I'm doing wrong. Its probably a combination of things I know but I'm left feeling very bereft.

Until I know what it is I'm doing wrong I cant correct it.

I don't know if its the lens, but when I used it with my old F80 my images had so much more punch and jumped out at you. (used slide)

Its either that or I've not got used to seeing RAW images in digital. Are they really that inferior before you process them? :shrug:

Is it my inexperience with processing RAW or even the lighting?

I'm so sorry to moan, its just that every time I think I've got it, things go downhill and I end up more confused!

I know I'm a girl (well, 30 something is a bit old for girl lol) but I do have a good technical head. I'm the first to figure out how something works without using the manual. But this if making me feel like a right dippy mare I must say and thats not acceptable :nono:

Where do I start?

 

[foodpoison]

I would suggest getting further away. The whole flower will never be completely in focus if you're right close up.
The Sigma 70-300 can have some good photos taken, it takes a LOT of patience though.

 

[mmcp42]

the second one in your linked flower thread is nicely sharp
as someone said at the time, it's a bit flat, but post processing would lift that

it just needs a bit of practice
don't put yourself down, there's hordes here ready to do that

do post some - even the failures
so we can perhaps nudge you in the right direction!

 

[RobertP]

Just looked at your first link but I'll reply here

First flower shot has a wide aperture where the lens will show any softness and you will have a shallow depth of field that doesn't leave much in focus.

Second flower shot exif says f25 or somesuch.... which will give you as much depth of field as possible but sends the lens into its other problem area - diffraction, and that will again cause softness.

Going by the numbers in the exif you are shooting these in not a lot of light which will make it even harder to get things sharp.

Try again in good strong light and use aperture priority to run through a range of apertures from say f8 to f16 on the same shot. Compare the results and you should be able to find the sharpest aperture for your lens. If you are in direct sunlight you could always make diffuse light with thin white cloth or tissue held above.

keep experimenting

 

[Boo]

I would suggest getting further away. The whole flower will never be completely in focus if you're right close up.
The Sigma 70-300 can have some good photos taken, it takes a LOT of patience though.

I understand what your saying and you're right maybe I'm trying to be too clever and need to back away. My issue is that there doesn't seem to be ANY area that is in sharp focus.

As far as patience is concerned.... I'm in verrrrrry short supply. Although, I am tenacious - extremely, so although I may lose it, arms up in air and storm off, I can't resist coming back to try it again 'cause I hate to be beaten. :bang:

Trouble is I want to chill and not get wound up lol! I think its the Irish coming out in me

When you say it takes a lot of patience, does that mean its not an ideal lens or just a difficult one to be starting with?

the second one in your linked flower thread is nicely sharp
as someone said at the time, it's a bit flat, but post processing would lift that

Funny, compared to the links my picture looks harsh and out of focus in areas despite a small aperture.

If someone could do something with it to show me, it might give me and inkling how far I can push processing? Or even a hint for softer lighting

 

[pearce_jj]

w.r.t your first point (zoom vs prime), it's easier to design a lens which has a fixed focal length and they tend to have less elements, which is probably why they often tend to have better image quality.

That's not to say there aren't brilliant zooms, because there are plenty, but primes are often a lot cheaper for the same IQ and tend to have faster appertures. 50mm/1.8 being the "prime" example of course....

 

[digitalmaniac]

even though its a 70-300 macro that isnt neccesarily any good for close ups. i have a 70-200 macro-which limits focus to 1 metre and a flower isnt going to be big enough in the frame.

To do proper macro you need a lens with a good minimum focus like 1 foot or so.

Maybe your just too far away.

Also remember if its windy even on a tripod you will need a fairly fast shutter speed to get the image frozen if its moving even slightly.

 

[allanm]

The 70-300 is a good lens and macro shots should be quite sharp, but, you will need to adjust them to get the best image.
I think with the yellow flower, you have done well, but have also chosen a difficult subject, its hard to get a focus point that leads the eye on all those petals as they all look the same. You will notice the other pictures you referred to had the stamens as the focal point, seeing these sharp guides your eye to them and you dont really notice the petals are a little out of focus.
Also, they are probably using a dedicated macro lens.
But, don`t despair, a little judicial sharpening and colour boosting will give you more punch.
I have adjusted your first photo in Photoshop. Sharpened and curves adjusted, see if it looks any better. I am learning too, so I am sure it could be much better if you spend a little more time with it.

and your original

Hope this helps and I hope you dont mind that I adjusted your image.

Warwick eh? I used to live by Warwick University ! Nice part of the world.

Allan

 

[RobertP]

One further thought. I've never has a Sigma 70-300 so I don't really know.. but it seems like a budget lens and unlikely to be at its best at macro.

Have you tried a normal range lens (something that can do 50mm)? You don't always need macro for flower shots.

 

[Boo]

Just looked at your first link but I'll reply here

First flower shot has a wide aperture where the lens will show any softness and you will have a shallow depth of field that doesn't leave much in focus.

Second flower shot exif says f25 or somesuch.... which will give you as much depth of field as possible but sends the lens into its other problem area - diffraction, and that will again cause softness.

Going by the numbers in the exif you are shooting these in not a lot of light which will make it even harder to get things sharp.

Try again in good strong light and use aperture priority to run through a range of apertures from say f8 to f16 on the same shot. Compare the results and you should be able to find the sharpest aperture for your lens. If you are in direct sunlight you could always make diffuse light with thin white cloth or tissue held above.

keep experimenting

I like a limited DOF and the beautiful effects you get from it, but right now I think its too close for my experience.

I thought I'd got adequate lighting with a halogen light shining through tracing paper but obviously not, and despite that my images looks harsh compared to the examples of others. so how do they get such soft lighting but gaining enough light for decent exposure?

What you say about finding the sharpest aperture for the lens is a good idea and I'll try that thanks.

Yes... keep experimenting, I won't beable to switch off until I've figured it out!

 

[Boo]

One further thought. I've never has a Sigma 70-300 so I don't really know.. but it seems like a budget lens and unlikely to be at its best at macro.

Have you tried a normal range lens (something that can do 50mm)? You don't always need macro for flower shots.

My other lens is a D mount AF Nikor 28-80mm lens. You think I should have a play with that instead?

 

[RobertP]

why not?

 

[Boo]

why not?

Ok, will give that a bash but I warn you, brace yourself, I might come running

 

[stylgeo]

well, here's my 2 cents on this subject. Even though i am not an expert on flower photography I used to have that lens and I might be able to give some help on that matter.

First of all avoid using that lens on its telephoto end. It's a LOT sharper at 200-230mm than at 300mm. You can still use your macro switch on the lens since it's from 200-300mm right? So, fill your frame with your subject at 200-230mm and try the advice with different apertures as posted before. Somewhere between f/8 and f/16 is ideal on this lens but not smaller than that.

I tried finding a "macro" photo from when I had the lens, I could only find one from a disgusting little slug eating a berry, so sorry about the subject but it shows that the lens is capable of producing quite sharp, if not the sharpest photos. Only with correct technique though.
This is the photo

And this is a 100% crop from that photo.

This was taken at 214mm, f/14, shutterspeed of 1/8 sec, tripod, remote shutter, mirror lock-up.

I know it's not a really good photo, that's why it was hidden somewhere in my hard disk.

As for making nice-looking photos, or to achieve that 3D look you are after, well, it's all about lighting. If not for good lighting techniques then all your photos will look like holiday snaps.
Why not investing in a flash unit, so you can use bounce flash to light your subjects? Or why not invest in a wireless system for two flashes. I know I've seen tremendously better results when I decided to invest in a wireless two flash setup. You can always use a couple of desk lamps with some diffusers, carefully positioned to where it's better suited for your subject. Remember, if you are able to combine the day light from an open window, it can always give you pleasing results.

Have a read at this page. The lighting 101 is really brilliant.

 

[Boo]

Your a gem, Stylgeo. Your input is really useful. Yes your example is gross but I've NEVER seen a slug eating before

It shows me the potential with the lens at least, even if it means I buy a dedicated macro at some point. I'd be interested what you moved onto after this lens Would I be better getting an dedicated macro that gives 'easier' results?

It helps to know what I'm working with, I've just got to find that ideal working range. Thanks everso.

 

[Boo]

The 70-300 is a good lens and macro shots should be quite sharp, but, you will need to adjust them to get the best image.
I think with the yellow flower, you have done well, but have also chosen a difficult subject, its hard to get a focus point that leads the eye on all those petals as they all look the same. You will notice the other pictures you referred to had the stamens as the focal point, seeing these sharp guides your eye to them and you dont really notice the petals are a little out of focus.
Also, they are probably using a dedicated macro lens.
But, don`t despair, a little judicial sharpening and colour boosting will give you more punch.
I have adjusted your first photo in Photoshop. Sharpened and curves adjusted, see if it looks any better. I am learning too, so I am sure it could be much better if you spend a little more time with it.

and your original

Hope this helps and I hope you dont mind that I adjusted your image.

Warwick eh? I used to live by Warwick University ! Nice part of the world.

Allan

Yeah that looks way much better than my effort! A step by step on what you did might be asking too much eh!

I've only got PSE 4 and camera RAW, or Rawthereapee. I wonder if I'd better off with the full version of PS.

Thanks for your help.

 

[stylgeo]

I'm really glad I could help. With some patience you will achieve what you are after i am sure.

Well, I sold that one to buy the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, which is a HUGE improvement but not quite what you are after for macro work. It's a big lens, at around 3kg and the price is a 4 figure number. I bought it for wildlife actually since the 70-300 was as I said before not sharp enough at the long end it's quite slow, both on AF speed and on aperture.

I was looking on buying a dedicated macro lens. i've read some great reviews on the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro. They say that it's actually sharper than the Canon 100mm macro. So i would go for either that one or the Sigma 150mm Macro. A dedicated macro lens is great and always gives much better results than zooms with a "macro" feature. But for flowers i am sure you can get the results you are after for now with the lens you've got!

George

 

[Boo]

Thanks again George, your comments have got me wondering what is the best of both worlds when it comes to working distance vs potential camera shake. I've heard that up to 100mm you can use hand held but anything after that you need a tripod.. is that correct?

4 figure number eh....OUCH!

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

Ok, I think I know the answer to that one

However, I could do with understanding a little more of the effect of zoom lenses compared to prime.

The main difference is a true macro lens (1:1) is usually a prime lens, most if not all zoom macro lens’s are not True macro - the Sigma 70-300 is 1:2.

Looking at the exif data of your posted shot and presuming you were at the minimum focus distance for macro on your lens the settings used would give you minimal DOF

Subject distance 95 cm (minimum focus distance for macro on the 70-300)


Depth of field
Near limit 94.9 cm
Far limit 95.1 cm
Total 0.16 cm

In front of subject 0.08 cm (50%)
Behind subject 0.08 cm (50%)


Also try framing the flowers so you are slightly looking down into the flower rather than straight on have a look here for an idea the exif data is intact for the pic's,

 

[allanm]

Yeah that looks way much better than my effort! A step by step on what you did might be asking too much eh!

I've only got PSE 4 and camera RAW, or Rawthereapee. I wonder if I'd better off with the full version of PS.

Thanks for your help.

I used Photoshop CS9, but remember, I adjusted your already adjusted lower resolution image.
First, I changed the image mode from RGB to LAB colour then slightly adjusted the curves ( Lightness, a and b channels) Then I selected the lightness channel which gave me a mono image. I sharpened that using unsharp mask, selected the colour channel then converted it back to RGB.
Curves is only available on PS, not elements, I think, and is very versatile, especially if you get a good book ( Photoshop Lab Colour by Margulis)

You could get the same and better results using camera raw.

As for the Sigma lens, mine was very sharp, but did get a little softer towards 300mm, use it as Stylgeo suggested and get good lighting and definately use a tripod.

This was a raw file taken with my Sigma 70-300 APO on a Nikon D200 at 300mm ( still sharp though at F5.6), 1/60s at f5.6 on a tripod and using flash, adjusted in camera raw, dont remember the settings though

Allan