pizzano
Cave Dweller 
Member since February 2018
Posts: 1,390
|
Post by pizzano on Mar 22, 2019 15:34:04 GMT -5
Been practicing with the new (older) Nikon.......and the old 28-80mm, F/3.5-5.6 lens........Have come to a conclusion, reproductions with this lens are "as good as it's gonna get" without photo-shopping.....!
Lens will not focus (in manual or auto) settings as well as it could......Discovered this when using a friends high end 28-80mm on my D7000 at my grandson's BD party Sunday. Although, I have not used his lens for macro, just indoor stills at the party, now having compared the results of both lenses........what a difference.....Like I didn't know that anyway.....lol
Anyway, here's a few shots of a Quartz specimen (used it since Quartz is difficult to shoot)........played with the white balance during shooting and cropped, no other refinements.....and a tripod this time under my normal lighting set-up.
The lens works fine for decent lighting settings and everyday stuff........but in order to get better macro without shopping the results, looks like I'm gonna need to save up........at least I think I'm on the right track now......love the camera. |
|
|
|
Post by fernwood on Mar 23, 2019 3:40:26 GMT -5
Nice quartz. Some details look good to me.
|
|
fuss
spending too much on rocks
Member since October 2018
Posts: 258
|
Post by fuss on Mar 23, 2019 9:12:56 GMT -5
"Have come to a conclusion, reproductions with this lens are "as good as it's gonna get" without photo-shopping.....!"
with that said, what is it you want to improve? magnification? overall image quality? I think those shots are pretty decent, adding a diffuser to the light source and increasing the output would brighten it up and smooth out the reflections.
|
|
pizzano
Cave Dweller
Member since February 2018
Posts: 1,390
|
Post by pizzano on Mar 23, 2019 10:09:14 GMT -5
"Have come to a conclusion, reproductions with this lens are "as good as it's gonna get" without photo-shopping.....!" with that said, what is it you want to improve? magnification? overall image quality? I think those shots are pretty decent, adding a diffuser to the light source and increasing the output would brighten it up and smooth out the reflections. I'm looking for a little more "sharpness" and depth definition........having since spoken to a couple of photo buddies, all of you have suggested increasing the light output source. Diffuser may be a good idea also. I'll look into those suggestions. I'm really trying to accomplish this without the aid of software refinements, and not pushing the budget with the purchase of a high end lens........although a primary macro lens is what I'm leaning towards eventually.
Since I did not take these pic's in a RAW format, everything was JPEG fine and 3696 x 2448, 300dpi and 24bit depth, it has been also suggested I try RAW and increase the ratio to large, then convert and crop to JPEG............That will be my next set-up.
Thanks for the input........That's exactly why I posted the pic's, to get feedback.....as a few here know, I'm new at this type of photography. Any observations are appreciated.....!
|
|
pizzano
Cave Dweller
Member since February 2018
Posts: 1,390
|
Post by pizzano on Mar 23, 2019 10:20:25 GMT -5
Nice quartz. Some details look good to me. Thank You fernwood........"some" details are what I'm trying to iron out.........I'm looking for more over-all detail while still focusing on the major "point of interest".........! |
|
|
|
Post by aDave on Mar 23, 2019 19:23:14 GMT -5
Joe pizzano, from what I recall from an earlier batch of photos, the focus for this group didn't wander and pick up part of the rock you didn't want to highlight. Are you manually focusing or using a single point with auto-focus? These are much better. The only way to increase your depth of field would be to "stop down" (make smaller) the aperture on your lens. But, for that, you'll need more light as you already identified. I think you're on the right track. :thumsup |
|
pizzano
Cave Dweller
Member since February 2018
Posts: 1,390
|
Post by pizzano on Mar 23, 2019 20:57:28 GMT -5
Thanks for that info Dave........I was in an auto focus/manual app & WB setting.....everything that turned out like what I posted had F/4.0, ISO btw 200 and 400. The shutter speed set automatically......agree, more light would help bring down the F/, but the lens limit is 3.5........focus with this lens is touchy in manual, in auto I must give the camera a little time to think about it, then trigger (that lens is not very snappy). Now that I have figured that out, I'll work on lighting, file size and type.
Appreciate your input........I'll eventually purchase a primary macro with an F/2.8.....until then I'll keep refining......at least I'm happy with the camera and the difference it is making with the lack of macro photography skills I started with.......lol |
|
fuss
spending too much on rocks
Member since October 2018
Posts: 258
|
Post by fuss on Mar 23, 2019 22:09:59 GMT -5
If your on a budget regarding camera equipment, a reverse macro kit can be had for under $100. You need a reverse ring adapter and a prime lens like the 50mm 1.8. Google it for more info. I think though more important than a macro lens is a speed light flash. You can find a good one for under $75 new check out yongnuo series on amazon, I have 3 of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by aDave on Mar 23, 2019 23:26:47 GMT -5
Thanks for that info Dave........I was in an auto focus/manual app & WB setting.....everything that turned out like what I posted had F/4.0, ISO btw 200 and 400. The shutter speed set automatically......agree, more light would help bring down the F/, but the lens limit is 3.5........focus with this lens is touchy in manual, in auto I must give the camera a little time to think about it, then trigger (that lens is not very snappy). Now that I have figured that out, I'll work on lighting, file size and type.
Appreciate your input........I'll eventually purchase a primary macro with an F/2.8.....until then I'll keep refining......at least I'm happy with the camera and the difference it is making with the lack of macro photography skills I started with.......lol Joe, your aperture actually gets smaller with the larger numbers on the lens. At f3.5, your aperture would be wide open. Sure it allows more light in, but it makes your depth of field razor thin. Conversely, at something like f22, (or whatever your highest f-stop number is, the aperture is at its smallest. Sure, your depth of field would be deeper, but you would need alot more light to overcome such a small aperture size. You can compensate a bit by bumping up the ISO, but you increase the chance for more "noise" in your photo(s). Hope that makes sense. Keep playing. Maybe take your ISO to 1000 or so and see what happens. If you can manually set your aperture, then the camera will automatically select the shutter speed. Good luck. |
|
