From my trip to Big Walnut Preserve in Indiana, the final week of April. It rained, hard, the day before I was there, so I tried to take advantage of that here. I couldn't get the DOF I wanted with a single shot, even stopping way down, so I resorted to image stacking (nine focus bracketed exposures) using Helicon Focus. I did play around with a polarizer, but did had no effect, so I shot the sequence without it.
D700, 200mm macro, f/8, 1/20, ISO 200 for all exposures
I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from, Kerry. Are you saying you could not get an adequate DOF with THIS image, or with others you tried? It seem to me this is a fairly flat image that wouldn't need any elaborate DOF twaeking. I do like the drops and the monochrome feel to this one, but I'm struggling to understand the DOF issue you mentioned in the OP.
Are you saying you could not get an adequate DOF with THIS image, or with others you tried? It seem to me this is a fairly flat image that wouldn't need any elaborate DOF twaeking.
Brian, I was talking about this image. It's deceptive. Both leaves were arched, in a convex manner. Even in this presentation, if you look closely, the very URC and the extreme LLC are soft. I really wanted to preserve as much detail in the two main leaves--the veins and the water drops--and honestly, as close as I was to the subject with the 200mm lens, with one exposure, even stopping down to f/22 (which was as far as I could go, retain a halfway decent ISO and SS combination), a good 1/3 or more of the combined leaf surface area was clearly soft.
DOF is so shallow at high magnification, you can measure it in millimeters, which is great for blowing out backgrounds and selective focus presentations, but on those occasions when you want to get very close and still have all the details sharp, it's a bear.
Thanks for the response, Kerry, it helps explain a lot. Wow, can't really see the convex arches in the leaves that you are describing. They look rather flat and I'm wondering if this is a situation where the Helicon processing is keeping things crisp, but flattening out the overall image in ways that are difficult to translate organically.
I have experienced the same macro DOF issues you described, and I'm starting to think more about using a longer lens with e-tubes shot from a greater distance from the subject to compensate for the issues you faced in this instance. The answer is situational, obviously, but I've grown weary of trying to get edge to edge sharpness in macro shots, to the point where I'm looking for viable alternatives.
I know where you're coming from, and I appreciate your input here helping me get a better handle on it.
Glad I could help (to the extent that I did ), Brian.
This DOF tradeoff--and what isn't a tradeoff when it comes to photography?--is precisely the reason that I think so many are encouraged to mess around with selective focus techniques, which can often lead to fascinating results themselves.
Not sure what you are trying to show with the image. I like the drops and the detail in the leaves. I would not know they are arched from looking at the post It may come across better in larget format.
Having struggled with this also I know the problem you were having. Maybe if you posted one of the single focus brackets the DOF issue would be clearer. This really did come out very clean with good detail. It must have been a very calm day for you. Any wind would have made you job even harder.
Discussion
7 repliesD700, 200mm macro, f/8, 1/20, ISO 200 for all exposures
Brian, I was talking about this image. It's deceptive. Both leaves were arched, in a convex manner. Even in this presentation, if you look closely, the very URC and the extreme LLC are soft. I really wanted to preserve as much detail in the two main leaves--the veins and the water drops--and honestly, as close as I was to the subject with the 200mm lens, with one exposure, even stopping down to f/22 (which was as far as I could go, retain a halfway decent ISO and SS combination), a good 1/3 or more of the combined leaf surface area was clearly soft.
DOF is so shallow at high magnification, you can measure it in millimeters, which is great for blowing out backgrounds and selective focus presentations, but on those occasions when you want to get very close and still have all the details sharp, it's a bear.
I have experienced the same macro DOF issues you described, and I'm starting to think more about using a longer lens with e-tubes shot from a greater distance from the subject to compensate for the issues you faced in this instance. The answer is situational, obviously, but I've grown weary of trying to get edge to edge sharpness in macro shots, to the point where I'm looking for viable alternatives.
I know where you're coming from, and I appreciate your input here helping me get a better handle on it.
This DOF tradeoff--and what isn't a tradeoff when it comes to photography?--is precisely the reason that I think so many are encouraged to mess around with selective focus techniques, which can often lead to fascinating results themselves.
In the next couple of days I'll see if I can dig up some of the single shots that will hopefully help clarify the DOF problem.