How to detailed close-up photos

[art fog]

This is updated for clarification

I was reading a "how to" in photography here and it was a good article explaining photo sizing, taking the shot etc. but I would like to place a addition because there is a common problem the article did not address.

​

A common problem I have notice on 420 especially w/ close-ups shots of buds etc. is the fuzzy out-of-focus edges of the subject in photos. These edges are the foreground and background of a photo I speak of. Sometimes it is a good thing but if you are going for the detail of a bud w/ thc you can make adjustments that may help.

​

If you want more of the image in focus, more detail and less fuzzy edges there is a simple solution. You can adjust the aperture of your camera which will also adjust the 'depth of field' around the subject you are focusing on.

​

• What is the aperture? That is the part of the lens where the hole gets larger or smaller like the iris of your eyes do when they dilate between light and dark. This diameter of the opening is the entrance for the image into the camera and it can usually be adjusted manually (or if you cannot adjust the aperture you may be able to get a better image by using a tripod and taking a slower speed shot this may fool the camera into reducing the size of the opening). The aperture is inside the lens which opens and closes to different sizes (and speed) This aperture adjustment is usually outside the camera on the sides of your lens known as the f stops or aperture adjustment. Note that w/ some newer cameras this adjustment will be in a menu in the camera. Common f stops are; f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8. f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/16, f/22

​

The problem is called Depth Of Field or DOF Quite simply w/ out going into a elaborate explanation like "circle of confusion", film plane, and all that math etc.

Higher aperture or f stop # = smaller diameter in aperture or less fuzzy
Larger aperture or f stop # = larger diameter in aperture more fuzzy / blurrier around the edges

<<<<< larger opening as # get smaller

f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8. f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/16, f/22

>>>>>> smaller opening as # increases ​

I hope I explained this better if not write me and I can elaborate more.

There is a lot of elaboration about how you get depth of field and for the most part unnecessary babble but if you need to know more because of curiosity well.... go here
Depth of field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Captain Kronic]

Good stuff... make them babies look even better... thanks for sharing!

 

[Bruce Wheelman]

I'll chime in on DOF...that is part of the manual settings I said most people can avoid. By going to"Aperture Control" or full manual settings on a camera, you can increase the DOF by increasing the "f-stop", as art fog indicated. However the issue becomes lighting. As you increase the f-stop you are actually decreasing the opening that lets the light in. The problem is that the f-stop or aperture is tied to the shutter speed. Because you are trying to capture light, the smaller the aperture opening the longer it has to stay opened to get the image. So even with a flash, you may have problems getting the entire image completely clear when shooting macro shots (small field of view so it's hard to get enough light on the subject), due to the length of time a shutter needs to remain open for the high f-stops. A flash and tripod are necessary most of the time. Also with flash, you will be dealing with exposure and white balance/color cast controls.

Lastly, the blurring of the edges in some cases is considered "artistic" and I know I have spent a lot of money to get lenses that have a nice creamy "bokeh".

Just some thoughts.

 

[art fog]

Right on Cyclist. Thanks for the explanation. All of what you said is true. The effects are often aesthetics issues i.e. to blur or not to blur (lengthen or shorten) the foreground. As for the shutter speed the more expensive cameras will separate the shutter from the aperture giving the photographer more control (which I look for in a camera). And decreasing the size of the opening is usually compensated by the speed. But if you can see it you can photograph it even if you need a tripod. Whenever possible, such as the opportunity w/ still life or stationary objects, I like to burn the image doing a longer time exposure because of the detail so I use the smallest opening when possible. It had been difficult for me to understand this subject which is the point of me bringing up the subject. Maybe others will not have to search as much.

 

[art fog]

I forgot to mention one more thing. It is worth the time to set up your own lighting. You can get some great shots w/ stationary object adjusting your lighting instead of relying on existing conditions.

 

[Bruce Wheelman]

Art - agreed and much appreciated. This is a great topic for photographers and those inspiring to get better IQ, but without too much stereotyping, most of the people reading this (ie my target audience) fall more into the category of "how do I get the pictures off my camera" or "what do the pictures (icons) mean on the little settings wheel thing?" photographers. Seems like there are a few out there that understand composition and exposure, but most are "point and shooters".

One of the biggest problems I tend to run into with the longer shutter speeds is the lack of fine detail that my macro lenses can pick up. I can post process and add sharpness, but there is something about the razor sharp clarity a quality macro lens can produce. At least for prints...for Inter-web stuff, probably more impressive to use your suggestion.

Another thing to help out for longer shutter speeds...use a remote control or time delayed shutter release - even the best tripod/head units will flex slightly when you depress the shutter button - producing movement and blurring your image.

 

[art fog]

detail rexamined

All good points and I do often use time delay for the reasons you pointed out. My last macro lens I used w/ the old SRT 101 Minolta. The Sony Zeiss *T 62 mm is a very clear lens w/ the alpha body has a high enough resolution to pick up the detail I need (w/ out too much photoshop). If I go any further I start to get too involved because of the room to play for now I have enough on my palette w/ the project at hand. I mostly use the camera for art or art related things. I am not that much into nature shots lately but still I can get involved at anytime. Talk w/ you later - I going out w/ my dogs because this is the first break of good spring weather. You enjoy.

 

[Bruce Wheelman]

I have the gear - my macro lenses are the Canon 100/2.8 L and 180/3.5 L and both a crop body (T2i &7D) and FF (5D-II)...it's just the "sweet spot" for these lenses seems to be below f11 - which results is some DOF problems. I'm getting great shots with higher f-stops...just need more sharpness than the full frame in focus can supply for some shots (those I sell or want prints).

Hope you enjoy your day...I'm lucky enough to be in California, and while it's been wet, I don't miss the mid-west winters I grew up with.

and

 

[Aaron Quix]

 

[art fog]

I was looking over this thread and though of something to add. I did leave out one more issue that may help to clarify. The smaller opening leave the visual plane to the center of the lens. This is valuable to know because the closer your image gets to the side of your elements or lens the more distortion. The optimum setting for condition of focus (not w/standing aesthetics issues) is the center of a lens which is the thickest part of the element.