which camera?

.

Without trying to sound flipant. There really is not one other than knowing how to stack the odds in ones favour and an idea of what type of images you have a chance of getting away with when using such kit. - There are many such instances in engineering. - Very often it's all in the initial setup.

If for e.g. the image had been a illuminated by back lighting I would not have got away with using such kit.

The images are actually a very simple ones. A black backdrop, a pretty face and a single light source. In this case it's from a Bowen beauty dish with a diffuser attached high and right of the model. (the shadows tell the story) A beauty dish gives a soft (ish) light source while remaining very directional. They do however have a quite a small 'sweet spot' in the light they project so you cannot have the model moving around too much.

A common mistake is people charging around with their credit cards after reading the latest review or listening to others at their camera club or an internet forum. They then go and buy the latest (usually very expensive) camera body. Then having blown most of their budget end up sticking a cheaper lens onto it.! ........... While all along there was nothing wrong with the very capable kit they already possessed. - If someone has money burning a whole in their pocket very often they would be far better off spending it on quality but simple lighting kit. They will usually get far more bang for their buck.

Personally I much prefer using a natural light source. But one has to remain practical. ............ I live in the UK

Nick

John

If you wish to illustrate a point I suggest that you do so on your own images and not on someone else's - you doubt if Nick objects - do you know him? You say that you doubt that he likes the result - again why do it then? If you have points to make post your own images and demonstrate your points on these.

Norman

Edited By NJH on 30/05/2016 11:36:55

.

Yup. I always lose and lack any enthusiasm if a Miss Piggy impersonator pitches up to have her picture taken.

I don't shoot many models these days and this was done as a favour to the girl as she is a long standing and valued friend of mine. She is a similar age to my son and when they are both at mine at the same time they usually nip to the shop. ......................... I have not idea which obviously distant branch of Tesco's they go to as they are usually gone for several hours and return having forgotten what they originally and so importantly intended to urgently buy. No attention span the youth of today it seems.

Nick

Thanks Nick, as always talent and experience count for a lot.

My own most satisfying images depend heavily on technique rather than talent. They take a fair bit of setting up and often rely heavily on post-processing. Although It's all been done better by someone else I still enjoy startling the family with "how did he do that" photos.

Here's a challenge for AJohnW who has permission do what he likes to any of my pictures: please use this self portrait to make me look like George Clooney

This is an "x-ray" photo of my mobile phone:

And proof that I cannot be trusted with alcohol and an airgun:

Cheers,

Dave

Nice one Dave - as far as the challenge though it might be easier to start with George Clooney and make him look like you! 😈

Norman

Only too true I'm afraid!

Which reminds me of another mystery. Why does the camera love people like film stars whilst hating me so much? All photos of me have me mid-blink, yawning, looking the wrong way, or apparently competing for first place in a gurning contest. And saying "cheese" makes me even worse.

Dave

Too true but I sometimes wonder if especially when starting out and often some time later people look at other people's shots and think that just the kit they use produced the results. In some cases it will have some effect but it may be in a none obvious way. As an example I have toyed with the idea of buying a full frame camera. At the time a camera that isn't made any more. My reason would be to get better noise performance in low light. If I tried to use it for sports photography I might well find it doesn't focus fast enough. I might say low light so buy an expensive fast lens but would then wonder if it would have sufficient depth of field for when I needed to use it in low light, especially so on a full frame camera not so on one with a very small sensor such as compacts. Instead I look at what I want to shoot and set an ISO rating that I know will produce usable results with the camera I am using. If the shutter speed turns out to be too slow for hand held work I can't take the shot but may just on the off chance I can do something with it. I'm an amateur. A professional will be being paid for the work and can't really go back and say sorry need to take it again.

I don't hear Nick complaining. He's a photographer so I doubted if he would. The reason I did it was 2 fold. Dave's question just to show how much something can be changed once some one has learned how and the other goes back to the original question - want's to get into photography. People generally have expectations based on shots they see. A lot of them will have had various amounts of post processing done on them even if conditions where ideal. It can take a while to pick that up. It can also take a while to be able to tell what will come out of the camera when a shot is taken and also just how to go about taking it. Framing, lighting, camera settings and some subjects just wont produce good shots. It's also easy to over process shots. Once some one starts showing shots to other photographers other complications crop up. This is a link to one of mine.

**LINK**

I should replace it with one that I have done properly. It's way way over sharpened but looked fine on the monitor that I was using at the time. The contrast levels are pushed too much as well for the same reason. Due to lighting and location a lot of areas were pitch black in the jpg and even so I have lost some cloud detail.

As it is I put any old thing on there and when I work with care it's usually for a competition or to post in a photographic forum. It was taken with an Olympus EP-3, there are also others taken with the cheaper version of the same camera about on there. Mostly to try M 4/3 before buying an EM5 and later an EM 1. A lot of these were also attempts at getting to grips with pp and getting used to the camera.

John

-

A professional wildlife photographer I know recommend bridge cameras for macro work because they have superior depth of field because of the smaller sensors. He has ££££ of kit and was one of the pioneers of high DF macro using stepper motors to take multiple images then stitching them back together.

Will this do instead Dave

When I look at that now I think why didn't I do something about ...............

I think it's pretty obvious what wasn't there. Made from 3 different shots.  None of them mine but provided or freely available

John

-

Edited By Ajohnw on 30/05/2016 14:34:31

Focus stacking has become popular for macro work but as far as I am aware most folks use DSLR's with a good quality prime lens.

You couldn't get this depth of field with a DSLR:

To go back to original posters question.

You may find interchangeable lenses a bit of a pain after a while.

Watch the shutter reaction times some DSLR's are a bit sleepy like 50 quid compacts are.

There is always a thread on insect macro here every year.

**LINK**

I'm rather surprised by some of the shot's taken in B'ham so far this year - no signs of anything much around here.

The shots come in from all over the place. Most are using a dlsr and a dedicated macro lens. One person Geoff F takes photo's for some organisation uses the longest focal length one he can get. Others use various arrangements even adding 1.4x converters and an extension tube. The aim is to get maximum working distance. Generally a flash is used as well with diffusers made out of all sorts of things.

I'm getting better at it but still don't always get the depth of field where it needs to be. Probably less than 1/2 the times I take a shot. On M 4/3 I've found a 75-300mm telephoto lens plus an achromatic close up lens to be my best option. Not Olympus's macro lens. It's usually set at around 120 to 200mm. The quality drops off above that.

Compacts often have a macro facility. Mixed feelings. They usually do this by allowing it to focus down to 10mm or some such very short distance and at the shorter focal length end of their zoom range. There is some one on there that regularly posts shots taken with a Fuji compact although I see he has added a sony alpha to his kit now. His name is Brian and posts as JBW.

There are a number of helpful people on there that can help with all aspects of photography.

John

-

Edited By Ajohnw on 30/05/2016 15:51:40

Edited By Ajohnw on 30/05/2016 15:52:05

With respect to the OP and all posters, getting back to the original question, a piece of kit I have found invaluable is an off-camera flash with tilt/swivel head, especially in the workshop where direct flash produces very strong shadows, but is also recommended for general bounce flash photography. A tripod for still life and set-up shots and a comfortable camera bag for doing any kind of travel photography, day trips etc. A second camera battery is a good idea.

Also something I find really useful is a blower/puffer to remove paticles from lens'(lenses?) and occasionally from inside the camera.

Ed.

That's the point though, with focus stacking you can get far better depth of field than that.

Having said that I don't use the method myself so this was just taken with a macro lens on my Pentax DSLR and it's not too bad.

.

Neil,

Have a look at Zerene Stacker and Helicon Focus

MichaelG.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 30/05/2016 16:44:49

I may have come in a bit late on this thread having been away from home for a few days.

Not going to recommend a particular camera, just a couple of useful things (imho):-

1. A camera fitted with a variable angle LCD Disply on the back, useful for low level pictures etc. Did not get that myself and since regretted not spending a bit extra for it.

2. The ability to have WiFi operation, mine is by a plug in dongle which gives proper remote viewing and triggering (using a phone or tablet app) for things such as wildlife.

Edited By V8Eng on 30/05/2016 16:59:22

Edited By V8Eng on 30/05/2016 17:03:18

Edited By V8Eng on 30/05/2016 17:03:57

I have CombineZP, but no camera racking hardware, yet!

It's hard to make insects sit still long enough to use stacking software. There is some one on photomicrography.net that seems to manage but maybe he has some sort of stay there spray. There are plenty of shots on the site that use stacking software. Zerene is popular.

On Neil's comment on depth of field this was shot with a 252mm focal length at F14 on a 7D. Not one of his best but he is rather good at it. The 252 comes about from a 180mm lens and a 1.4x converter.

John

-

.

John, how wrong you are.

I should have really said this sooner. I meant to when I was making series of posts earlier but someone called round and we decided to go out.

Editing and reposting an image taken by someone else is just not the done thing. (unless requested) It may be considered OK to do so in certain places such as camera clubs but in the real world it's one of the cast in stone no-noes. Even more so since you left my name on the edited version.

Many photographers (not me) would see this as the equivalent of you coming home to find some random guy off the internet in your workshop having helped himself to some of your steel stock and using your lathe. Really they would.! - I however I can assure you am very far (I hope) from being that anal and while when I first saw the image had a WTF moment it was combined with some amusement. - In fact if you want some images to play with I will send you some. Just don't go posting them on the internet. .......................... Especially with my name on them.

The version you posted. I have no idea what screen you are working with but on mine it looks truly awful. Her eyes have been over sharpened to the point where she would scare a police horse.

Post processing. I punched the brightness and contrast a bit and some dodge and burn was used. The healing tool was used a bit to get rid of a few tiny zits on her pretty forehead and she has a very small imperfection to the right of her mouth which was removed. This is not normally noticeable, only in cross side lighting such as this.

Certainly no skin smoothing and no blur to any part of the image as you stated. The reason is a wide lens aperture setting was set giving a very shallow depth of field from the point of focus. But I am sure you will know that anyway. So overall very little PS post work. I hate photo editing and get quickly bored, as such I do as little as possible of it. Some however love doing so. - Besides over editing the images in this case would have defeated their intended use and made them useless. Going to grab some fodder now and then I will explain later.

Cheers, Nick