kriptap 0 Posted February 23, 2006 Another one to one with the same setup, 105 + tele + a+3 close-up lens again no editing. I'm trying to get as close as I can to show detail that I've not seen before, next will be to stack the close up lens, until I think the quality suffers then I'll go back to where I think the limit is, anyone have any ideas on what else to use for extreme macro? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Photobeat 0 Posted February 23, 2006 Amazing compostion - extra points for such a small image. Are you using AF on this or moving the rig back and forth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kriptap 0 Posted February 23, 2006 I know people swear by MF but I swear by AF, as soon as I get a lock I shoot, fast, that's just the way I like it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jbonehoss 0 Posted February 23, 2006 Yeah, but why is it soooo overcooked in PS? Haha..fight! fight! Beautify image. I have never taken a shot like that - all these awesome macro posts have me so worked up to get a macro lens and start stalking. Thanks for sharing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
randapex 0 Posted February 23, 2006 kriptrip, great shot. I've attached a similar one from T&C. Not as nice and please excuse the dirt that I've since learned needs to be cleaned from the port glass. It's also full frame. 2xtc with the Woody's diopter. This shot took for ever and I'm not sure I'd want to add any more magnification. The Gobies are not real co-operative as it is. I'm hoping to try the 150mm and maybe gain some working distance. Then maybe use a diopter on the lens. The problem I've run into is finding small enough subjects to shoot. So, you could add the 2xtc, +3 and then the Woody's. My shot went through PS and I'm too lazy to search out the orginal file. As is obvious, the colors are quite different. But that's possibly due to the difference in settings. Mine was f29 @ 1/30. When I was shooting underwater fluouresecence, it was always best to use slow shutters. I'm just wondering if that had any affect. As I look at your shot, I can see the pattern of color is not the same. But you can see what I call the "pixelating" of the color under the higher magnification. What looks solid is actually individual bits of color. Not sure I'm explaing myself well here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RogerC 4 Posted February 23, 2006 Rand, I do see what you're saying, but I'm not sure how to say it any better. Fish don't have pixels, but what then? The sterile technical term might be quantization. My guess is it's the scales on the fish, individual chunks of almost dichroic reflectivity. Well, ok, that's two days in a row I've posted an extremely left-brained reply. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CeeDave 0 Posted February 23, 2006 Scales? Fish have scales? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex_Mustard 0 Posted February 23, 2006 Great shot, Patrick. Full of personality. For more magnification you can try stacking some dioptres together. 105mm + 2x + plus3 and plus4 dioptres. But you are getting pretty close to the limits. How much is the crop? Looks like it just the edges of the frame? One comment I'd make on the colour debate goes back to browsers. Patrick's shot here is in Abobe RGB space. If I view it in Safari (or drag it into Photoshop - for those who don't have safari) it looks nicely saturated. If I view it in Firefox or in IE it looks a bit washed out because those browsers can't read the colour profile. Alex Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
randapex 0 Posted February 23, 2006 After resting my left brain... Let me try this again. When I was doing fluorescent photography, as it was explained to me, you were not recording reflected light, maybe some, but mostly "emitted" light back at you. Therefore, the slower the shutter speed, the brighter the strobes, the more intense colors for the resultant image. Some people have submitted pictures of fish that have a certain amount of fluorescence. Check out Jason Hellers' Gobi, Lizard fish and Scorpion fish shots on the NightSea website: NightSea I think it's safe to say, it's generally accepted that fluorescent colors typically are "Gaudy", perhaps even "Over processed looking". Yet with the proper filter on your dive light, you can see them with the naked eye, these loud colors. Sometimes, you even see normally lit photos of certain corals emitting fluorescense. Especially in the under lit area. So, if you took a tight super macro fish portrait, where the strobes are positioned very close to the subject, and the subject has been shown to exhibit major fluoresence under the right photographic conditions, wouldn't you expect some as well in a normall shot? Especially if the exposure were longer than normal? Where's the asprin... Rand Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
