ArticlesPhoto TechniquesFocus Stacking in Macro Photography

Focus Stacking in Macro Photography

By Erez Marom | Published Apr 11, 2013 | Photo Techniques

Tagged with: macro-photography nature-photography photoshop

In the world of photography we often work hard to obtain a shallow depth of field. When we take portraits and wish to separate the subject from the background, we use bulky lenses with large apertures just to get that magical 3D effect we're striving for. In the world of macro photography, as demonstrated in a previous article, things are entirely different.

I couldn’t have gotten this red-eyed tree frog shot without use of a special image-combination technique. Its body is very deep and if shooting conventionally, I wouldn’t have been able to get all of the subject’s interesting parts in focus.

Canon EOS 7D, Tamron 180mm f/3.5 macro lens, 2 shots both at 5 sec, ISO 400, f/16. LED torches were used to light the subject and background, and I took this shot in La Fortuna, Costa Rica.

As I’ve mentioned before, depth of field (DOF) depends almost entirely on two factors: aperture value and magnification. The wider the aperture we shoot at, and the closer we get to the subject, the shallower the depth of field becomes. When doing macro work, we often shoot at 1:1 magnification or more, compelling us to be extremely close to the subject. This inevitably means that depth of field is extremely shallow - so shallow that in many cases, most of the subject goes out of focus, even if it’s as tiny as a fly, and even if we close the aperture to f/16 or more.

This robber fly was shot at f/9, a medium aperture setting, and it’s not
even close to being entirely in focus. Canon EOS 7D, Sigma 150mm
f/2.8 macro, 1.3 second exposure at ISO 200, f/9.

This phenomenon simply results from the rules of optics, and can’t be solved conventionally unless we close the aperture so much that it will critically hurt image quality (and sometime even that doesn’t suffice). Yet it turns out that if we're willing to put in a little more effort and work carefully, we could take macro pictures at any magnification, with close-to-optimal apertures guaranteeing high quality and still get our desired depth of field – all by using a method called focus stacking.

The same fly, focus stacked from 8 different images, all 1.3 sec
exposures at f/9. ISO 200.

Focus stacking is a process that involves two tasks. The first task is to take a series of pictures at different focal distances, such that the entire depth range we want to have focused is covered by the series. For example, say we’re shooting a fly from the front. We could take one picture where the fly’s head is in focus, one with its thorax (middle body-segment) in focus and one with its abdomen in focus.

Another robber fly, focus stacked from 11 different shots. Each shot
supplied sharpness in a different part of the subject's body- the first
shots were focused on the front legs, then the eyes, thorax and so on up
to the back part and wings.

Canon EOS 40D, Tamron 180mm f/3.5 macro + extension tubes,
1/6 sec, ISO 100, f/7.1.

This may sound easy, but when shooting a live subject in nature (and moreover, as I usually do it, in natural light and extreme magnifications), there are a number of things that can go wrong. For example, the lighting may change if the clouds move, or the subject might decide it doesn’t feel like staying put, move and destroy this sensitive process. You must remember that it’s critical to get all the images in a stacking series at the exact same conditions and parameters: aperture, ISO, shutter speed and white balance.

This might seem obvious but when the light changes, auto WB might shift and shutter speed could change, altering the images to be stacked, which could result in a strange outcome. I recommend shooting in the shade as during periods of as little wind as possible, to get the consistency needed to produce a good stack.

A dragonfly, final image stacked from 8 shots, all at 1/50sec, ISO 100, f/5.6 .

Canon EOS 40D, Tamron 180mm f/3.5 macro, Rishon Lake, Israel.

I am a nature photographer, and I only shoot wildlife in the field and not in studios. There are studio-stacking artists out there who produce stacks from hundreds of images, but to do this you have to use some kind of precision rig, as well as studio lights and probably a stone-dead subject, and that’s just not what I personally do.

I shot the red robber fly shown above in nature, under pouring rain. This shows you that focus stacking can be done even in the roughest conditions- it’s just a question of technique, will and patience. Now that’s nature photography! By the way, can you see the reflection of the red/white umbrella in the final image?

Image courtesy of Shay Habba.

Click here to go to page 2 of this article - Focus Stacking in Macro Photography

LIKE 38

Flag as inappropriate

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by dpreview.com or any affiliated companies.

Pin It

Print view

Comments

Total comments: 99

I'm curious about how is it possible to do focus stacking without tripod ? like Thomas Shahan.
Anyway very good article.

1 upvote

Very nifty technique, thankyou for the heads up. Keep them coming if you don't mind.

1 upvote

Great article, Erez Marom, and superb images.

Some years ago I experimented with macro stacking with an old version of photoshop, but I had to do every step by hand. This required so much time that I finally gave up this then extremely time-consuming technique and returned to classic macro, also because in the field you don't find often so steady objects (if they are alive).

This post is really encourageing to start playing again with stacking, thank you so much.

2 upvotes

WOW, what beauty and intricacy you captured! Absolutely superb images, kudos!

1 upvote

Just one problem... You must wait for that fly to come to you, and strike a pose holds still while you twist the focus and shoots...

Only if I'm on a fixed income and not payed by results or stuck on a deserted island with my gear...

0 upvotes

Nice technique. I don't use my 100mm canon f2.8 L IS USM MACRO hardly enough.

This will only work while bugs are small. Lets just genetically mutate them into HUGE bugs like they were 100million years ago, and presto, we can use our 50mm lenses again. haha

1 upvote

The author mentions that leaving some part of the image unfocused looks good.

Focus stacking also lets the point of transition between in and out of focus to be precisely selected.

In addition to better image quality, another benefit to using moderate apertures is that the depth of field is simply narrow and with several images, the exact point of transition can be chosen.

While I am taking the series, I wouldn't necessarily think 'I want to cut off focus on the back of the eye' or whatever and stop there. I think I would take a few pictures more both in front of and behind the area I intend to.. focus on. If I don't want to use the extra pictures in the stack, they can be left out.

I have only ever stacked static images (leaf, flower, etc.). I used a fairly wide aperture and small steps and took more pictures than I needed.. It was interesting to later decide exactly where I would cut off focus by selecting the images to include in the stack.

1 upvote

Highly systematic technique is obviously required; remarkable images requiring remarkable discipline and patience. The Helicon remote described by GURL (http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconremote.html) sounds like the right kind of tool for those that would pursue this approach.

0 upvotes

This is a very well written article.

Thanks for sharing with us.. :)

2 upvotes

Helicon Remote - http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconremote.html

Helicon Remote is a utility that automates focus and exposure bracketing. The program changes focus distance by moving the lens with regular steps and takes shots.

Helicon Remote 2.x is capable of controlling external stepper motors and macro rails.

I use Helicon Remote to control a Nikon DSLR on a tripod from an Android tablet. Main point: you don't need to touch the camera between shots to change settings.

0 upvotes

What if there's wind and you need to wait, or redo a shot?

0 upvotes

The shorter the interval between shots the better (wind or any other anoyance.)

I often used a stitcher (Autopano, PTassembler) to align shots in a series using automatic or manual control points placed on the same subject features.

Panoramic images stitching, HDR and focus stacking have a lot in common, under the hood that is...

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I take my hat-off for all people like Erez Marom who are willing to put so many efforts in making stacked macro shots with equipment that is basically not designed or suited for the task.

It comes in mind that as soon as lightfield cameras can deliver higher image resolutions all this stacking fuzz and the need to limit to shoot only objects that behaves if they are already dead will be passed forever.

If you are not familiar with lightfield systems you can read about it in this wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-field_camera

I think this is the future.

Wim

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting

1 upvote

I just would like to mention how happy I can be owning a camera with a touchscreen, an Olympus E-PM2 (an O-MD or an E-PL5 will do as well), in that the touchscreen will allow me within a very short period just by tapping on it to focus on the points of interest and take the shots at the same time - camera on a tripod, no rails.

Hermann

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I think that the interest in photographing animals in the field is the ability to capture behaviour, such as fighting, feeding and mating.
Going out when the insect is at its coldest and immobile prevents such behaviour being observed.
The dragonfly in the photograph is not identified and indeed could be difficult to identify, since the view does not show the top of the abdomen or thorax where many characteristic markings are likely to be. Some may regard the image as novel or attractive, but it says little about what the insect is and nothing about what it does, so I do not regard it as being particularly useful nature photography.
It should be said that if people become fixated on stacking and want a static subject there are many pinned specimens already in museum collections. Some invertebrates are in decline: no need to kill them.
Finally many small animals have been photographed using the scanning electron microscope, with higher DOF and resolution than optical can provide.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

You're missing the point of the article. I'm not about to explain it to you, to make it clear to you what it's about, go and read all of Erez Marom's articles. If you still don't get it, you are wasting your time reading and commenting here.

3 upvotes

Forget the article, there are many aspects of photography in general you do not appear to fully understand.
If I were to put it in the same 'black and white' context you have shared, there would be two types of photographers:
1 - Those that use photography as a tool for creative expression and/or interpretation.
2 - Others similar to yourself primarily interested in 'cataloging' everything around them through photography.

There is no right/wrong either way - just a different usage.

In contrast to your assertion however, I would dare say that most viewers and photographers looking at the dragonfly image noticed the symmetry, colors, fragile nature of its wings, etc and were not concerned what specific variety of its species it belongs to. It is simply a moment frozen in time that we are able to capture, study, enjoy, and at times even compose the perspective to produce imagery that is interesting/pleasing to look at.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

7 upvotes

I agree 100%. I take both types of picture. Some are just for identification or recording. Others are about an aesthetic. When I'm lucky I get both - but sadly not often.

0 upvotes

" it’s better to change the focal point by moving the lens physically back and forth rather than using the focus ring"

I am curious as to how to do this...

I'm imagining my camera on a tripod, and I have to move it by a fraction of a millimeter... how does that work?

0 upvotes

There's no way to reliably move a stationary tripod a fraction of a millimeter. In the old days, we used to either mount the camera on rails or attach the lens to a bellows. I imagine this kind of setup still works with modern equipment.

0 upvotes

You would use a focusing rail. Moving the tripod will almost never work. At least not with these micro adjustments.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

@ skytripper Yup. The modern equipment will only set you back $600. :-)

http://www.cognisys-inc.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=24&osCsid=cadff164ab40c7c62cc7ffdf28f22003

0 upvotes

Usually I am using three dimensions gear head when doing such macro photo, it n get very fine movements easily.

0 upvotes

Timmbits,
There are numerous styles of rails that will mount to your tripod, to which your camera mounts to the rails, allowing you to slide your camera forward/back in small increments (typically marked in millimeters.)
That would allow you to keep the same focal length of the lens while moving the focal plane forward or back for each image needed.

1 upvote

Didn't want to leave you with the wrong impression, or have you think that rails are the only/best way.
-Ideally- you would look for a macro lens that does not 'focus breath' (change its magnification) though many lenses people use do. The author mentions the Canon MP-E 65 which is a fantastic lens though big heavy and expensive. One of its benefits though is that it does not change its magnification through short adjustments unless you wrack the focus from min to max, and even then it isn't much. That allows you to simply bump the focus ring a little, capture an image, bump it a little further, capture another image etc. That will result in a series of images that are the same magnification (distance) on the sensor - only differing in what is in focus from front to back of the subject.

0 upvotes

@SiliconVoid - I think you must be confusing the Canon MP-E 65 with a different lens, since it behaves precisely the opposite of how you describe. The lens has only one control ring, for changing the magnification of the image. Focus is achieved solely through moving the image plane itself.

0 upvotes

With all the motors and electronics in some modern lenses, it would be easy enough for a company to design a macro lens that automatically incremented the focus over a series of exposures. I know some cameras have limited focus bracketing, but do any of them shoot a long sequence easily? Something to ask for.

0 upvotes

This needn't be a feature of the lens, any lens with an auto-focus motor will be quite capable, if the camera supports it. It's annoying that so few do. I believe the Magic Lantern custom firmware for Canon cameras offers this feature, though I've not tried it myself.

0 upvotes

I'd really like to know how you get your bugs to sit still for 10 minutes while you setup the tripod in their faces, compose, and take 11 shots..

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting

1 upvote

your best bet is to get up early and look for insects that have not warmed up yet, if there is a dew so much the better, they are very unlikely to move whilst still cold. Up to about an hour after sunrise is best.

4 upvotes

heh.. you can also use the machine gun method, especially if you plan to do a little bit of cropping in the final image. In that you simply take a series of shots at your cameras top fps rate while you slowly turn the focus ring, lol.
Not the best method for absolute critical sharpness, especially if your camera body vibrates too much, but in stacking you have lots of room to make small adjustments.
(Need to be on a tripod of course.)

1 upvote

It is interesting that, even after reading this (excellent) article, some readers didn't get an important fact: for DoF, what counts is magnification and aperture. FF DSLR or compact, the result is the same.
The author says it in the very beginning:
"[...] depth of field (DOF) depends almost entirely on two factors: aperture value and magnification. [...]"
It is important to keep that in mind.

1 upvote

It's also highly dependent on lens F.L., which is why this is better suited to small sensor cameras.

0 upvotes

No, read again: "depth of field (DOF) depends almost entirely on two factors: aperture value and magnification".

3 upvotes

The appearance of depth depends on the FL, due to *relative background blur*, which is another relevant issue in addition to DoF.
Small sensor is "harware cropping", which does increase DoF in certain circumstances (limited ambient light), but I believe you get the same DoF if you work at the diffraction limit in comparable conditions (DoF equivalence, light not the limit).

0 upvotes

Great article. Since you plug Mr. Marom's Costa Rica tour, I think it's a little dismaying that the races of Strawberry Poison Frog that he displays as being from Costa Rica are not actually found there. The red one is only on Isla Bastimentos, Panama, and the green one is only on Isla Colon, Panama. Misleading advertising to potential paying tourists. True there are other races in Costa Rica, but they are not as varied in coloration.

2 upvotes

Excellent article.

But wouldn't using a camera with much smaller, more efficient sensor improve DoF to begin with? A lot of superzoom cameras have very impressive macro modes.

0 upvotes

I love that he's "only" using a 40D to take these amazing photos. It just goes to show that it really is the photographer and the technique that makes most of the difference.

7 upvotes

Excelently explained! Thanks for this article.
Perhaps I should mention another stacking program which lets you mark certain points that one needs to co-ordinate and align throughout the stack.
This one is a standalone, so it can be used without Photoshop (for people who use other photo-editing software).
It is called RegiStax, current version update is v6.1.08 - requires V6.1 (6 may 2011). You need to have RegiStax 6 installed before installing this update.
It is freeware, and although intended for astronomy, it will work with all kinds of images. Find all the versions here:
http://www.astronomie.be/registax/download.html

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

2 upvotes

There's a table of focus stacking software, some of it free, at Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_stacking

2 upvotes

Good source. Thanks!

0 upvotes

Very interesting but wouldn't your subject need to remain still while you adjust the focus points?

Don't move grasshopper!

0 upvotes

Yes, it would.

1 upvote

How in the heck do you make all the changes, take all the shots, at differing F-stops, and NOT lose the subject to a "fly-away" ??

2 upvotes

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3957977643/finding-macro-wildlife

1 upvote

Good and interesting article. Thank you.

1 upvote

Really useful article. Thanks dpreview!

1 upvote

thank you for a well written, informative, and helpful artible

3 upvotes

Another very good macro stacking resource:
macrostop.com/pdf/ArtofFocuStacking.pdf

0 upvotes

Cool. Sometimes it is difficult to select the focus points.

1 upvote

Is focus stacking natural? Our eyes saccade (skip about) over a view concentrating on tiny bits each time. Our brains constantly merge the most recent bits into a coherent picture that is sharply focused both across the view and from near to far.

Focus stacking replicates a part of this process so, yes, it's completely natural. Indeed, it's more natural than freezing just one instant. It's just a lot slower than nature ...

7 upvotes

Hi to all,

considering the article really interesting and useful, i am wondering how is possible to shot multiple pictures without the the subject is moving too much. I know all issues related to alignment because doing astro photography i am using a lot of dedicated tools for it but in this case the subject is really fuzzy.

Any help to understand ?

thanks in advance
Fabio

0 upvotes

Whoops! An error: the 4 example images are the same.

0 upvotes

Dude, you should use stronger glasses ;)

2 upvotes

Welcome back Erez, i was waiting so long for this :)

2 upvotes

Your use the term "focal distance" in rather confusing manner. People typically use this term as a synonym for "focal length". You said you changed your focal distance. Meanwhile, it is obvious that you never changed the focal length of your lens but rather refocused it for different distances (at different points of the subject).

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

In my experience, people do not use focal distance and focal length as synonyms. Where did you pick that up?

4 upvotes

Oh, let me elucidate.

Firstly, people don't generally use the term "focal distance" at all in the field of photography. "Focal distance" is something one could sometimes encounter in theoretical optics. And there's no meaningful context where "focal distance" would be "changed", at least as freely as the author suggests.

Secondly, in the rare cases when the term "focal distance" pops up in the field of photography, it is either synonymous with "focal length" or refers to "flange focal distance" of camera body (the latter not being changeable at all).

Thirdly, use the combination "to change focal distance" in reference to refocusing is simply wrong in any field. Nothing in the process of refocusing the lens has an y connection to any changes in focal distance (in any meaning of the term).

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting

1 upvote

By changing the focal length you also change the magnification. The proper way to do this is by keeping the lens at max magnification and using a slider to move the whole camera. If not done like this you will distort the actual dimensions of the object you are taking images of. You need something like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwyBzPdeq2s

0 upvotes

At very high magnifications, moving the camera in tiny increments also changes the subject size on the sensor by a significant amount, so a focusing rail (which is not the same thing as a "slider") is not better or worse (other than tending to suffer from backlash and being another piece of kit to carry). And if the lens you're using is a "pure" internal-focus design, it actually focuses closer by reducing the focal length of the lens rather than by increasing the lens-to-sensor distance, maintaining both magnification and field of view (and, by he way, compensating automatically for exposure by maintaining the same physical aperture size while reducing focal length and increasing "bellows draw", which is pretty neat).

1 upvote

I've mentioned focusing rails in the article. My main problem with them is the lack of stability in extreme magnifications.

0 upvotes

Perhaps exaggerating the size of your support might help, like using bigger rail system (perhaps from some other application?), the simplest and sturdiest tripod,the largest head, and added weight...?
I had to photograph a night scene once and there was pretty strong wind, but I was using the old, heavy theodolite stand (weighing around 30#), and the pictures came out okay, even with 30 sec exposure time.
Since then, I use more portable tripods, and a self-made triangle shaped net (fastened to tripod legs by Velcro) and put some additional weight in it. Sometimes it is water bottles, sometimes just plastic bags filled with rocks or shingle, whatever can be found in the vicinity.
Like with most problems, the best solutions are the simple ones. :)

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Still, when a 0.2mm movement can ruin your image, any addition can harm the result significantly.

0 upvotes

True, that's exactly where sturdiness proves its worth. The idea is to mount the camera on as solid a base as can be arranged. Of course, there is this tradeoff to portability... So, let's hope the new cameras solve things for us with focus stacking software, it sure hints on things getting simpler.
I wish you Good Light and more success! :)

2 upvotes

a useful article, thanks

2 upvotes

Live subject at 1.3sec, and then shoot multiple of them and stack them? Wow!

7 upvotes

I believe, it's possible only in some early morning and early season, when insects are really sleepy and inactive.
I tried this in midday of summer with no luck, especially with dragonflies or usual flies..
In midday probably some slow bugs could be better models ;)

3 upvotes

Knowledge, technique and patience allow you to do anything :)

2 upvotes

As the rest of his articles, this one is very informative and superbly illustrated by examples. I like that it also remarks the many difficulties such an action involves.
In short, a top professional work.

5 upvotes

very interesting technique

2 upvotes

absolutely beautiful and informative - I am waiting for this feature to be automated as with the panoramic features now currently in most new cameras... I know to "purists" that would be wrong - I still make my own pans, but it is so damn easy working with the automatic tools and they get your pretty close. I even on occasion use my phone to take pictures/document *gasp* ;)

3 upvotes

Some of the latest Sony NEX cameras allow you to install apps. One of these apps, 'BracketPro', lets you automatically bracket photos by shutter speed, aperture, focus or flash. The focus option looks useful for this stacking technique, though it is limited to only three exposures. You can control the range of focus shift. I haven't really tried this yet, but I shall certainly give it a go.

0 upvotes

also, since even the author compares it to HDR, I don't see why we wouldn't have this option in the camera software.

0 upvotes

Yes wouldn't it be nice to have the camera adjust the focal distance automatically! Just tell it to take say ten shots at such-and-such an increment, that would have the advantage of removing human interference, touching the equipment. Cameras already control focus distance in AF using motors, so this is doable. And inevitable. But in the meantime all praise to people like Erez who take the time an care to work with available equipment. Excellent article.

I have photo-stacked immovable objects like pianos, and am awestruck that Erez does this in the field with live subjects.

0 upvotes

Magic Lantern firmware for Canon cameras can now do this focus stacking for you automatically.

1 upvote

sw which that allowed would be built in the camera ... it is about fantasy camera's makers :)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

If you can find auto HDR stacking in latest DSLR's nowadays, then probably Focus stacking isn't so far away as we think..

1 upvote

Especially since this dark age of unprogrammable cameras is showing signs of passing. We'll not always be at the whims of camera makers to determine how we can use the hardware...

0 upvotes

The problem is that auto focus mechanism on some of the best macro lenses is bad to nonexistent, so how could they implement it?

0 upvotes

Focus stacking is not relevant exclusively to macro - though it its indeed macro where this is most needed due to the desperate lack of DoF.
The problem is indeed in lens precise focus positioning. In AF, positioning is done by image sharpness, not distance. Many lenses have distance gauges but most of them are not precise, so focus positioning for focus stacking can only be performed in open-loop and crudely. This would generate more complaints to Support than praise, so it is better left to unofficial hacks like Magic Lantern, CHDK. But some lenses, for instance the recent Canon ones, do have accurate focus distance sensors.

0 upvotes

I guess we'll just need a new generation of macro lenses with proper modern focusing. No doubt it will happen, as the advantages for macro shooters are so great and plenty of other lenses have fast, precise focus motors.

0 upvotes

There is a mistake in the article. Auto blend layers is under Edit, not File.

0 upvotes

Thanks, it will be corrected.

0 upvotes

Finally dpreview, you post something worthy. Beautiful work!

This makes up for the other non-stories you have been pushing lately, like the recent trollish one about the talentless hack drive-by flasher Johnny Tergo.

Stick to genuine photographers like Erez Marom, and we will continue visiting and reading. Promote those other 'controversial for the sake of publicity' arrogant types like Tergo and we will be forced to seek our photography news and stories elsewhere.

7 upvotes

Great article. I could really learn something from this technique. Thanks.

6 upvotes

Thanks Erez for your article. I use this technique for product photography. I have clients that produce micro-precision adjusters and other parts. The entire product must be in sharp focus for their catalogs & other marketing materials. I don't like to use the auto-blend option in Photoshop however. I use the File>Scripts>Load files into stack with the auto align option but then manually mask my layers to find the sharpest points of focus. The Photomerg/auto-blend processing in CS5 is too hit or miss for me.

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

You can manually adjust the Photoshop masks that Photomerging makes automatically. Could save you a lot of time.

0 upvotes

I understand that but as I said I find it too hit or miss and I end up spending more time adjusting Photomerge's masks than if I just mask the layers myself. I stack my images in order (for instance, closest focus point at the top and so on) so it is easier to do it manually.

0 upvotes

I'd like to thank you not just for the article but for the Print view feature that allows me to save the article in a clean, readable form as a pdf for later reference. Thanks DPReview!

4 upvotes

@Henry M. Hertz - having never done that, I'd like to venture a guess. The animals are probably not fully animated if you find them on a cold morning.

Can anyone confirm?

2 upvotes

good call, sometimes bugs will fall asleep too (as far as i can tell), I was taking macros of a fly from a few inches and it wasn't moving at all (it wasn't dead either)

2 upvotes

I've found honeybees passed out cold inside flowers. At first I thought they might be dead and had a "wow they died sucking the nectar right out of life!" moment. Then I poked one and it started to wake up.

Robber flies are also great subjects who are often quite tolerant of people. I've had the problem that the fly decided to land on my camera to get a better look at me.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ikewinski/8037049735/

2 upvotes

I believe that in one of the articles on macro it is mentioned that the best time is early in the morning, when they aren't moving so much, because it's still cool.

1 upvote

True, and the best time of the year for this is in the Spring, when they've just emerged from the hibernation. Often you also get a lot of dew on them, which is a nice touch sometimes. So, the proper time to go search is about right now...

1 upvote

well the stacking process is easy, the software does 95% today. but what nobody really explains is how to get the creatures not moving while you shot. even 2mm movement of the subject will ruin the resulting stack.

1 upvote

Hi Henry,
You can read all about that in a previous article:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3957977643/finding-macro-wildlife

0 upvotes