First test use of Laowa 100 2X macro (and new diffusion)

[gardenersassistant]

These images are from a test session which is documented in this post on another site, with the subsequent post documenting a new diffusion arrangement that I was using for the flash shots in the test session. (I will start a new thread here to seek advice about diffusion problems when I have been able to test the new diffuser arrangement with a suitable - highly reflective, high curvature - subject.)

The main objective of the session was to test the practicality of a setup which would let me capture large depth of field single-capture (i.e. non-stacked) images of active subjects covering the full range of scene sizes that I want to cover (infinity focus down to 4 mm or so scene height) without having to change lenses in the field or carry more than one camera.

The rig was an EF-mount Laowa 100 2X macro lens on a 2X Kenko TelePlus Pro teleconverter on a Sigma MC-11 EF to FE adapter on a Sony A7ii, with a Yongnuo YN24EX flash front-mounted on the Laowa with home made flash head diffusers.

The images below in this post cover the main intended use of the setup, for flash images of invertebrates. There are some natural light images of flowers in a response post. For my purposes the rig will definitely be sub-optimal for flowers etc (I have specialised kit optimised for flowers), but I was interested in whether I would be able to get "good enough" results with flowers using this rig if I was out photographing invertebrates but happened upon any flowers that I wanted to photograph.

There are more images from the test session in this album at Flickr.

#1





#2





#3





#4





#5





#6





#7





#8



#9



#10





--
Nick
Summary of photo activity and output since 2007 https://fliesandflowers.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-i-retired-in-2006-i-had-it-in-mind.html
Flickr image collections http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/

 

[gardenersassistant]

#11



#12



#13



#14



#15



#16



#17



#18



--
Nick
Summary of photo activity and output since 2007 https://fliesandflowers.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-i-retired-in-2006-i-had-it-in-mind.html
Flickr image collections http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/

 

[gardenersassistant]

I forgot to mention post processing.

For the invertebrates I was using very small apertures (smaller than f/100 effective in some cases and all beyond f/45 effective) so there was a lot of detail-crushing diffraction blurring. I used the same processing as I use routinely for my f/45 full frame equivalent apertures when capturing invertebrates with close-up lenses on telezoom lenses, processing that attempts to make best use of what detail remains in the raw files.

For the invertebrate images in the top post the raw files were processed in DXO PhotoLab, Silkypix, Lightroom and Topaz DeNoise AI. For the flower images the raw files were processed in PhotLab, Lightroom and DeNoise AI, The first was also adjusted in Silkypix and the second in Photoshop.

--
Nick
Summary of photo activity and output since 2007 https://fliesandflowers.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-i-retired-in-2006-i-had-it-in-mind.html
Flickr image collections http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/

 

[Darrell Spreen]

On my (desktop) monitor, the images you posted 2 weeks ago looked better. I don't know if it's because of a difference in the diffusion or due to the diffraction losses that you mentioned in these shots. I see some sort of optical aberration in these, a bit like edge enhancement, that I did not see in the previous images.

--
DS

 

[gardenersassistant]

On my (desktop) monitor, the images you posted 2 weeks ago looked better. I don't know if it's because of a difference in the diffusion or due to the diffraction losses that you mentioned in these shots. I see some sort of optical aberration in these, a bit like edge enhancement, that I did not see in the previous images.

That sort of specific feedback is extremely helpful. Thank you. I will look at them with that in mind. I wonder if you would you help me with this please by pointing to an example, where exactly on a particular image you are seeing this aberration to give me a reference point to work from. I would be very grateful if you were able to do that. Thanks.

 

[Darrell Spreen]

On my (desktop) monitor, the images you posted 2 weeks ago looked better. I don't know if it's because of a difference in the diffusion or due to the diffraction losses that you mentioned in these shots. I see some sort of optical aberration in these, a bit like edge enhancement, that I did not see in the previous images.

That sort of specific feedback is extremely helpful. Thank you. I will look at them with that in mind. I wonder if you would you help me with this please by pointing to an example, where exactly on a particular image you are seeing this aberration to give me a reference point to work from. I would be very grateful if you were able to do that. Thanks.

Things like this can be just a matter of personal preference of course. I tend to like what I call "natural sharpness" and I have become sensitized to images that strike me as manipulated. I sharpen my images in post, and use several techniques including hi-pass sharpening, luminous channel sharpening, and USM, depending on what looks "right" to me with each image.

This image from your posting 2 weeks ago looks very good on my monitor (22" NEC, calibrated):

https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/63979781/84bd659e14c54a8987d0a7571976aa8a

This newer image seems to have some detail that looks enhanced, though I don't see halos. These are two images that seemed similar enough to make comparison possible. The quality of the light, however, is very different which could be affecting my opinion.

https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/64056032/aad06cc1112b4745b0102fb3a9716fdd

I do very little real macro work, but I do closeup work with both flash and LED lighting. I have a number of ways I do diffuse lighting but not in close proximity.

Hope this helps.

--
DS

 

[gardenersassistant]

On my (desktop) monitor, the images you posted 2 weeks ago looked better. I don't know if it's because of a difference in the diffusion or due to the diffraction losses that you mentioned in these shots. I see some sort of optical aberration in these, a bit like edge enhancement, that I did not see in the previous images.

That sort of specific feedback is extremely helpful. Thank you. I will look at them with that in mind. I wonder if you would you help me with this please by pointing to an example, where exactly on a particular image you are seeing this aberration to give me a reference point to work from. I would be very grateful if you were able to do that. Thanks.

Things like this can be just a matter of personal preference of course. I tend to like what I call "natural sharpness" and I have become sensitized to images that strike me as manipulated. I sharpen my images in post, and use several techniques including hi-pass sharpening, luminous channel sharpening, and USM, depending on what looks "right" to me with each image.

This image from your posting 2 weeks ago looks very good on my monitor (22" NEC, calibrated):

https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/63979781/84bd659e14c54a8987d0a7571976aa8a

This newer image seems to have some detail that looks enhanced, though I don't see halos. These are two images that seemed similar enough to make comparison possible.

https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/64056032/aad06cc1112b4745b0102fb3a9716fdd

I do very little real macro work, but I do closeup work with both flash and LED lighting. I should also add that I have not tried any stacking, so I'm not used to any artifacts that may add.

Hope this helps.

Thanks so much for taking the time on this. I'm not immediately seeing this (oddly, I feel slightly more uncomfortable about the earlier one). I will have another look tomorrow with fresh eyes.

One thing comes to mind though - what are the pixel dimensions of your NEC screen? I'm wondering if the images are being resized. That can make a difference.

I'm glad you didn't notice halos!

As to stacking, I do stack flowers, and the artefacts are a pain. I don't stack invertebrates, so there won't be stacking artefacts, but the Topaz sharpening I use can add artefacts, so perhaps you are seeing some of that that my eyes haven't registered yet.

Thanks again for your help.

 

[Darrell Spreen]

Thanks so much for taking the time on this. I'm not immediately seeing this (oddly, I feel slightly more uncomfortable about the earlier one). I will have another look tomorrow with fresh eyes.

One thing comes to mind though - what are the pixel dimensions of your NEC screen? I'm wondering if the images are being resized. That can make a difference.

I'm glad you didn't notice halos!

As to stacking, I do stack flowers, and the artefacts are a pain. I don't stack invertebrates, so there won't be stacking artefacts, but the Topaz sharpening I use can add artefacts, so perhaps you are seeing some of that that my eyes haven't registered yet.

Thanks again for your help.

I'm not sure it's worthwhile to analyze this too much as it is most likely just a matter of personal preference. Both samples are very impressive. I just happened to remember the earlier samples which I liked. There is some difference in the contrast due to the diffuse lighting. I see a significant difference in the eye detail.

My monitor is 1680 x 1050 -- not the newest. I don't think there's any resizing with the DVI connection. Interestingly, I got my first impression of the difference when viewing the photos on a Macbook and then checked later on my desktop monitor.

I probably fall in the category of a luddite, but I have gone to decent smaller sensor cameras I own to get the DOF I want -- with the lighting I am using I can work near their optimum apertures. I haven't felt the need to experiment with stacking yet.

--
DS

 

[gardenersassistant]

Thanks so much for taking the time on this. I'm not immediately seeing this (oddly, I feel slightly more uncomfortable about the earlier one). I will have another look tomorrow with fresh eyes.

One thing comes to mind though - what are the pixel dimensions of your NEC screen? I'm wondering if the images are being resized. That can make a difference.

I'm glad you didn't notice halos!

As to stacking, I do stack flowers, and the artefacts are a pain. I don't stack invertebrates, so there won't be stacking artefacts, but the Topaz sharpening I use can add artefacts, so perhaps you are seeing some of that that my eyes haven't registered yet.

Thanks again for your help.

I'm not sure it's worthwhile to analyze this too much as it is most likely just a matter of personal preference.

I wouldn't bet on it! You are obviously used to looking at images rather carefully so I would be daft not to take notice.

Both samples are very impressive. I just happened to remember the earlier samples which I liked. There is some difference in the contrast due to the diffuse lighting. I see a significant difference in the eye detail.

The diffusion in the latest example turned out to be a fail. I had another short session yesterday and it indicated that the new arrangement simply shifts diffuser hot spots from where they would be in an undiffused arrangement - directly over the flash heads - to the diffuser edge to which the light is being diverted.

It's strange, and I don't understand why, but I think I find it much more difficult to get eye detail from flies of the type in the most recent shot of the pair. I think I get it much more often with the long legged flies like in the earlier one of the pair. So I suppose there might, possibly (not really convinced, there may be some confirmation bias going on here), be something about the different characteristics of the eyes.

Also, the test yesterday was instructive with regard to the apertures I was using. I think I let the effective apertures get too small, removing detail even more than I'm content to deal with. I need to internalise the f-numbers needed to keep the effective apertures at a fairly constant, acceptable (to me) level across magnifications.

My monitor is 1680 x 1050 -- not the newest. I don't think there's any resizing with the DVI connection.

No, but there will be resizing if you are looking at the whole image rather than viewing it at 100%. I prepare the images for viewing unresized at 1300 pixels high, which unfortunately means they can't be viewed as intended on that screen. (And they may be too small for the liking of people with larger screens that I use. Can't win on this one unfortunately.)

Interestingly, I got my first impression of the difference when viewing the photos on a Macbook and then checked later on my desktop monitor.

So not to do with the monitor then. ok.

I probably fall in the category of a luddite, but I have gone to decent smaller sensor cameras I own to get the DOF I want

I've gone in the opposite direction. I can't get the DOF I want (i.e. not enough) from the small sensor (1/2.3" bridge) cameras I have used most for invertebrates over the past decade plus. That is why I'm trying ILC setups with the teleconverter, to get beyond the f/45 full frame equivalent I can get with the bridge setups. It happens to be a full frame camera at the moment, but it could be APS-C or mFT. In fact I could get greater DOF with APS-C than FF, and more with mFT than APS-C, but I think I've already hit my limit on that with the full frame. The APS-C would let me tackle smaller scene sizes with the lenses I have, and mFT smaller still. I may yet go there. I'm not sure yet whether the A7ii setup is giving me quite as much magnification as I need. I need to find some springtails, barkflies, tics. mites or similar to find out. That might push me down to a smaller ILC sensor size, although I'm liking the A7ii operating characteristics with this setup, in particular the way focus peaking is working. Without that I think my hit rate with the smaller subjects might fall considerably.

-- with the lighting I am using I can work near their optimum apertures. I haven't felt the need to experiment with stacking yet.

Might I ask what size sensor you are using, and the type of scene you are covering?

I use stacking for flowers, with near optimum aperture on mFT. I've done a few invertebrate stacks, but I'm much more comfortable squeezing as much as I can out of single shots, especially as my subjects tend to be rather active.

 

[Darrell Spreen]

Also, the test yesterday was instructive with regard to the apertures I was using. I think I let the effective apertures get too small, removing detail even more than I'm content to deal with. I need to internalise the f-numbers needed to keep the effective apertures at a fairly constant, acceptable (to me) level across magnifications.

It occurred to me that diffraction could be causing some "smearing" of small details.

My monitor is 1680 x 1050 -- not the newest. I don't think there's any resizing with the DVI connection.

No, but there will be resizing if you are looking at the whole image rather than viewing it at 100%. I prepare the images for viewing unresized at 1300 pixels high, which unfortunately means they can't be viewed as intended on that screen. (And they may be too small for the liking of people with larger screens that I use. Can't win on this one unfortunately.)

People are viewing on so many different devices that it's impossible to present an image online and be certain others see it as you intend. I know my laptop can simply not be calibrated as well as my desktop monitor.

Might I ask what size sensor you are using, and the type of scene you are covering?

I'm strictly a hobbyist -- I've been doing a lot of table-top/product photography (my wife's crafts) and it varies from small jewelry to still-life. Lately, I use Westcott LED lamps with umbrellas, diffusion screens, and grids. Depending on the subject, I use APS-C, 1/1.7" bridge cameras, and even an old Ricoh 1/2.3" camera that has a good reputation for closeup work. I avoid anything but base ISO and want to keep the apertures around f/4 to f/8, so I choose my camera accord to the DOF I want. It's generally a compromise and I realize it's very different from the macro photography you do in many ways. I probably spend more effort on color accuracy than anything else.

The macro & still life forum here has been especially interesting to me since the restrictions on many activities. I'm learning and enjoy the variety I see (no cats!).

regards.

 

[gardenersassistant]

Also, the test yesterday was instructive with regard to the apertures I was using. I think I let the effective apertures get too small, removing detail even more than I'm content to deal with. I need to internalise the f-numbers needed to keep the effective apertures at a fairly constant, acceptable (to me) level across magnifications.

It occurred to me that diffraction could be causing some "smearing" of small details.

My monitor is 1680 x 1050 -- not the newest. I don't think there's any resizing with the DVI connection.

No, but there will be resizing if you are looking at the whole image rather than viewing it at 100%. I prepare the images for viewing unresized at 1300 pixels high, which unfortunately means they can't be viewed as intended on that screen. (And they may be too small for the liking of people with larger screens that I use. Can't win on this one unfortunately.)

People are viewing on so many different devices that it's impossible to present an image online and be certain others see it as you intend. I know my laptop can simply not be calibrated as well as my desktop monitor.

Might I ask what size sensor you are using, and the type of scene you are covering?

I'm strictly a hobbyist -- I've been doing a lot of table-top/product photography (my wife's crafts) and it varies from small jewelry to still-life. Lately, I use Westcott LED lamps with umbrellas, diffusion screens, and grids. Depending on the subject, I use APS-C, 1/1.7" bridge cameras, and even an old Ricoh 1/2.3" camera that has a good reputation for closeup work. I avoid anything but base ISO and want to keep the apertures around f/4 to f/8, so I choose my camera accord to the DOF I want.

Interesting approach. Makes sense. Thanks for explaining.

It's generally a compromise and I realize it's very different from the macro photography you do in many ways. I probably spend more effort on color accuracy than anything else.

For product photography I can understand that.

The macro & still life forum here has been especially interesting to me since the restrictions on many activities. I'm learning and enjoy the variety I see (no cats!).

regards.

 

[John K]

I’m in Gaeta, Italy visiting family and viewing this thread on an iPad when I get back to Naples tomorrow I’ll take a look at them on my PC in the mean time please tell me what actual aperture you shot that white faced bee

 

[gardenersassistant]

I’m in Gaeta, Italy visiting family and viewing this thread on an iPad when I get back to Naples tomorrow I’ll take a look at them on my PC in the mean time please tell me what actual aperture you shot that white faced bee

The f-number that the camera told me I was using was f/32. I don't know what the effective f-number was because I don't know what the magnification was. Quite possibly it was around 1:1, in which case it would have been f/60 or so. Somewhere in that region I would think.

The new diffuser arrangement was a failure. It simply produced hot areas at the edge of the diffusers rather than in front of the flash filaments. So I've scrapped that idea and have been testing another approach today.

I've also been trying the Laowa 100 with the 2X teleconverter on a 70D and a G9. It was nice having ETTL flash on the 70D, and a bit of extra magnification, but I did poorly with focusing on small subjects that were in motion, or only very briefly still. The G9 kept losing connection with the lens so that was no good. I'm finding focusing good on the A7ii, with its focus peaking proving very useful.

I wish I could find a twin flash that would do ETTL with the A7ii. The Sony product doesn't seem to be available in the UK at the moment, and in any case it looks weird, with long arms (straight, in the same plane as the flash mount as far as I can see, taking the flash heads far away from the subject. Very odd. There is a Meike twin flash that does ETTL with Sony, but the flash heads only have a guide number of 10, which makes me think it wouldn't be powerful enough. (I'm running the YN24EX at a constant 1/4 power so as to get a reasonable recycling time, and using ISO to adjust the lightness.)

I just got some examples with the new setup of the problem I wanted your advice about - small subjects with highly reflective, high curvature bodies. It's the same problem as always. The light source is close to the subject (this is a front-mounted YN24EX) and the diffusers present a large area from the subject's perspective. But what I get (depending on the angles) is a strong reflection from the diffusers. I can see that the light is not even across each diffuser, and I can work on that, but suppose the light was perfectly even across each diffuser's front surface, there would still be a strong reflection wouldn't there?

I've added a couple of other images from the short session to illustrate how other types of subject look. These are both bigger than the ants, which were quite small, but it isn't simply a problem with small subjects. I have images of barkflies, springtails, mites, tics etc which don't have this problem, and they are smaller than these ants. And the flash reflections I get on ladybirds/ladybugs, which are larger than these ants, are worse than, for example, on the one you posted recently and I commented on.













--
Nick
Summary of photo activity and output since 2007 https://fliesandflowers.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-i-retired-in-2006-i-had-it-in-mind.html
Flickr image collections http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/

 

[John K]

I’m in Gaeta, Italy visiting family and viewing this thread on an iPad when I get back to Naples tomorrow I’ll take a look at them on my PC in the mean time please tell me what actual aperture you shot that white faced bee

The f-number that the camera told me I was using was f/32. I don't know what the effective f-number was because I don't know what the magnification was. Quite possibly it was around 1:1, in which case it would have been f/60 or so. Somewhere in that region I would think.

Doesn't matter what the effective Fstop is cause that value was originally intended to help calculate exposure when using a hand held light meter, so I'm more interested in the actual Fstop.

At F32 diffraction is really gonna take your lunch money, and you're gonna run into diffusion issues...

Diffusion is a function of light intensity over a given diffusion surface. So lets examine the ways to improve the diffusion of a light source:

1) Use a larger diffuser. Pretty straight forward. If you spread the intensity of the light over a larger surface then the intensity per square centimeter (or inch, or whatever is marked on your ruler) goes down and diffusion improves.

2) Get the diffuser closer to the subject. When the diffuser to subject distance drops light coming from the diffuser that would have gone out into space is now striking the subject, so the amount of light that the flash has to produce drops, the intensity per square whatever drops, and the diffusion gets better.

3) Increase the ISO. As the sensitivity of the sensor goes up the amount of light that the flash has to produce to expose the scene goes down, intensity drops, and diffusion gets better.

4) Underexposure. This one works for the same reason as increasing the ISO in that the intensity drops cause the flash isn't firing as long.

Of those 4 I think that #1 and #2 actually produces the best results, but they're not always the most practical. I use the MT26EX RT and a relatively small diffuser set not cause it's the best light source (far from it) but I use it cause it fits my style of shooting and allows me to create images that look really 3D. Unfortunately it's not the best light source for black glossy surfaces:

Tech Specs: Canon 80D (F11, 1/250, ISO 100) + a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens (2x) + a diffused MT-26EX RT (E-TTL metering). This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held. In post I used Topaz Denoise AI, Sharpen AI, and Clarity in that order.

This Sweat Bee waking up in a Poppy flower is a prime example of where my light is failing. I'm really close to losing detail in the specular area in the eyes, and I'd like for the specular highlight to be less obvious. In hindsight I should have taken that shot at ISO 200 to get a little bit of a break in the diffusion, and after realizing that there's almost no difference in dynamic range and noise between ISO 100 and 200 I think I'll be shooting at ISO 200 full time. Black glossy surfaces are forcing me to redesign my diffusers, and I'll be working on a new set when the material get here in the next week or so.

For Ladybugs the diffusion works pretty well. The specular highlights aren't too obvious and there is texture and detail behind them:

Tech Specs: Canon 80D (F11, 1/250, ISO 100) + a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens (3x) + a diffused MT-26EX RT (E-TTL metering). This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held. In post I used Topaz Denoise AI, Sharpen AI, and Clarity in that order.

But that shot was taken at 3x and my diffusers are about 5cm (2") from the subject.

--
Also known as Dalantech
My Book: http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2010/01/extreme-macro-art-of-patience.html
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder...

 

[gardenersassistant]

I’m in Gaeta, Italy visiting family and viewing this thread on an iPad when I get back to Naples tomorrow I’ll take a look at them on my PC in the mean time please tell me what actual aperture you shot that white faced bee

The f-number that the camera told me I was using was f/32. I don't know what the effective f-number was because I don't know what the magnification was. Quite possibly it was around 1:1, in which case it would have been f/60 or so. Somewhere in that region I would think.

Doesn't matter what the effective Fstop is cause that value was originally intended to help calculate exposure when using a hand held light meter, so I'm more interested in the actual Fstop.

At F32 diffraction is really gonna take your lunch money, and you're gonna run into diffusion issues...

Diffusion is a function of light intensity over a given diffusion surface. So lets examine the ways to improve the diffusion of a light source:

1) Use a larger diffuser. Pretty straight forward. If you spread the intensity of the light over a larger surface then the intensity per square centimeter (or inch, or whatever is marked on your ruler) goes down and diffusion improves.

2) Get the diffuser closer to the subject. When the diffuser to subject distance drops light coming from the diffuser that would have gone out into space is now striking the subject, so the amount of light that the flash has to produce drops, the intensity per square whatever drops, and the diffusion gets better.

3) Increase the ISO. As the sensitivity of the sensor goes up the amount of light that the flash has to produce to expose the scene goes down, intensity drops, and diffusion gets better.

4) Underexposure. This one works for the same reason as increasing the ISO in that the intensity drops cause the flash isn't firing as long.

Of those 4 I think that #1 and #2 actually produces the best results, but they're not always the most practical. I use the MT26EX RT and a relatively small diffuser set not cause it's the best light source (far from it) but I use it cause it fits my style of shooting and allows me to create images that look really 3D. Unfortunately it's not the best light source for black glossy surfaces:

Tech Specs: Canon 80D (F11, 1/250, ISO 100) + a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens (2x) + a diffused MT-26EX RT (E-TTL metering). This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held. In post I used Topaz Denoise AI, Sharpen AI, and Clarity in that order.

This Sweat Bee waking up in a Poppy flower is a prime example of where my light is failing. I'm really close to losing detail in the specular area in the eyes, and I'd like for the specular highlight to be less obvious. In hindsight I should have taken that shot at ISO 200 to get a little bit of a break in the diffusion, and after realizing that there's almost no difference in dynamic range and noise between ISO 100 and 200 I think I'll be shooting at ISO 200 full time. Black glossy surfaces are forcing me to redesign my diffusers, and I'll be working on a new set when the material get here in the next week or so.

For Ladybugs the diffusion works pretty well. The specular highlights aren't too obvious and there is texture and detail behind them:

Tech Specs: Canon 80D (F11, 1/250, ISO 100) + a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens (3x) + a diffused MT-26EX RT (E-TTL metering). This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held. In post I used Topaz Denoise AI, Sharpen AI, and Clarity in that order.

But that shot was taken at 3x and my diffusers are about 5cm (2") from the subject.

Thanks John, that is very helpful. It seems from what you recommend that I'm working along the right lines. With the YN24EX I've been going for large and close. For example here (one of a number of setups I've been experimenting with), like with your setup, at 3X these diffusers are around 5cm from the subject. With them that close I don't think I could make them much larger. As it is they can get caught up in foliage and make it difficult to get close enough. And the small flies I've been using as test subjects are on lily pads on our tiny pond, and the diffusers have dipped into the water from time to time.



Interesting that increasing the ISO and/or underexposing would improve diffusion. As it happens I've been doing both so that's a happy coincidence.

As to the very small apertures, I'm content that they are giving me more by way of DOF than they are taking away by way of detail. This afternoon I've been doing a clearout of stuff I've accumulated from testing various setups over the past 6 weeks or so. Looking through them and comparing to what I was getting previously it's clear to me that these even smaller apertures are letting me get results that I wanted to achieve but couldn't with the small but not as small apertures that I was using before.

--
Nick
Summary of photo activity and output since 2007 https://fliesandflowers.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-i-retired-in-2006-i-had-it-in-mind.html
Flickr image collections http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/

 

[John K]

Thanks John, that is very helpful. It seems from what you recommend that I'm working along the right lines. With the YN24EX I've been going for large and close. For example here (one of a number of setups I've been experimenting with), like with your setup, at 3X these diffusers are around 5cm from the subject. With them that close I don't think I could make them much larger. As it is they can get caught up in foliage and make it difficult to get close enough. And the small flies I've been using as test subjects are on lily pads on our tiny pond, and the diffusers have dipped into the water from time to time.



Interesting that increasing the ISO and/or underexposing would improve diffusion. As it happens I've been doing both so that's a happy coincidence.

As to the very small apertures, I'm content that they are giving me more by way of DOF than they are taking away by way of detail. This afternoon I've been doing a clearout of stuff I've accumulated from testing various setups over the past 6 weeks or so. Looking through them and comparing to what I was getting previously it's clear to me that these even smaller apertures are letting me get results that I wanted to achieve but couldn't with the small but not as small apertures that I was using before.

Also keep in mind that you need some separation between diffusion layers so that the light has some room to spread out.

--
Also known as Dalantech
My Book: http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2010/01/extreme-macro-art-of-patience.html
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder...

 

[gardenersassistant]

Thanks John, that is very helpful. It seems from what you recommend that I'm working along the right lines. With the YN24EX I've been going for large and close. For example here (one of a number of setups I've been experimenting with), like with your setup, at 3X these diffusers are around 5cm from the subject. With them that close I don't think I could make them much larger. As it is they can get caught up in foliage and make it difficult to get close enough. And the small flies I've been using as test subjects are on lily pads on our tiny pond, and the diffusers have dipped into the water from time to time.



Interesting that increasing the ISO and/or underexposing would improve diffusion. As it happens I've been doing both so that's a happy coincidence.

As to the very small apertures, I'm content that they are giving me more by way of DOF than they are taking away by way of detail. This afternoon I've been doing a clearout of stuff I've accumulated from testing various setups over the past 6 weeks or so. Looking through them and comparing to what I was getting previously it's clear to me that these even smaller apertures are letting me get results that I wanted to achieve but couldn't with the small but not as small apertures that I was using before.

Also keep in mind that you need some separation between diffusion layers so that the light has some room to spread out.

Yes indeed. In that setup there is around 25mm separation between layers.

--
Nick
Summary of photo activity and output since 2007 https://fliesandflowers.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-i-retired-in-2006-i-had-it-in-mind.html
Flickr image collections http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/

 

[John K]

I found this Asian Beetle snoozing on one of my Sunflowers. This is the first test of a new diffuser design. I still need to photograph a solitary bee, but those specular highlights are promising. So large and smooth that they blended together and it's not immediately apparent that there are two light sources.

Tech Specs: Canon 80D (F11, 1/250, ISO 100) + a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens (3x) + a diffused MT-26EX RT (E-TTL metering). This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held. In post I used Topaz Denoise AI, Sharpen AI, and Clarity in that order.

--
Also known as Dalantech
My Book: http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2010/01/extreme-macro-art-of-patience.html
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder...

 

[gardenersassistant]

I found this Asian Beetle snoozing on one of my Sunflowers. This is the first test of a new diffuser design. I still need to photograph a solitary bee, but those specular highlights are promising. So large and smooth that they blended together and it's not immediately apparent that there are two light sources.

That is indeed promising.

Is that one of those highly reflective surfaces? It has a bit of a matte look to it to my eye.

(If it is highly reflective then that is a brilliant result.)

Tech Specs: Canon 80D (F11, 1/250, ISO 100) + a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens (3x) + a diffused MT-26EX RT (E-TTL metering). This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held. In post I used Topaz Denoise AI, Sharpen AI, and Clarity in that order.

--
Nick
Summary of photo activity and output since 2007 https://fliesandflowers.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-i-retired-in-2006-i-had-it-in-mind.html
Flickr image collections http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/

 

[John K]

I found this Asian Beetle snoozing on one of my Sunflowers. This is the first test of a new diffuser design. I still need to photograph a solitary bee, but those specular highlights are promising. So large and smooth that they blended together and it's not immediately apparent that there are two light sources.

That is indeed promising.

Is that one of those highly reflective surfaces? It has a bit of a matte look to it to my eye.

(If it is highly reflective then that is a brilliant result.)

Tech Specs: Canon 80D (F11, 1/250, ISO 100) + a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens (3x) + a diffused MT-26EX RT (E-TTL metering). This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held. In post I used Topaz Denoise AI, Sharpen AI, and Clarity in that order.

Similar critter, older diffusers. 2x shot, but the 2x shot I took of the critter above showed similar results to the 3x shot:

--
Also known as Dalantech
My Book: http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2010/01/extreme-macro-art-of-patience.html
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder...