Another squam macro

What do you think of my use of the software on this one, Guenter? I sharpened it some and added contrast to get the droplets to stand out more.

Another squam macro IMG_2019_3_0b378

Perfectly crisp Derek, great details. Good postprocessing ;-)
And man - I like those squams!

Thank you, sir! I wish I could trade you some squams for some proper photo lessons, but curse the distance. Wink

Nice composition and colours, sharpening photos a little doens't do that much harm especially if they are only for internet use.
But again it doesn't seem macro in imo, sorry Derek Very Happy

Sami

Seen rigidly, macros need scales from 1:1 or more. Everything else is "closeup photography". But most of the people are not very consequent and rigid with those idioms, so I'd not care too much about this as long as a picture appeals me. Wink

I'm not even sure what true 1:1 is, so you'll have to enlighten me!

1:1 means:

If the subject (e.g. snake head) is 36mm long it has to be at least 36mm on the negative (or sensor). This implies always the usage of special equipment as macro lenses or extension tubes because standard lenses cannot get near enough (and still focus).

In other words:
If You have an 1:1 macro on a usual film (24x36mm) and print it out in format 30x45cm a snake head of 36mm is then 45cm large!

Nope, you still lost me. I use a Sigma 105mm macro lens that is not the "D" model and was originally a film lens. I sent it back to Sigma and they rechipped it to work with my XTI, so I understand some of the visual factor of magnification due to the sensor not being a true 35mm sensor. But I have no clue how you can look at a photo and tell that it is not 1:1, nor do I understand why it matters so much and why the photo couldn't be called a macro shot. It's not like I took the photo from 4' away and then cropped into the photo to get what I got. I took the original from less than 12" away with the 105mm lens and barely cropped it.

Sorry if I made this nice topic to a some sort of boring disscussion about what is macro and what is not... that wasn't my point. I was just teasing you Smile

I'm not absolut purist on the subject I just like to make people perhaps think these things. OK let's take a example.. Someone might say that Bourbon is whiskey but when you ask it about some Scotsman he perhaps might disagree. Very Happy

I can be wrong in the whole macro thing..it wouldn't be the first time. It can be life size image of the squam. but to me the body of the snake is quite small? Did you took the photo 12" (is it around 30cm) from the tip of the lens to the subject or 30cm from the sensor to the subject?

Take the Sigma 105mm (ok lens btw I also used it for closeup work etc. some time ago) then screw the focus ring to the max (there shoud be red 1:1 mark if I remeber correctly) and then move closer to the subject until it is on focus (sharp). There you should have a macro shot.

You can also calculate the magnification ration but it's kinda tricky.. here's a link http://www.digicaminfo.btinternet.co.uk/macro1.htm

Cheers Sami

Guenter Leitenbauer wrote:: I'd not care too much about this as long as a picture appeals me.

As said before - I just answered questions then.

I was taking photos last night and paid attention to the 1:2, 1:1.5: and 1:1 designations on top of the lens for once. So NOW I understand! Sorry Sami, I do not think I will ever care to be specific enough to rule out anything not 1:1 or better as being true macro. Seems slightly pompous to me, especially to call out others, and that's not my nature. Perhaps I may feel differently if I am ever a professional photographer and it becomes my profession, but I am a landscaper by profession, my favorite hobby is snakes, and photography is simply something I am into because of the tie ins with the snakes. So I will have to apologize now for current posts and future posts that may improperly use the word "macro". Wink

Here is a "true macro" taken last night, according to the top of my lens:

Another squam macro IMG_2092_2_204ec

Holy sh.. this is great. The waterdrop works like a lens on the snakes scales and has nearly exactly the size of the eye beneath, superb! Perfectly crisp too.

Please stop doing such macros Derek, I'm getting jealous! Very Happy

Thank you Guenter! You know how to make a new kid on the block feel good about his work. Wink

And thank you for the constructive feedback! I am still very uncertain about my manipulation of the photos with PS Elements, but I think I just need lots more practice before I will be comfortable with it. I'm having fun, so that's the most important thing.

» Two times macro..
» Your experiences with macro lences
» (Macro)Photography of my Botriechis & Trimeresurus
» Vipera ursinii rakosiensis - close-ups (first play with a macro lens)
» Atheris ceratophora; seeking climatic data of micro- and macro-habitats