Thread: Macro

Nice shot LiliB but try again when he/she is in the area
and get in much, much closer if you can. Try and show
the finer details.

Note: The animal lovers will not like this comment but a friend
of mine in a camera club used to capture the mantis, put it in
the fridge for a few minutes, then place it on a stem of a plant.
It was too cold to move for a minute or so while he photographed it.

Allan

Good Photo - he looks like you got him to say "CHEESE"


May I suggest that you do not take your photos or even process your photos with the intention of "changing the background" or "fixing the colours later".

It hardly ever works, unless, perhaps you are using the photo as a single part of a much larger work of art.

If that is the case , then Photoshop is not the right software.

Hi Allan and Avery
Thanks for the comments.

Allan, I think I made the mistake of using the viewfinder instead of live view. This had two drawbacks. Firstly I didn't really get an impression of how close I was. Also, I didn't really get much idea of what the background looked like in relation to my subject. I was concentrating too much on trying to get focus on the insect.

I only have an 18-200 mm zoom, and couldn't seem to focus any closer than I did. Any ideas?

I think a lot of photographers of insects 'help' the insects to relax, though probably not with valium, but something a little more sinister.

Avery, your comments interest me. Tell me more.Why you think the background can't be modified successfully. Wouldn't it be possible to create a new layer with say a black or navy colour to substitute the current background. Then the layer containing the insect could be overlaid onto the chosen colour?

Mind you, I don't know how to do it yet, so I'm open to ideas. The best shots I've seen of this sort of thing tends to have a dark background which brings the subject into sharp relief. Do they all shoot at night or do they create a suitable backdrop colour with say a cloth or card?

I have to admit that the shooting conditions weren't ideal - bright sun, and my subject looks washed out against a background that is too similar in tone to the insect. It was only when I brought the photo up on the computer that I was aware of the tonal aspects of the photo.

Cheers
LiliB

You certainly can change the background or anything else using Photoshop. For instance , I have, on a few occaisions inserted a new sky into a photo because the original one was really boring. In fact I have a small collection of sky photos just in case I need one.

My suggestion was more directed at the photography than the processing. Sometimes I am not good at getting ideas across.

I don't think that it is a good thing to approach your photography with the idea that you can fix it later in Photoshop. You should always try to make the photo the best that it can be. It is just an attitude thing. You should always look for the best angle, the best light, the best exposure, the best setup of the subject etc.etc. before you take the photo - take a whole bunch of photos and change things around as you go. Then select the best.

Never ever, ever have the attitude that you can take a bad photograph and fix it later. It won't work.

Just my opinion and , as usual, I could be wrong.

Originally Posted by Avery

Never ever, ever have the attitude that you can take a bad photograph and fix it later. It won't work.

Just my opinion and , as usual, I could be wrong.

I agree with that. The picture you take is as good as it gets and if you alter the picture, to my idea its not an original photograph.

Originally Posted by munruben

I agree with that. The picture you take is as good as it gets and if you alter the picture, to my idea its not an original photograph.

Well no, that is not quite what I said.

Photographers have always (since the art/science began), edited and altered their photos. Altering colour balance, contrast, sharpness, masking areas and blurring them, eliminating distractions, distorting perspective etc.etc have always been a part of the art.

Ansel Adams was known to spend weeks in the darkroom getting the negative just right before he printed it - and then he would have printed it on just the right paper with the process he chose to get the whole thing the way he wanted.

Nothing wrong with that.

It is just the attitude to taking the shot in the first place that matters.

If you go out and intentionally take a photo of something with the intent of replacing major elements by some means , then you are perhaps creating an artwork that is more akin to painting than photography. I don't think that there is anything wrong with that, it is just that your photography skills will not be enhanced.


As I said , I could be wrong, again.

Originally Posted by LiliB

Avery, your comments interest me. Tell me more.Why you think the background can't be modified successfully. Wouldn't it be possible to create a new layer with say a black or navy colour to substitute the current background. Then the layer containing the insect could be overlaid onto the chosen colour?

You have teh right idea in principle but its a bit harder to do this than it seems. I had a 30 second play with your pic within photoshop hoping to try and do a quick and dirty background selection but there are too many pixels with the same colours as the mantis' antennae. This means that selecting the mantis out of the background becomes very tedious, and, the borders between the image and the back ground don't blend right. It's better but takes longer to do this on the mega pixel original and then it can be resized and it doesn't look too bad. This is another reason to use flash on macro because it highlights the object and the background becomes darker enabling easier object selection

Hi BobL

Thanks for your feedback. I'm on a steep learning curve, and am trying things I haven't tried before with photos. I'm still very inexperienced with this camera, and am making some basic mistakes with my photography.

I don't expect to attain perfection with the stroke of a key in Photoshop, but want to learn the basic techniques, so that I have an armoury to reach a high standard some time in the future.

Even the straightforward corrections that Mark Galer makes to the demonstration photos in his videos are already well shot, but can benefit from tweaking to achieve their highest potential.

What I am saying is that I am just intrigued, I suppose, at what is possible with Photoshop, rather than what I would necessarily do to my photos. It's a whole new world of possibilities, and I'm itching to try them all.

Hi Avery

I agree with you one hundred per cent about the intent when taking a photo. My problem is I'm inexperienced and am still learning some of the basics of photography, so please do not misunderstand my motives in what I say.

I am aspiring to take the best photos I can, and therefore to minimise the need to correct my work to any great extent. I wondered whether you were fundamentally opposed to altering a photos, as some people are. Obviously you are not.

I was, years ago, however now that I see what is possible with software, and what the professionals do to turn a good photo into a masterful photo, I think one would be churlish to discard the option of correction later.

I value everyone's feedback greatly as it helps me to learn from each new experience especially the failures.

Do you agree that with this photo -

I should have used live view (I would have been much more aware of the background)
I should have used manual focus, (I would probably have been able to focus more closely on more of the mantis).
I should have used aperture preferred, perhaps, rather than macro auto.
I should have used flash

Cheers
LiliB

My $0.02....

Photoshop has its uses, but one of the problems of using it as a crutch to fix photos is that it is sooooo much more time intensive than getting the shot right the first time.

From my own experience...it's faster to remove the fingermarks from a window with windex than the clone tool in Photoshop; it's faster to have your talent use hairspray and a hairbrush, than touch up their hair with clone/blur/paint/smudge tools. It's faster to use bulldog clips to adjust the fit of clothing, than use a liquify effect or create new edges to 'tailor' things....

Basically, if it is something within your power to control, it's easier to get it right for all 60 shots, than to Photoshop it right for one or two shots.

I agree with photographers use dark back ground just like this fellow has The stunning pictures of sleeping insects covered in early morning dew | Mail Online

Digital photography makes it so much easy to play with your photos. You can take a million photos and keep just one and it doesn't cost any extra. Not like in MY day, we had to.....but that's another story. I'm not familiar with the D90 but have a play with the settings, don't just wack it on full auto and hope for the best. Put it in shutter priority mode (or aperture priority) whichever one it is that sets the shutter speed and lets you adjust the aperture manually. Work on your conformation and when you have what you consider to be the best angle for the subject, bracket the shot. That means taking shots with the aperture set a couple of stops either side of where the auto control would put it. The camera will adjust the shutter speed to control the exposure but different aperture settings will give you a different effect on the background. Take a zillion photos and compare the results for different settings.

Originally Posted by LiliB

Do you agree that with this photo -

I should have used live view (I would have been much more aware of the background)
I should have used manual focus, (I would probably have been able to focus more closely on more of the mantis).
I should have used aperture preferred, perhaps, rather than macro auto.
I should have used flash

Manual focus wont necessarily help get more of the mantis in focus. What's needed is knowledge of a midpoint spot on the subject eg top of the front legs. In this shot it is essential the mantis head is as sharp as possible so maybe start focusing at the head and take shots focus on spots between the head an the modpoint and maximise the light to get as much DOF as possible - I would experiment with all of the above. I always use the view finder and never use the screen to take shots.

Here's a bit of a photoshop play around with that image.
Original


Auto Leveled within PS


Quick and dirty selection of back ground and the upped the contrast and downed the brightness a bit


upped the contrast and downed the brightness almost all the way (see how pixelated the antennae become)


I tried feathering the antennae edges but it looked terrible.

On the mega pixel image this would be much less noticeable and woudl take a long time when reduced to a small picture like this but would be clearly visible if printed out at A4. My son could probably do it but it woudl still take him a long time.