There are basically three different ways to enhance the image (DOF) ”depth” of field. 1) Stopping down to a small aperture such as f/16, f/22, f/32, or maybe even f/45 etc.  2) Use a tilt/shift perspective control lens (or a large format camera)…and, 3) Focus Stacking, which combines a series of images that have different focus settings in order to obtain the entire subject matter (or complete frame) in clear focus. Stacking images is not actually a new concept and was also done in the old film era days by layering negatives and using a red-tape material to mask/block out certain parts of the photograph. As you can imagine, this was a rather fiddly, awkward darkroom affair and absolutely nothing like today’s quick & easy digital software solution  

I personally like to “stack” certain images that I think really lend themselves to this type of approach.  However, it’s not something that I would want to apply to ALL my photographs…simply because the end result will of course then become rather cookie-cutterish and samey looking. As with any enhancement I believe that there is an appropriate time & place for it. 

• Stopping Down

As always, each method used has it’s associated pros n cons…there is no magic bullet.  Stopping Down to a very small aperture will of course introduce the “diffraction” factor at a certain point.  Even with the best quality lenses going beyond the f/16 range it will start to become noticeable, and after f/22 definitely begins to degrade image IQ. Although, having said that, I do routinely stop down to f/22 (and sometimes f/32) when shooting my static still-life and floral images because I feel that  the small amount of diffraction trade-off is well worth the additional depth of field obtained. However, for me, f/22 is generally the cut-off compromise point. 

• Perspective Control Lenses

A Tilt/Shift Lens can also help enhance DOF a great deal by allowing the photographer to alter the image plane (of sharpest focus) so that it no longer lies perpendicular to the lens axis. For more detailed information on this subject click here   However, also note that using a tilt/shift lens may not always produce the desired results, especially when shooting very complex structures, such as intricate flowers, macros, etc., as there are often several different axis that co-exist together and therefore the overall image does not conform to the single tilt dynamic. Objects with straight edges, lines, or a singular plane of focus are best suited to the perspective-control lens method.  The one advantage that a T/S lens does offer with regard to the extended DOF is that it is created ‘at source’ in a single take…so there is no extra work required, nor the possibility for image IQ degradation during the post-editing process. A good example of a high quality tilt/shift lens is the Nikon 85mm 2.8D PC-E shown here.

• FOCUS STACKING

Our third option, and main topic of interest here allows us to ‘blend’ together a selection of images (that all have slightly different focus points) which cover a much larger range of depth…than a single shot (taken at say f/22 or even f/32) would normally offer.  Plus, it also enables us to shoot each individual image at a more optimal aperture (ie: f/8) so that ‘diffraction’ never becomes an issue. Focus stacking is obviously very much suited to macro 1:1 and/or closeup work…where the regular depth of field is extremely thin.  At macro 1:1 distance (using a 100mm lens) even at f/16, the DOF is only approx 1mm. Stacking not only allows us to obtain a much greater depth of field…but also one can choose (to a degree) “where” in the frame the DOF will actually be enhanced. For example, on my ‘Blood Iris’ shot shown here…the “stacked” region is only the front patterned area  of the flower, with the background left blurred and completely untouched.

My personal approach to focus stacking is really the same as it would be for any other “macro” or “closeup” shot in general. All the essential accessories are involved (ie: tripod, geared head, focus rail, shutter release, etc.) with the focus rail now playing the major role. Here’s a link to my blog  Macro 1:1  for a short overview on the topic which incorporates many of the same basic elements, application techniques, and strategy.

• The Focus Rail

The focus rail unit (my Novoflex Castel-Q which is shown in the pic) simply allows the entire camera/lens combo to be moved, back and forth, in small, smooth, incremental steps…thus enabling one to slightly shift the “focus point” from front to back (or vice-versa) with each separate image.  Focus rails have travel-measurement markings just like a ruler (usually in mm) so that one can carefully adjust each individual take in an accurate and exact manner.

The main thing to look for in a rail is a solid/strong construction and a smooth motion that is free from wobble or jumpy, erratic movement. Ideally, you want the main adjustment knob to be very responsive and to move the camera along in an easy, gradual “glide-like” manner…without any slack or kickback return in the knob mechanism itself. You really don’t want to get a perfect focus set…only then to have the unit move even slightly when you take your finger off the knob…because that sharp focus you just dialed in will now be lost. There are a number of focus rail systems on the market these days (including Velbon, Manfrotto, RRS, Kirk, Novoflex) and they range in prices from quite cheap to moderately expensive. As with any photography accessory today, don’t expect top quality for much under $500. My Novoflex Castel-Q cost me $438 here in Canada, which included the necessary Q-Plate (quick release) for the Nikon bodies. There’s also the option to buy 2 units and then connect them in a “cross” configuration to allow precision in both the X and Y axis…like this  Castel-Q Cross  However, this will of course almost double the cost, and in my opinion isn’t really necessary, as a decent “geared head” will already offer fine adjustment in the side to side (Y) axis.

I don’t think that it matters if one shoots their set of images from back to front, or the other way around…so long as ALL the desired region is adequately covered. I’ve experimented with both methods and haven’t noticed any differences in the end result. It is worth noting though – that it’s important to make sure that each separate shot is “spaced” the same amount apart to ensure the best quality final stack. For example, let’s say that I want to capture a total DOF of 10mm in ten images at a ratio of 1:1 using f/16, then in theory each shot should be taken 1mm apart (ie: forward or backward) on the rail to avoid what I call “the smoothies” which are regions of the image that after being blended show no detail…which has occurred because the frame overlap capture was not sufficient enough and hence some areas were not in focus. Click on the image just above (which is a 100% crop) and it will take you to a larger photo that I created to illustrate the “smooth areas” where detail has been lost. Obviously, being very meticulous and precision minded is key here, although after a while of doing this I do think that one gets a good “feel” and knack for the process, and perhaps doesn’t rely quite so much on specific measurements, etc. I guess it’s kinda like driving a car, after a while you just intuitively know how to do it.  One can fix these problem areas quite effectively by using the Photoshop “clone tool”  to copy detail from nearby regions…which is relatively quick and easy to do. Also note, that these ’smoothie’ regions are often not noticeable when the image is viewed on a PC monitor at regular (33%) ratio and perhaps would be OK/fine if printed up to a standard size. However, if print enlargements are required then I think the image IQ could certainly be compromised.  

• Focusing method

One point that people often ask me about is the actual focusing method.  Does one always move the entire camera system back & forth along the rail to vary the frame focus points, or can it be simply done by turning the lens barrel, like with a normal shot? Well, to be honest, one again, I don’t think that it truly matters from a technical-data standpoint…as both methods actually “change” the visual perspective, relative to each image captured (hence the frame border cropping needed after the pics are aligned together in software)…which I shall discuss in the next section. However, using the focus rail is preferred because there is no actual touching of the lens itself – which therefore eliminates the potential for any hand-release focus kickback. In short, it’s far more precise (and easier) to obtain a tack sharp image-focus when not physically touching the lens at all. Especially when shooting in “LIVE View” and tethered up to your computer LCD screen, etc. The best approach is to just set the desired ratio (ie: 1:1, 1:2, 1:4 or whatever) on the lens…and then simply move the entire rig along the rail to vary your focus.

• Post Processing & Stacking Software

From a purely conceptual viewpoint I do think that focus stacking has the potential to produce “perfect” results because theoretically the photographer could/should be able to create selective DOF wherever he/she wants, but unfortunately it’s end performance is ultimately dependent upon two somewhat  intangible things – human skill, and stacking software capability. After the series of images have been taken we then first need to edit and process them before they are loaded into the stacking software of choice.  All the separate images should be of equal exposure, luminosity-balance, and sharpness to maintain an even keel result. I post edit each NEF accordingly in Capture NX2 and then make a TIFF copy for stacking in Photoshop.  Please note – When shooting stacks compose the frame so that there is ample border space to allow for some final cropping once the images have been blended…as there will invariably be some outer border mis-alighnment and areas that need to be removed…due to the previously mentioned slight visual perspective differences between each photo. So be warned - always remember to shoot with this in mind. There’s nothing worse than taking the time to setup a great subject matter, carefully getting the lighting absolutely perfect, meticulously taking a series of images, and then suddenly realizing (once you’ve disasembled the whole thing) that you didn’t leave enough edge room for some cropping to be done and that the final composition now looks really crappy

Here is a seven (7) x image stack of a pink Rhododendron closeup with the first shot focused on the water droplet at the front and then working gradually to the back in equal measurements. Click on the photo set to see a much larger view which shows the very slight focus point change between each individual take. At this distance the differences will be very small, but once combined into a single picture will show a much greater “depth of field” than any one shot alone.  On this one I still used an aperture setting of f/22 to maximize the DOF overlap to ensure that everything from the front to back was sharp, and to help eliminate any “smooth” loss of detail problematic areas, etc. This is the finished stacked image > Pink Rhododendron 

Today, there are a few (stand alone) stacking software programs available. The three most popular seem to be: Helicon Focus, Zerene Stacker, Combine ZM, plus also Photoshop CS4/CS5 which includes focus stacking as one of it’s standard on-board functions. At present I use Photoshop, simply because I seem to get better results with it and I find it very easy to work with. I’m not really advocating one particular program over another here as I’ve read various reviews from people who seem to get very good images from the software listed above. However, I have also tried them and for some reason have had rather mixed, inferior results…which was surprising as I’d read otherwise. Photoshop seems to align & blend MY stacks considerably better and also with a lot more consistency – so for the time being I’m sticking with it.

I would be intertested in hearing from anyone who has had great success with any of the stand alone stacking programs as there are probably a few inherent technical details and specific settings or tweaks that I may have missed and/or overlooked…hence my less than optimal results. There is of course a certain amount of ‘trial n error’ involved so final image quality will naturally depend on a combination of factors. Like most  things it’s definitely not a one size fits all type scenario.

I always prefer to use TIFFs over jpegs for obvious IQ related reasons…and so, software resource capability can (and does) become a limiting factor when using the much larger TIFF files. Photoshop CS4 will comfortably handle 5-6 TIFF images together just fine, but when that number increases to more, than say, 10-12 images, then it really starts to puff and has a hard time processing the combined heavy MB workload. One can always use smaller JPEG files to help speed things up should this become an issue…but, IF you are going to use TIFFs for your stack, I would recommend that you try and limit it to around 6-8 images maximum.

• Using Photoshop CS4/5

To load your stack into CS4, launch Bridge, select the individual pics, and go to > Tools > Photoshop > Load Files into Photoshop Layers. Or, simply in PS go to > File > Scripts > Load Files into Stack > Browse Files > OK. Then once the images are in Photoshop select all image layers (ie: highlight them in the layers pallet on the right) and go to > Edit > Auto-Align Layers > OK. Once the pics are aligned, then the second step is > Edit > Auto-Blend Layers > Stack Images > OK.  Then SAVE the stacked image to TIFF or PSD file. At this stage, I will then crop away any unwanted peripheral misalignment around the edge-border, and also complete any final additional editing that may be required…such as image clean-up, area lightening, mid range dynamics adjustment, selective sharpening, etc.  

Note – IF you are saving the final stack to TIFF for further editing in Capture NX2…save the file as one single image (without layers)…because NX2 will not be able to open a large (layered) TIFF file of more than approx 60MB, or so.

• Conclusion

Is focus stacking perfect? Answer – no it isn’t…as there are still limitations to what can be achieved and stacking software is not technically up to that kind of level yet. Plus, it can also be a lot of extra work, time and effort involved. Having said that, it does allow us to create enhanced DOF images that are just not possible (via the traditional DSLR route) with stunning results. Below are a few links to my most recent stacked images:

• Crimson Tulip Centre 
• Japoncum Leaf
• Sea Holly
• CandyTuft
• Yellow Tulip
• Hibiscus

Cheers, thanks for reading…

KEV

Being born on “the first day of spring” (March 20th) definitely has it’s associated seasonal-emotion based baggage.  Still, I guess it’s also probably the reason why I love flowers, vivid colour, and warm weather so much.  Either that, or I just wasn’t ready to pop out before the very last day of winter was finally gone.  Spring actually arrives very early here on the southern tip of Vancouver Island and usually by late February we are already experiencing a growing mass of new blooms in the local neighbourhood gardens and parks.

As I stroll my local area (which I do 3 times every day taking our dog Tali for her walkies)…I’ve come to realize just how much my photo-related “perspective” has changed over the last few years.  In the past, I was always very keen to shoot any new spring flower that had a bright or attractive colour and which stood out and grabbed my attention.  However, nowadays I find myself being a lot more selective, and only taking pictures of subjects that I truly feel  have a unique, interesting form, and that also offer a varied combination of colours, rather than just a singular visual theme.  Like this pretty Japanese Toad Lily (shown here)  with it’s facinating dotted colour design and rather intriguing, unusual shape.  So, I thought I would write this months blog about this topic, as I think that this form of mental progression could easily apply to any other photographic related subject field.  Personally, I believe this represents a changing perspective on things and a maturing (dare I say, a more sophisticated awareness) approach to actually looking at objects around me.  The bottom-line is, that whilst nearly everything “looks right” in it’s natural environment, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it will make a great photographic subject, and/or look good in an image form.

• Quality Control

When we are out in nature, walking by well-kept gardens, in the countryside, through woodlands, fields, etc…our visual attention is always inherently drawn to bright colours and interesting shapes & form which are usually in contrast to the general surrounding backdrop of brownish-greenery, especially so during the winter time or early spring when vivid colour and flowering plants are rather scarce here in the more northern climate zones.  I notice this a lot myself, without even thinking my eyes will automatically latch onto a splash of blue here, or a touch of orange & yellow there, and I suddenly think “wow, those flowers are so pretty”, etc.  Let’s face it, in the wild everything has it’s rightful place and we don’t  tend to scrutinize the “finer details” as we pass on by.  We never really pay much attention to how “sharp” an object is, whether it looks perfect or not, nor fuss over compositional merits, and other such technical elements.  In short, we never bother to pixel-peep and at best we fleetingly glimpse at most things, quickly scanning the entire visual scene, using a combination of all the sensory input available to us without even giving it a second thought.

Whilst most plants will look lovely from a normal outdoor viewing distance, get up a lot closer and all of a sudden you will see that many of them just don’t have the same wonderful appeal.  Now one starts to notice all the flaws, dead bits, insect eaten holes, black spots, dried up edges, unsightly markings, wind-damage, and all the rest of it.  Those amazing pink cherry blossoms seen from down the street, can now suddenly look rather tired, whithered, messy, and un-worthy of a photograph upon a much closer inspection. 

• Pre-Visualizing The Shoot

So, what does this mean for me, the avid flower shooter?  Well for one,  it means being a lot more selective and fussy in a general sense.  Paying carefull attention to the subject at hand and making sure that all the desired elements are actually present and not just assumed to be so.  Not taking shots for merely capture-sake, but pre-planning & visualizing the shoot even more thoroughly in advance.  Which ultimately saves a lot of time sorting out the “keepers” later on back at home and also helps to minimalize the work-load in post-editing on the ole computer.  I’ve said it before in other blogs…that certain types of subject matter have to be in absolute “pristine” condition to look really great, and flowers certainly belong to this group.  Especially close-up or macro 1:1 shots (for example, the vivid Holiday Cactus, Schlumbergera flower above) where every single, tiny detail is magnified ten-fold.  This approach also requires that one slow down a lot more. and work in a relaxed mode, taking the time to survey the entire subject in a thorough, meticulous manner.  Using all the appropriate equipment (ie: a tripod et al) is of course also an absolute must here.  With today’s digital format it’s so easy to apply the shotgun method of firing off say, 200 quick shots, in the hope that perhaps 10 of them might be good.  I prefer not to work this way.  I like to take only 5-6 shots of any one given subject (at the most) and nail a great pic within that small batch.  This not only cuts down the selection process back at the ranch, but also keeps the pp editing phase a lot more enjoyable, fresh and alive.  When I’m faced with say 50-60 different/varying images to choose from my brain often suddenly starts to feel very sleepy  

• Colour/Pattern Awareness.

Another important ingredient that has definitely changed the way that I look at flowers…is the presence (or lack) of colour-combinations and pattern/detail layout.  Even the largest and most exotically shaped flowers can still look rather lack-lustre (or even downright bland) IF they do not have an intriguing mixture of well coordinated, contrasting colours that are set out within an appealing visual pattern.  For example, I’ve seen beautifully coloured roses or rhododendrons that appear flat and dull, simply because the petals have very little detail in them, and the single colour theme is extremely even across the entire bloom with nothing really to capture the viewers interest.  Take this very large Red Camelia  which flowers during the rainy, cooler winter period here in Victoria.  It has a nice colour, a huge 8 inch diameter head, and stands out against the surrounding greenery, however that alone is not enough…there also needs to be subject depth, contrast,  a specific focal (attention) point,  and something extra to add perceptual intrigue.  Close-up this bloom is somewhat plain, and the bloom itself becomes extremely messy just after a 2-3 days of coming out. It’s OK, but nothing great.  As a rule, I now try to make sure that a flower shot will include at least 3 different, distinct colours, or 4-5 shades of the same colour family.  Mother nature is pretty good at seeing to it that those different colours actually look OK/fine together.  It’s rare that one will look at a flower and say “oh, those two colours are dreadful right next to one another like that”.  It seems that our natural world has the colour coordination thingy all figured out in advance for us.  Although, as I have just mentioned…it also appears that some varieties are not really meant to be viewed up THAT close

• The Optimal Capture

This evolving shift in mental outlook/perspective, combined with making sure that I have all the necessary equipment, tying in the above elements together, and methodically focusing my attention onto the smallest of details…simply means a better end result.  For me, it continues to raise MY personal bar, which hopefully will keep me on thy toes so that I won’t now sit back and become complacent or lazy.  I also think it helps to vary the subject matter within the floral genre itself, plus adds an element of challenge (and fun) because I am constantly seeking out new species to photograph and also a different way to present them.  After all, the greater the achievement, the stronger the motivation and inner passion become.  It’s a win-win cycle scenario, as like with any ART form, stagnation is indeed our very worst enemy.

Thanks for reading…

KEV

With all eyes on Copenhagen, Denmark recently for the ”climate change” world summit – (NOT) …I think it would be appropriate to mention the weather here and how it directly influences, challenges, and effects us as photographers.  Ask any of my family or long-time friends and they will soon tell you that I have been obsessed with climate statistics ever since I was a very young kid.  So much so, that straight after completing  design/photog college (back in 1976) I went off on a mad, self imposed global travel quest to find the very best “winter” weather on the planet, however that’s a whole separate story

Back in those days travel and taking photos went hand in hand for me, although it didn’t take too long to realize that weather and climatic conditions can (and do) create a whole series of photo-related challenges and influence our approach far more than we might first imagine.  Sure, we all know that the weather directly effects anything that we do outdoors, in either a somewhat positive or negative manner, however with photography (being a captive medium that involves light/aperture/time/subject, and motion) it can be particularly inter-connected.  The recent  past (extremely dry) summer here on southern Vancouver Island, along with the current global warming trend and now familiar related erratic weather conditions, news reports, etc, once again reminded me of this close personal relationship between the two realms.

The main weather/climate related elements effecting photography are of course:  wind, sun, light, rain, cloud, and to a somewhat lesser degree certain things like temperature, moisture, humidity, which can effect camera equipment performance, plus the associated geographical conditions which help to create the many unique, interesting photo based opportunities via stunning landscape formations, natural wilderness areas, and so forth. I obviously can’t discuss all these aspects here so I shall take a brief look at just two of these factors, “wind” and “sun” …the ones which I believe effect me directly the most.

• WIND

For me (as a flower photographer) the wind is by far the biggest challenge (and most annoying) of them all, especially as I live right next to the ocean where for most of the year constant sea breezes and localized isotherms prevail.  To get around this I really have to be very selective “when” I am going to shoot floral shots outdoors, and more often than not, also be prepared to re-visit garden sites several times in order to capture that perfect photograph.  Take this purple ornamental onion picture shown here as an example, it took me 5 seperate attempts to get it right.

With any tall flower that has a thin stem, small compact blooms, or even the larger spring and summer florals such as: roses, dahlias, rhododendrons and hydrangeas, the tiny, slightest of breezes can create a constant movement which is impossible to prevent or stop. Some folks do try to improve their odds by using support sticks, wind shelters and other such accessories, but more often than not this effects both the composition potential of the shot, and the lighting environment in a negative way.

I personally find that the best time for shooting flowers is in the morning, say between 8-11 am.  This is when the wind is usually at it’s most calm, plus the light is also soft but fresh and alive, not waning/diminishing like in the late afternoon.  I have lived in many different locales and climate zones, and generally speaking this pattern seems to hold true.  Often the wind tends to pick up around mid afternoon in many places, even in the hotter regions like the Mediterranean or Middle East.  For example, when I lived in Israel we’d always get a warm sharav wind during the summer months that arrived at 3pm each afternoon, making photography difficult and unpleasant because of the dust, excessive heat, and all the natural vegetation being in a constant back n forth swaying motion.

Remember, the wind doesn’t only greatly effect flower shots but also macro 1:1 work (especially insects which have to be perfectly still) and even landscapes that involve trees, grasses, hedges, water, and anything else that will easily move, etc.  In this local scenic shot it took me several attempts to capture the photograph without the foreground grass being all blurred due to the nearby ocean breezes.  I wanted a decent DOF so I needed to shoot at f/16, but I also wanted the grass to be relatively in focus too.  With an available shutter speed of  just 1/30s, ISO of 200, and tripod mounted, it was hard to obtain optimal shooting conditions.

• SUN-LIGHT

The other weather related aspect that I have always found to be a really tough challenge is sun-light, especially in the many places that offer great photo opps (ie: tropical locations, desert regions, next to the ocean, large landscape areas) where the direct sun can be extremely harsh and often creates the potential for a wide range of colour saturation loss, blow-outs, and luminosity balance problems.  Unfortunately, we humans feel far more, invigorated, motivated (and happy) when the bright warm sunshine is present and often get the urge to go outdoors in the midday sun to take photographs in these less than optimal shooting conditions.  In fact, many pro landscape/nature photographers will ONLY shoot at/around  the “sunrise” and “sunset” (golden) hours…when conditions are at their best and offer the most interesting colours, cloud patterns, and combination of light, shadows, etc.  I’ve even heard of some stock agencies in the past that will only consider looking at landscape shots taken during these specific times.

Direct sun-light plays absolute havoc with flower photography, so much so, that I will now never even consider taking an outdoor floral shot on anything but a bright and fully cloudy day.  Even the slightest amount peaking through the clouds onto flowers can kill the saturation, fade-out colours, and create glare-spots that completely ruin the overall look.  So, in this regard the local weather actually dictates to me, “when” I can and cannot shoot my flower pics.  Using an umbrella or soft-box (tent) to shade the plant, and/or only taking shots in a totally shady area may be an alternative option, but I have found that this approach also diminishes the ‘available light’ which can result in a darkening of shadows, loss of fine detail, and thus creates another set of issues to overcome.

During my travels to very sunny countries like: Greece, Mexico, California, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Egypt, Morocco, Malaysia, Florida, etc, adjusting to the intense sunshine was always a hurdle to work around.  The biggest problem for me was getting the entire frame properly balanced from the foreground all the way to the background.  With so many amazing tropical florals and unique plants to be captured I was in flower nirvana and I quickly learned the “cloudy day golden rule.  However, one doesn’t want to take things like beach views, landscape vistas and jungle scenes on a dull, overcast day, because whilst it may improve saturation to a certain degree…it often makes tropical destinations appear rather drab, grey (dare I say boring) and one looses those stunning turquoise ocean water colours, vivid blue skies, and that typical familiar sunny/warm vibe which we instantly associate with these kinds of exotic locale.

Even way up here on the southern tip of Vancouver Island in the Pacific NW (at 48′ north latitude) with our sub-Mediterranean micro climate it’s surprising just how harsh the sunlight is during late spring and summer.  To put it into perspective, in the months of July and August we actually receive “exactly” the same amount of precip (or should I say lack thereof) and sunshine hours as Thessaloniki in northern Greece, so it’s very dry, arid & really bright all the time.  I’ve pretty much given up on the idea of shooting daytime scenic pics during this season and usually wait until the early autumn rolls around.  The winter is actually a good time also, because the air is clear, clean and crisp with far less haze, great landscape visibility, plus the light is much softer and more gentle.  And yes, it’s a perfect time of the year for taking those beautiful sunset shots as well.

Using a ‘polarizer’ is of course a must have in these types of situations, plus ND filters also help to reduce/control the wide range of exposure & luminosity differences throughout the frame.  Personally, I rather like the “sunrise/sunset” ONLY option myself, coz that means I’m free to spend the rest of the day, relaxing on the beach!

All the best for 2010,

Cheers,

KEV

All the basic fundamentals of regular close-up and/or (non macro) still-life photography also apply to macro 1:1 with a few extra hurdles thrown in for good measure.  The required equipment list gets a little bit longer, plus precision adjustments, and an extremely careful, meticulous attention to detail, play a much greater role here.  One of the benefits of doing macro flower shots is that because of the very close distances involved it doesn’t matter IF the capture is taken inside (in the studio) or outdoors, thus eliminating the often problematic wind factor.  The viewer will never know the difference, and that it was photographed indoors, in the warmth, with no annoying breezes to worry about

Here is a list of what I consider essential equipment for optimal macro 1:1 photography.

• A sturdy tripod
• 3 Way geared head
• Remote, or cable shutter release
• Viewfinder eyepiece magnifier
• Focusing rail
• Dedicated macro 1:1 lens

 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• The Dedicated Macro 1:1 Lens

The dedicated macro 1:1 lens is obviously the key component as it allows one to actually take the shot at such a close range (1:1) and also offers continuous focusing from that distance to infinity. Which basically means one can choose any shooting distance/ratio from the subject between the 1:1 (life-size) value and upwards.  Macro lenses by design are usually tack sharp with good colour rendition and contrast, so therefore they are often also very popular as a short tele for more general type use, such as regular street-scenes, portraits, people shots, etc.  Both Nikon and Canon make a series of pro quality macro lenses ranging from the standard 60mm up to 200mm in length.  I personally use the Nikon 105mm 2.8 VR macro (click for more info) lens.  The majority of macro’s are prime lenses (ie: a fixed focal length)…there have been a few zoom macro’s over the years, however, these are far more difficult/complex  to manufacture, so for the most part the camera companies seem to have dropped that approach, for now anyways.  Third party co’s such as Tamron and Sigma also produce several good quality macro lenses. Notably, the Tamron 90mm, and Sigma 150mm macro’s are very popular and have a good reputation amongst photographers.  In the past Leica, Zeiss, Vivitar (Series 1) and others have produced very good macro lenses too. In fact Zeiss still does.  The highy regarded  Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T*100mm f/2 ZF although it only goes to 1:2, and not 1:1 ratio.

• Different Focal Lengths

I personally prefer the 105mm focal length because it offers me a slightly longer shooting distance from the subject matter. Although in reality it’s still only about 4 inches from the end of my lens with the hood attached.  For me, a 60mm macro just doesn’t allow enough distance from whatever I’m shooting, which can also effect the ‘lighting’ setup, as often one cannot get the required amount of light onto the front of the subject if the lens is too close.  A 105mm lens is also a perfect (standard) length for indoor portrait work, so it doubles up as a very flexible piece of glass in that regard.  Please note - a longer 200mm macro is very useful for capturing nervous critters (ie: insects) outdoors because it affords one an even longer working distance. However, for taking pics indoors, that lens may be too long if space is limited.  Some of the older (manual focus only) macro lenses only actually go down to 1:2 ratio (and not 1:1) without the added extension tubes, etc.  I’m not going to go into this topic here, simply because it’s beyond the scope of this short blog article, and besides, I do think that the current trend is now with the modern dedicated lenses, for obvious reasons.

• Focusing Rails

One of those very important ‘extra’ bits of equipment is the macro focusing rail.  Here’s a picture of the Novoflex Castel Q focus rail that I use which allows for extremely fine, precision focusing by moving the camera back and forth in tiny incremental steps thus eliminating the need to actually turn the focus ring on the lens itself.  This actually does two things.  It helps minimize any camera movement and the often related focus-fall-away by actually touching the lens, plus it allows the photographer to set the desired focal length on the lens (eg: 1:1, prior to focusing) and then simply move the entire camera/lens back & forth until the subject comes into 100% sharp focus.  This is way more accurate than using the traditional hand-turn method, and is especially useful when utilizing the “live view” mode.  There are only a few different high quality focus rails on the market today. This one is made in Germany by Novoflex (click here for more info) and costs around $475  here in Canada, which includes the APL-1 connection adapter plate for my Nikon D300 body.

• 3 Way Geared Head

The other, crucial, piece of kit (for me) is the 3 way geared tripod head which enables one to make small, precise adjustments when framing the shot scene without any of the ”’slack” return movement that is nearly always present when using a standard ball-head.  In the world of macro, even the slightest change in position can completely effect the end result. The ability to compose the frame ‘exactly’ as needed, plus to focus accurately and precisely where desired is paramount.  At such close range the smallest amount of movement is exaggerated ten-fold and can result in unwanted blurring, or a loss of detail, depth of field, etc., which of course will ultimately ruin the shot.

For this I use the Manfrotto 410 Mini Geared Head which supports a payload of about 6 Kg (13 Lbs) and is suitable for most DSLR  and even some medium format setups. It’s relatively lightweight (1.6 kg) and offers the usual 3 way (pan, tilt and side to side) motion.  It also comes with a niftly quick release camera plate system which I find really convenient and very easy to use.  There are of course a wide range of similar products on the market so finding the right head to satisfy your needs shouldn’t be much of problem. Just one word of advice though.  IF one is truly serious about macro photography, I wouldn’t try to be too budget conscious, simply because the cheaper accessories probably won’t have the necessary “build quality” and therefore consequently will not perform to a very high standard, which of course will only result in one very frustrated person behind the lens. Like with anything these days, you get what you pay for, so I wouldn’t scrimp on the tools of the trade, otherwise one could wind up with a big headache

• Macro 1:1 (explained) 

So, what exactly is macro 1:1?  Well, this means that the image on the sensor (or film) is exactly the same size as the object being photographed, whereas macro 1:2 would indicate that the image on the sensor is half the size of the object captured.  Many folks seem to be somewhat confused between real macro and just a closeup shot.  There is no absolute dividing line between the two different perspectives, however macro 1:1 is technically considered the true macro starting point.  Macro 2:1 would mean that the image on the sensor is 2 x times the size of the object being photographed, and so on.

Here are two working examples. The top image is merely a closeup (1:4 ratio) image.  The second image below was taken at the macro 1:1  distance.  To many casual observers there might not seem that much difference in size/ratio, etc., but from a technical standpoint the top photograph is really just a closeup shot and not a true macro. 

• Manual Focus versus AF

The main challenges we face when shooting at this distance is obtaining a truly stellar sharp image, obtaining an interesting DOF, and being able to focus exactly where we want…without experiencing any type of residual blurring at all.  Aside the obvious camera & equipment related movement issues there are also the human factors to take into consideration as well.  Eye fatigue being one of them,  not to mention individual visual acuity performance and other such vision associated elements.  Many cameras today offer the “live mode” whereby one can view the object via the larger LCD screen, plus also use the on-board (+-) zoom functions, in order to obtain a magnified image and more accurate manual focus.   

Speaking of manual focus, personally I think this is the only way to go when shooting macro.  Yes, I know that the new, high-tech camera bodies do offer excellent AF (auto focus) systems, such as Nikon’s 51 point tracking, etc., however at macro 1:1, the DOF is so tiny (ie: only 4mm at f/16 or 4.8mm at f/22)  therefore I think it’s unreasonable to expect any camera focusing mechanism to be 100% reliable, or accurate.  At such a close range even the best camera can become confused because there is often almost no definite contrast between fine details and/or different regions of the subject.  Therefore, I highly recommend that one use manual (MF)  focus mode only and practice at getting the very best focus possible.  New lenses may offer “VR” (vibration reduction) or “IS”(image stabilization) which is intended for hand-held use, but in my opinion this is rather redundant for macro work.  I personally would never even consider shooting a regular flower shot hand-held, without a tripod, shutter release, etc., let alone a macro shot, so I won’t even go there  

• AF Focus Point Test

To test just how good (or bad) Auto Focus is with regard to closeup ratio’s I decided to conduct a simple test using this Hibiscus Stamen as the subject.  I chose this specific type of flower simply because I thought it would be a reasonable challenge to the Nikon’s advanced AF system as the Hibiscus has a rather complex structure with many different layers of depth within a relatively small focal range.  I also used the black background as this would offer some very distinct colour contrast/resolution between areas within the flower head itself.  To view a much larger picture of the test shot please click here.

So, using the AF Focus Point Selection feature I selected a series of places on the subject to see just how it would perform at this 1:1 distance.  Well, as you can see (by the white text “here” points written on the test photograph) I could only achieve ”one” AF Lock (on the red-rounded stamen head)…which wasn’t that surprising to me as this was obviously the most contrasting region (ie: red against black).  None of the other points that I attempted to obtain an auto focus lock onto were successful.  The camera AF system simply became “disorientated” and could not distinguish between the chosen focus area and the nearby surrounding background, etc.  I did think that it would probably work OK when fixed on the “yellow” stamen buds as they were quite a different colour to the red stem directly behind them.  However, it would not lock on target, no matter how many times I tried it.  In conclusion I will only say that “IF’ one can obtain an exact ”desired” lock onto the subject, then yes by all means go ahead and use the AF mode, however, I think at present there really is no substitute for manual focus because even the most sophisticated AF sensors are just not consistant enough at this range - yet.  I did end up actually taking this shot using the AF setting which turned out quite well.  Although, in all honesty I think that I would have most likely focused on the same spot anyways.  Another factor to consider is the correlation between the AF sensor and our own visual perspective, which also begs the question – is the focus point that we see through the viewfinder “exactly” the same spot where the camera AF system is registering?  IF not, then this mechanism will never be truly 100% accurate or reliable.  Here is the final result (without the text) on my website Hibiscus Rosa-Sinensis

• Viewfinder Accessories

As I mentioned, using the ‘live view’ mode can improve focusing ability and overall results…although, in my own experience, having compared the two techniques, I seem to be able to obtain just as good an image by using the viewfinder.  However, you may find that the live mode  approach works best for you.  There are also a few magnifier aids available that one can use to assist with focusing. Both Canon and Nikon offer a right-angle viewfinder accessory, plus a variety of diopter and magnifying eye pieces (click here)  Any additional device that will help our aging and often tired eyes to get a better & clearer view of the subject matter is a welcome thing in my book.

To the right is an image of the Nikon DR-6 Rectangular Right Angle Finder which is real handy when the camera is positioned low to the ground or at waist height.  It not only magnifies the viewfinder image to 2:1 size (double) but also has a built-in acuity diopter which allows the individual to adjust the Rx according to their own specific visual status.  There are also a variety of custom-made  ‘focusing screens’ that can be inserted into your camera.  I haven’t gone this route yet, as it may void the Nikon warranty, etc., but it might be something worth looking into later on.  Also, don’t forget to use the “mirror up” feature if your camera has it. This way the camera mirror is already locked up before the picture is taken and thus helps reduce any potential camera shake.  A sturdy tripod and shutter release are both of course an absolute must, as with any floral or still-life shot.  Whilst sometimes using a large aperture (ie f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6 etc) may produce a very interesting shallow depth of field…many shots will also require as much DOF as possible, up to even f/32 and beyond, so hence the tripod necessity.

• Depth of Field (DOF)

As the micro world of macro 1:1 has an inherently small “depth of field” due to the relative very tiny distances involved we are always faced with a compromise of sorts, and choices to make.  Do we shoot the subject head-on with a rather flat focal plane in order to show more detail and obtain a greater DOF, or do we angle our shooting to say, 45′ or 90′ degrees from the object to create a  very shallow depth of field, which in turm may produce a far more interesting perspective?  Or perhaps somewhere in between these two options?  Another aspect to also think about here is how well your macro lens performs with regard to the transition from the out of focus regions to the sharp in focus areas.  This is important because ideally that transition should be smooth and not rough or abrupt. Some lenses offer a much nicer “transition” than others.  It is impossible to obtain a really deep DOF with macro 1;1, so it’s vital that we make exactly the right part in focus to draw the observing eye in and to create a pleasing overall effect.  This also raises another question, do we select the most interesting bit of detail as our main focus point, or should we choose the region that the onlooking eye naturally falls upon when viewing the picture as a whole?  This is a judgement call, simply because these two can be quite different.   In some cases, especially with objects that have straight edges and square-rigid forms, etc., a PC-E (perspective control tilt/shift) lens can help create the appearance of a much greater depth of field by re-orientating the lens axis in relation to the camera sensor. In other words, it changes the focal plane just like a traditional view camera.  The Nikon PC-E Micro 85mm f/2.8D (click here for info) is a good example of this lens type and it also has macro 1:2 capability.  The tilt/shift lens also helps in keeping potential ‘diffraction’ to a minimum because the photographer is now able to use a much lower f/stop number to obtain the same depth of field. By re-aligning the focal plane with a PC-E lens one could use say, an f/16 aperture to capture a DOF that would normally require an f/32 on a regular lens. Hence the associated diffraction issues would no longer be an issue. 

• Close Up (Magnification) Lenses

Previously I mentioned that it’s possible to go beyond macro 1:1.  To do this one would probably use an additional close-up lens   (like the Canon 58mm item shown here) which would be simply screwed onto the end of your dedicated macro lens.  They come in various magnification strengths and can be ’stacked’ together to produce some amazingly closeup macro shots.  Obviously it is not recommended to use more than say 2 or 3 of these lenses all together simply because any glass-filter (or whatever) added to your lens will ultimately degredate optimal image quality.   However, I do know a great macro (and microscopic) photographer in Toronto who sometimes stacks 5 or 6 different closeup lenses together and he manages to get incredible results.  So, it’s certainly well worth experimenting with.

• Lighting

Another aspect to be aware of is that your lighting parameters and environment will also change when shooting macro. Often the lens is very close to the subject matter, especially when shooting items like jewelry, rings, flower centres, etc.  That’s why working distance now becomes very important.  With the lens hood a mere few inches from the object to be photographed it may be difficult to get sufficient light onto the frontal areas, and just not enough room to place a reflector or diffuser panel where you want it.  Sure, one answer may be to use a macro wireless close-up speedlight system which attaches to the front of your lens…however, if you prefer to use a  ’diffused’  lighting setup (like I do) then this is not a viable option.  IF not enough light is available this will in turn create another set of problems, ie: image noise, which will be present in the shadow regions of the image and shall require some aditional ‘noise reduction’ in post-processing, which again, will degredate the fine detail resolution, etc.  Remember, the more optimal the overall lighting is, the less shadow recovery (to bring out the lost detail) shall be needed later on, and ultimately less ’sharpening’ (USM) will be required in the final output stage.  All these things directly impact image quality, and the better one gets it done right at the source, the better the end result will be - period!

• Pay Careful Attention To Detail

One last point that I would really like to emphasize here is that with the extra magnification and fine details involved when shooting at closeup macro 1:1 ratios one really has to be extremely thorough and meticulous in the setup and prep work stage - before pressing the shutter.  There’s nothing more frustrating and annoying than thinking that one has everything just right only to later find out (in pp editing software)  that the composition scene was far less than optimal.  At macro 1:1 distances you just won’t be able see all the bits of hair, dust and other un-wanted artifacts through the camera viewfinder.  Therefore, it is crucial that you take a couple of test shots first…then zoom in (either in the camera if available, or on the PC screen) to get a closeup look at exactly HOW the shot will present.  It’s a disaster when after carefully taking 50+ pictures, or so,  having dissembled the shoot composition, put everything away, etc – only to discover that long piece of dog hair, or something else has completely ruined the entire work.  OK, in certain instances one will be able to get rid or improve ’some’ of these things with the touch-up/clone brush feature in your pp RAW editor - however, there will be times when this is just not possible and/or by doing so it ultimately reduces the overall look/feel/quality of the shot.   This approach also applies to the “condition” of the subject photographed, so make sure that everything is absolutely perfect.  For example, that flower bloom may look just fine at a normal viewing distance…but under the 1:1 range microscope you may notice a lot of dead bits or blemished areas that will create a very unattractive end result.  Everything is magnified x 10, so pay very careful attention to the tiny details…it’s always much easier to get it right the first time around than after the fact.  

• Summary

To summarize, like I always say when referring to flower photography principals in general.  None of this stuff is super difficult nor rocket-science, but it does require a high level of precision and I still believe that the most important aspect of all is the human element.  Yes, we certainly need the appropriate tools to get the job done properly.  However it is our ability to visualize interesting composition, and to apply a 100% meticulous dedication to the task at hand which ultimately enables us to capture that truly amazing and unique shot.  On closing, IF you want to get great pics of insects…get up and out of the house well before sunrise, because that’s when the little critters are in their dormant, non-mobile, docile mode, and just right for photographing.  ME, I always make it a golden rule never to get out of bed before 10:00 am, so I guess that’s the reason why I’m not a BUG kinda bloke

Here’s the link kvincentphotography.ca/macro to my macro gallery which shows a series of shots that I have taken recently.

Thanks for reading this far…

Cheers,

KEV

First off, I think it’s important to establish just ‘what’ sharpness is.  Technically, I believe it simply refers to “line/edge definition” and nothing more.

In a truism sense, sharpness, per se – doesn’t really exist because all objects in the universe have their own inherent, natural form and line/edge definition.  They are simply “as is” and that will include a wide range of variants between the so called “soft” and “sharp” position.  In fact, many things in the natural world are not ’sharp’ at all, but instead actually have a rather rounded edge, especially when viewed at a very close range, such as during macro 1:1, or closeup photography. Not everything is ‘razor sharp’ with clearly defined crisp lines and detail.  Take a closer look at a leaf, a blade of grass, or flower petal under a magnifying glass and you will see that in reality these objects are often quite fuzzy edged with little or no highly contrasting  dark outline to separate the image from other parts of the photograph.  This current concept that everything should be  ’uber sharp’  is merely the result of our modern day HD (high-definition) mentality, which now makes us come to expect that every single thing we view must have that big screen, IMAX type persona in order to be good.

There are two primary, inter-woven (but conceptually very different) core mechanisms that work together in tandem to create what WE commonly call – sharpness.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Glass as a material (in this scenario) is merely a ‘facilitator’ of light.  It’s a transparent medium that either allows 100% image DATA to pass through it onto the camera sensor, or it doesn’t. Therefore it’s most important quality is “optical clarity” (or visual acuity) and not sharpness.  Great line/edge definition (ie: sharpness) is merely the result of optimal clarity that permits a 100% image capture, or close to it as possible.

Another factor that should be mentioned here is MTF or Modulation Transfer Function which is the “spatial frequency response” of an imaging system or component .  I won’t go into this aspect here, simply because it is a rather complex, technical topic and beyond the intended scope of this blog.  Anyone who is really interested in the mathematics and concept behind MTF can click  HERE  for detailed information. In lay terms, it represents the correlation between resolution and contrast which are inseperably linked.

Many folks seem to be confused between the traditional (manufactured) convex lens mechanism along with it’s related aberrations which concentrates the central focus point, and the inherent glass material “properties” that enables the image DATA transfer to take place. These are two inter-twined, but very separate components within the same optical environment. Glass itself, as a vehicle,  has no ’sharpening’ abilities, it can ONLY allow a true flow of information, or limit/reduce that maximum potential, because of various existing factors, such as: distortion, etc.

What we (as photographers) really want/need…is not a sharp lens, but a 100% accurate or realistic lens.  One that allows us to capture exactly the same image that is presented by the subject.  However, a lense cannot form a perfect image.  There is always some degree of distortion (aberration) introduced by the lens which causes the image to be an imperfect replica of the object. A poorly manufactured lens system will obviously produce a higher amount of optical aberrations and result in a compromised performance.  However, even IF the transmitted ray convergence was absolutely perfect, image quality would still be diminished if the conduit material itself (ie: the glass) was also non optimal. Therefore, if aberrations will exist to some degree no matter what - then it is even more crucial that ‘clarity’ of the transfer medium is maximized to offer the best possible image quality.

In the new digital realm the signal chain as a collective whole determines the final end result. The camera sensor, internal settings/parameters, focusing mechanism, lens optics, external shooting conditions, and not least - the post-processing software algorithm conversion & representation, all play a combined role in creating the finished image. The lens is merely one component in this chain, whereas all elements have their own individual influences, etc.  It’s no different than an “audio” signal created by an electric guitar…which passes from the strings (ie: the source)…along the chain via  the various vehicles that make up the output sound or tone. Each step has it’s own unique contribution to make, the strings, pickups, compressor, stomp-box, preamp, amplifier, speaker cabinet, and so on.

There is also another part of this equation to consider here.  Take Nikon for example.  All Nikon cameras by default produce a relatively ’soft’ image straight out of the box (regardless of which lens is attached) when no additional sharpening mode is applied.  In other words, no Nikkor lens will produce a tack-sharp image all by itself, unless one either turns the in-camera sharpening setting up from zero, and/or adds sharpening later on (via unsharp mask, etc) during the processing stage in software.  This is just as Nikon intended it to be. The image line/edge definition must be enhanced/adjusted/corrected through digital means, in order to obtain a sharp end result.

Here is an example to demonstrate this:  This shot was taken with the Nikon D300 body and pro grade Nikkor 17-55 2.8 lens.  They are both 100% full size crops. The top picture is with a moderate amount of sharpening applied in post-processing software.  The bottom photo is with no sharpening.  As you can see, the photograph straight out of the camera without any sharpening added is noticeably “soft” in comparison.

Dahlia Flower 100% Crop – With Applied Sharpening

Dahlia Flower 100% Crop – No Sharpening

Please note – that I always use a tripod, shutter-release and make sure that the weather conditions are optimal when shooting flowers outside.  IF I had taken this shot hand-held,    it is obvious that the original raw NEF image would have been even less sharp than what I managed to capture here, despite using one of the best lenses that Nikon has to offer.  Plus of course, if one stopped down beyond, let’’s say, f/16, then diffraction would also enter into the equation as well.

Click here  Dahlia Flower to view the sharpened image at a normal viewing size.

In conclusion, I would say that a combination of sensor capability, lens structural performance (including glass-property data flow), software interpretation, and external shooting environmental factors – all play a role in creating image sharpness.  Until we are able to produce a transfer-material with a full 100% accuracy, and a ray convergence mechanism with absolute zero aberrational distortion - this topic will always be of great interest and highly contested.

And besides, does it really matter?  Our human visual system is far from perfect.  Most of us have a compromised acuity of sorts, various astigmatisms, myopia to some degree, and therefore we wouldn’t actually be able to ’see’ (ie: perceive) or appreciate that completely flawless image, anyways.

Cheers,

KEV

So, being a computer enthusiast I wasn’t about to resort to anything as primitive as a pencil and paper, so I installed a copy of Illustrator and said to myself, how hard can it be?

What I discovered was a whole new extension to my hobby. Now you may be thinking about now, what has this got to do with photography? Well the more I look at this the more I think of it as just sort of ‘ultimate Photoshopping’. Now I know there are a lot of purists out there who think of Photoshop editing as almost cheating, but there are also those who spend a lot of time in post processing, like HDR for instance, and their finished product is a long way removed from the original photo anyway. So why not go one stage further?

Although I have been doing some freehand drawing as well, the most successful approach I have found so far, being a novice artist, is to import the photo into illustrator and set it up as a template layer. I then trace the outline with a brush or pencil and block in the colour using the ‘blob brush’. The style I am after is the sort of comic book style where the people are fairly realistic in proportions and pose but not too detailed in the shading.

As you can see from the example there are certain artistic advantages in drawing, I can change the background to make a more dramatic picture. In this case by raising him up to make it look as though he jumped a lot higher than he really did. As I become more skilled at drawing I may be able to change other details, an arm for instance, to make the picture better.

Also this picture was slightly out of focus so not really usable as it was, but as a drawing focus is not a problem. I have many photos, as I’m sure we all have, that are great except for a slight focus problem, a cluttered background or a bad colour problem, now these pictures can have a new lease of life.

Anyway, let me know what you think.

The story below isn’t about photography, but then……..  it does have photo’s.

I wrote this for the garden group I manage and because I spent quite a bit of time going through my pictures looking for the right ones to go along with the story I thought I would share it around..

Don’t look too hard at the picture quality because this is about why I take photo’s, not about how good I can get them….

Enjoy..

ps.  I have paste and copied this from my garden group so I hope it has carried across without too many problems.

It all started in April 2006.
My son was living at home with his girlfriend at the time. He bought her a lovely little Maltese Shitzu X puppy for her birthday.
Chops was the odd one out in the litter. She was the only black puppy and wasn’t nearly as fluffy as her brothers and sisters.
They were all white and very boisterous. Chops would sit back and watch what was going on before making a decision whether to join in or not.
Anyway she became a member of our family for a while until My son and his partner found their own place.

. After that I would see it every time I walked past the pond. Gradually it stopped hiding as I went by.
At the end of Summer he disappeared, and I didn’t see him again until the weather warmed up again. He was now getting bigger.

During Summer of 2007 Mr Stirrer was everywhere i looked.

xt-align: left;”>

Very inquisitive. Nothing passed unnoticed by him. My grandsons bike was resting on the pond. That was REALLY interesting ! I would put the hose in the pond, something else to check out !!

That same day I filled the ponds to overflowing and it disturbed all the slugs.. There were slugs going everywhere, so I scattered snail pellets all around the ponds, not even thinking about Mr Stirrer eating them…
I didn’t see him again… For a while I thought he/she may have gone off to mate, but as the Summer wore on I finally gave up thinking he’d come back… It’s now the end of Autumn, May ‘09 and I haven’t seen him since Sept ‘08

“RIP Mr Stirrer “

There are basically two parts that make up image noise. Luminance noise and colour(chroma) noise. Luminance noise is the variation in ‘tonal’ quality, whist colour noise is the pixel variation in colour. There is a lot of technical data on the web regarding noise. so I won’t get into that here, but I think it’s a good idea to share some basic information on the subject, and more importantly how it effects me as a serious photographer.

Here’s an in depth article on digital noise by Ron Bigelow and another one by Cambridge Colours should you really feel like getting your teeth into the subject.

I have found that the four main causes of noise are:

• Low, insufficient lighting.
• Using a high ISO setting.
• Too much “in-camera” sharpening.
• Applying too much sharpening (USM) in post edit.

Does noise matter, and how will it relate to ones photography in general?

Well, it all depends upon what your end goal is and which format/size you will using. IF one is going to simply upload pics to the web, or share them with family & friends via email, etc., then generally speaking, noise won’t become much of a problem as jpeg files viewed on a computer monitor are normally seen at only 33% size, which at 72 or 96 dpi represents the equivilent full size (in inches) of the 300 dpi original file. So, as the jpeg is only viewed at 33%, some noise (if present) won’t be very noticeable. Unless of course the photo is extremely noisy to start with, and then even at the 33% view it will look bad.

Should one wish to make “regular sized” quality prints from a jpeg file, as a rule of thumb, viewing the file at 50% size is usually sufficient, especially if you are using a modern DSLR camera with a 12 mpix sensor which has a sensor/file size of 4288 x 2848 pixels which roughly equals a 10 x 14 inch print.  However, if one wants to make a print at full file size (ie: 10″ x 14″ in this example) or even bigger…then I would recommended that you view the file at 100% to check for any noise and artifacts. Whenever the lab ‘upsizes’ a file larger than the camera’s sensor pixel size in order to make a 12 x18″, or whatever, there will always be ’some’ loss of image quality, which in turn will also amplify any unwanted noise, etc. Whereas ‘downsizing’ the file to print a 4 x 6″, etc., won’t have the same type of degraded effect.

Personally, I think its a good idea to check every image at 100% and to keep noise at an absolute minimum. As you can see from this 100% crop of a Dahlia flower I took last summer, when viewed at this full size the noise is pretty bad and would certainly prevent me from offering this image for sale. Click on the thumbnail pic to see the larger size which really shows up the artifacts a lot better.

IF selling images on a commercial basis (ie: via the stock agencies or other such marketing vehicles) is your goal - then it is definitely necessary to produce ‘noise free’ images. I have found that the online stock folks are particularly fussy when it comes to the noise issue. **It’s also worth noting here, that the stock agencies also seem to want images that are somewhat soft, definitely not as tack-sharp as I would make them for my web based galleries and/or print use.** I suspect that this is the case simply because their customers (ie: end users) like to be able to ‘resharpen’ images to meet their own needs and specifications. IF “stock” images are too sharp to begin with, it’s hard to reduce it, if they are a tad soft, the magazine/print folks, etc., can easily add extra sharpening if desired.

With regard to sharpening I like to use one of my favourite sayings – less is more.

Sharpening and noise are like country cousins, they go hand in hand. I think that many of us (especially when just starting out with digital) tend to ‘oversharpen’ our photographs. It probably stems from the fact that today’s social emphasis is always on high-definition, crystal clear quality, razor-sharp imagery and high-tech everything. We’ve become rather brainwashed into thinking that every object under the sun should be stellar-sharp, when in reality, the natural world is not actually like this at all. Look at things more carefully, and your’ll soon notice that most things in nature have a rounded, smooth, soft edging to them, and not the hard defined, thinly lined, crisp, contrasting boundaries that we seem to imagine. So back off, and easy does it. Really try to find a nice natural looking balance.

Now take a wee look at this Australian Bottlebrush photograph which is also a 100% crop. This time there is no noticeable noise or artifacts when viewed at the full size and is now for sale at Shutterstock

From my own experience, I’ve noticed that using the “in-camera” sharpening feature creates more image noise than when applying it later on during the post-edit stage. I don’t know the exact reasons why, but there is definitely a difference with my Nikon D300. So now, I simply shoot with the in-camera sharpening set to off (zero), and then add any sharpening in the USM (unsharp mask) tool via software. Always apply the USM at 100% size to get the best results, plus at the same time one can keep an eye on how this application is effecting the noise levels, and adjust accordingly. Shooting in Nikon NEF format (which is totally 100% non-destructible ) I can actually set the in-camera sharpening to a higher level for looking at the shots on the LCD view-screen during the shoot, and then completely switch it off later on during the processing stage – if I want. I have experimented with using various different combinations of both in-camera sharpening and the USM together, however, I still find that the best results are achieved when in-camera sharpening is completely turned off, and I just deal with the sharpening process in the computer based post-edit stage.

There are several decent ‘noise reduction’ software progs and plugins out there, such as Neat Image, Noise Ninja, and Nik Software’s Dfine 2.0 altho none of these programs completely remove noise, and every time you apply NR to an image, there is always going to be some noticeable loss to critical detail, which in most cases (especially with my flower shots) I just can’t tolerate. I’ve found these NR plugins to be most useful in reducing noise in landscape (sky) pics, where fine detail is not present. At the moment, full-frame camera sensors are somewhat less noisy than DX format (because the sensors ar significantly bigger), altho the image differences are not huge. Therefore, I feel that I am inevitably destined to fork out big sums of dough at some point up the road for full-frame and even medium format gear simply because I’m a high quality obssessive-compulsive

Here’s an interesting comparison test article IF you are contemplating using or buying one of the noise reduction software progs.

Overall, my personal approach to noise is to do my very best to prevent/reduce it at the source. Which incidently, was exactly the same strategy when I used digital/modelling amps, etc., in a recording studio scenerio. So, in that regard my methodology hasn’t changed across the two mediums. It’s better to get it right at the source, because later on down the signal chain it’s much harder to control/change.

So don’t forget, sometimes less - is definitely a whole lot more.

KEV

For me, it’s not just about capturing ‘good’ pictures and/or practising a pleasurable hobby. Being a natural born nutbar perfectionist, I’m always looking to take everything I do seriously up to an advanced or professional level. This inherent psychological need can at times be rather stressful and/or demanding, but it’s an integral part of who I am, so I can’t foresee this old dog changing his lifelong behavior anytime soon

Anyhow, so I thought I would do a bit of research and look into the possibility of selling some of my pics with the online stock agencies and various other photo marketing vehicles. I’ll be the first to admit I haven’t done this for about three decades, and knew it wasn’t going to be that easy.

First off, I think it’s worth mentioning that stock photography has changed quite a bit in recent years. Back in the old film era days it was pretty much the sole domain of working professionals (ie: freelance photographers, photo-journalists and trained studio (medium format) guys who more than likely had studied the art at a college level. The general public, or hobbyist rarely had access to the stock agencies simply because they required a very high standard of image quality, plus a large portfolio content (ie: thousands of slides) that only a serious pro shooter would be able to provide. Also, back in the early days there was a greater ‘purist’ (ie” traditional approach) to photography, simply because the cross over between ‘artistic design’ was mostly confined to the “graphic art” industry (that used photos of course)…but wasn’t readily available to the photographer like it is now with today’s high-tech processing software, such as Photoshop, which has suddenly created this new mesh of photo-design illustration.

Nowadays, with the relatively recent advent of online stock agencies literally anyone can submit digital images to sell.  Does this mean that the actual quality of stock is lower than before? The correct answer is probably both yes and no. On the one hand many images are accepted from non-professionals who do not necessarily have all the pro gear, studio equipment, and necessary resources or backing to undertake any high level projects. However, on the other hand modern technology has enabled far more individuals to discover their hidden “photo-artistic” talents and enabled them to create beautiful work, which wouldn’t have been the case, just 25 years ago as the vehicle or medium to do so simply didn’t exist the way it does now.

The next thing to do of course is to find a list of reputable stock agencies and then pick a few to sign up with. Here is the link to Picture Archive Council of America stock member list which includes a drop down menu to see both North American and international agencies. Another decent list is provided by BetterPhoto.com and also here at Photo Marketing Tips There, that should be enough to keep people busy for a while.

Please note - most stock agencies will require you to upload an initial small number of photographs for review, before they will actually accept you as a contributor. The standards are high, each image is screened at 100% size to look for any unwanted noise, artifacts, access compression, etc. Sometimes pictures are reviewed by 2 or 3 people. Not only are they looking for sub-par technicalities as mentioned above but also regular exposure, lighting, colour, white balance saturation and luminosity problems too. In short, all accepted images have to be very good, or great quality.

Another aspect to really be aware of is WHAT the stock agencies are looking for. They don’t just require high quality images from a technical standpoint, they also want pictures that will market themselves well on a commercial basis, and appeal to a wide variety of potential buyers & end users. Todays main emphasis is on “concept photography” which simply put, means images that convey a human theme, emotion, tell a story, and communicate with the viewer. To give you an idea of this - here’s a couple of interesting short tutorials by iSTOCK (a large Canadian stock company based in Calgary, Alberta).  “Snapshots or Stock” and “Composition & Impact” The first one I think is particularly useful as it shows several examples of snapshots/sub-par/stock images side by side and describes the fundamental differences between them. I personally decided to start with just 5 stock agencies Fotolia, Shutterstock, iStock, Dreamstime, and Big Stock Photo as I think one can get carried away, plus it’s quite a lot of work uploading images and entering the correct detailed title, name, information and also assign a selection of relative search ”keywords” to each photograph. With my flower shots I also have to provide the proper genus identification and scientific family name. This last week I have fried my eyes, spending ridiculous amounts of hours staring at the computer screen, cropping images to meet “standard’  aspect ratio sizes (luckily they do accept my (1:1) square ratio flower pics checking for noise, etc., and selecting which photographs I think are worthy of sale. Let me tell ya – it’s no easy task.

Here are a few other pointers that I’d like to share.

• It may take several attempts before finally being accepted.
• Different agencies will approve certain images, whilst others will reject them.
• Agencies only provide a generic reason for image rejection, not specific details.
• Image noise is a big issue, and should be kept to an absolute minimum.
• People pictures, business/office related shots, food & drink, are in demand.
• Getting photos accepted does not guarantee that they will actually sell.
• Flower/plant shots must be exceptional & unique, and/or with an added concept twist.
• Landscape photographs must be of a very high compositional standard.
• Most agencies want large JPEG files (@300 dpi) with at least a 4MPix size minimum.
• Think outside the box. Offer something different. It’s crucial for success.

It’s rather difficult to second-guess which images an agency will, or won’t accept. For example, this Clivia centre shot was rejected by two companies, but accepted by another. Obviously certain aspects are purely ’subjective’ and vary from one inspector to another. Plus stock agency target marketing strategy varies too, so one business will require certain images, whilst another will want something completely different. One thing that hasn’t changed from those early days is that in order to make any serious cash from stock, one has to have a large portfolio of images, and constantly add/update to that inventory. So I wouldn’t quit your day job anytime soon

Here’s another example, this Chinese Plum Blossom shot was rejected by one agency for having too many ‘artifacts’ at full size, but accepted by another. So technical standards inevitably do vary as well. I think the best approach is to be very self critical and selective, but not emotionally attached to ones images, just simply try with all your very best shots and see what happens. The initial “rejection” may suddenly remind you of your old high-school days but after a while you will get used to it and keep on submitting files until the desired results are eventually achieved.

Another avenue that some folks may like to consider is the internet photo community WEBSHOTS “PRO SHOTS“ program, which enlists serious photographers to provide quality shots for sale on their site, via both digital downloads, screen-saver, and print based products.  These images must be at 72 dpi resolution, and 4:3 (1600 x 1200) size only. At the moment Webshots Pro “print” files are limited to (5150 x 3433) size, but this will apparently be more flexible come next year. Webshots pays photographers a 35% commission on all product sales generated with their images and for “prints” they do also offer an upfront $100 USD for a 3 year (non exclusive use) per photo. They require a minimum of 60 pictures to start. Contact them directly via email for FTP upload instructions. I decided to have a go at this and sent them a batch (75) of my most colourful images. Now pending approval.

To conclude here, I think I’m relatively satisfied with my efforts over this past year. I still have a lot to improve in the “composition” department, especially with regard to the concept style approach. I’m a little dissapointed that a large number of stock agencies are over saturated with “flower pics” which ultimately makes it more of a challenge for me, as I love to take purist (traditional) type floral shots. So I may have to re-invent my direction with regard to this aspect IF I wish to actually sell a lot of them.

I’m definitely very interested in the still-life (product) category, and enjoy working in that type of studio environment, so I will probably focus on expanding this area quite a bit. Maybe introduce some food/drink photography, especially as cooking/cuisine in general is a big pastime for me. Landscapes will continue to be my major hurdle I feel. I want to be good at it, but in order to be good, they have to be magnificent.

Whilst I’m on the subject of stock, selling, etc – I do think it’s a really good idea to create an attractive personal website with one of the large photo-hosting outfits, such as Zenfolio in order to promote ones work, and to even offer images for sale directly to the public. Using a hosting service is extremely cheap compared with building your own website, paying for server space, etc. Plus, companies like Zenfolio, or PhotoShelter offer professional looking photography sites with all the regular “add cart” selling/pricing/payment features, including digital downloads, and prints available within North America. They also allow domain name pointing, so you can use your own customised/personal web address to add that individual touch. Here’s my own as an example: Kev’s Website

That’s it for now - my brain is toast

Cheers,

KEV