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!

• 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

There are literally numerous specialty member associations today that have a very visual component or presence to them. Everything from local sporting events, cultural gatherings, motoring clubs, food & drink, music festivals, theatre and dance troops, collector fairs, plus a whole bunch of specialized hobbyist groups, etc. Not to mention business entities, such as local commerce, tourism, retail trade, colleges & schools, real-estate and whatever, you name it – the list is nearly endless.

It was fellow gallery member Honez’s recent (and insanely cool I might add) HDR car pics that jogged my aging memory and made me think about the hidden potential out there. Let’s face it, when someone compliments our efforts that’s a really nice thing, but it’s even better when they are actually prepared to pay us for it.

Here’s the link to one of his ’smokin’ HDR pics Black and Blue

As mentioned in previous blogs, everyone today is taking snapshots. However, few folks are capturing “great” pictures, and even less are creating photographs that are truly unique, with a very appealing and marketable spin to them. So whilst many people may have a ‘record’ of their pastimes, etc., how many actually have pictures that they would hang on their living room wall for all the world to see. Probably not very many. Therefore, with every passionate hobbyist or sporting enthusiast one has a potential customer.

Using Honez’s (aka “Machine Boy”) ”Hot Rod” HDR photographs as a working example here. There must be literally thousands of obsessed custom-rod car guys in Australia that would love a kick-ass, high quality (12×18) print of their favourite “road-warrior” hanging in the garage or workshop. It’s just a case of letting them know that one is readily available. By tradition, collectors have money to spend, are a very passionate bunch, and enjoy sharing with others the things they are into, so having a “killer” photo of their numero uno ‘pride n joy ‘to show off to friends and other avid auto affectionados is almost a no brain-er.

It’s no different with my running events. At each race there is a photo company present who take shots of every runner (at different stages along the course) and then sells the set of JPEG files via download (usually about 5-10 shots) for approx $50 USD per package, with individual prints costing more on top of that. In some major races (ie” marathons) there are well over 10,000 participants, and obviously many people DO buy their pictures as a memento, etc – otherwise they (ie: the photo guys) wouldn’t bother to travel up from the United States to Canada to shoot the various events.

Here’s a shot of me coming down the final 200 metres of the Victoria Int’l 10K race last April 08. Please ignore the crazy nut-bar facial expression, I always look like a raving loonatic when sprinting down the last stretch giving it my 110% all.  As you can see, the photograph isn’t particularly great, and I have deliberately done absolutely nothing to the original Jpeg that I purchased to illustrate that one doesn’t have to be a fantastic pro’tographer, in order to take pics and sell them at sporting events.  Also note, that the images I bought are Jpeg files at only 375 KB size. So not great quality either. Although, I do notice that most of the photographers are using top end Nikon (D3) or Canon (MK II) bodies with large telephoto lenses. Most often 500mm. (Click on the thumbnail to see larger image) Please note, I do think it’s extremely important to take pictures of events or subjects that one is very passionate about and directly connected to, that way one doesn’t lose enthusiasm after a while and/or simply find it a boring task just to make some extra money.

Going back to my HDR Car working example above one could easily apply a few very basic photo niche marketing tactics, such as:

• Attend/photograph vehicles at local & regional custom car shows/fairs and auctions.
• Obtain email (and postal mailing lists) of all members belonging to car clubs, associations, etc.
• Direct target market members/clubs via email showing “example pics” on personal website.
• Small custom ads in Hot Rod car hobby magazines.
• Approach custom workshops/dealers.
• Offer pics for local business promotion, advertising, tourism, etc.
• Setup a small photo related booth at car trade fairs.
• Create a gallery HDR photo showing and invite all potentially interested parties.
• Include the ‘for insurance purposes’ linkage.
• Tie in car pics with other events (piggyback).
• Advertise on the internet.

IF you offer potential customers something that looks terrific and has instant appeal, but also has an interesting twist, or is different from the norm, then I think one is onto a winner. A principle which can be applied across a wide range of subject matter.

Many people will spend $50 and up on mediocre quality pictures of themselves running a race, so I don’t see why lots of serious car collectors won’t pay $250 or more for a wicked looking large print (mounted with glass) of their favourite hot rod.

Just my thoughts for this week.

KEV

Sorry, I’ve been a bit re-miss of late – I’ve had the dready lurgy and not been able to get myself in gear to take decent photographs never mind posting a blog! It seems to have been one thing after another since the start of the year but, hopefully, I’m on the mend now.

I did promise in my last blog to send some action shots of the fitness class I attend and class manage and that was all good and well but the members got a little camera shy (even though I asked their permission beforehand) and the pictures turned out a little too posed. It’s very difficult, I know, to try and act normal when someone is out there with their tripod, moving about the room, trying to get the best angle – not everyone wants their faces/bodies immortalised in print on a Saturday morning when they’re not long out of bed, hungover (in some cases!) and dripping with sweat – not a pretty sight!

I decided that the internal shots weren’t of quality to upload so here’s a couple I took at an outdoor demonstration last summer.  Obviously, I didn’t have to worry too much about the lighting conditions outdoors, whereas indoors I had no additional lighting apart from the harsh fluorescent lighting of the hall.  Also, there was a slight wind blowing in the outdoor shoot which added to the movement in the shots and created a good effect. The photos were all taken hand-held with a 70mm-300mm lens on automatic as I wanted to be as inconspicuous as possible and also didn’t have too much time in between routines to fiddle with the settings.  There are times, I guess, when an automatic setting is perfectly acceptable and I use this when I’m caught out for time or if I can’t get the speed/lighting right (still learning, right?).  All other times, when I have the luxury of time and tripods I do come off automatic setting.

The first picture is of our Instructor Hilda who has so much energy, she literally bounces off the stage!  I hope you will agree the energy comes across in this picture – anyone who thinks “Jazzercise” is about singing/dancing to a little bit of Jazz can think again!  Whoahhh No!  Its all about fun and fitness and a by-product is a great social scene, as I’m sure if any of our members out there go to Jazzercise will agree with me.  I’ve made so many great friends through Jazzercise, I’d like to think life-long too.  Here’s a look at Hilda….

Come on everyone!

She looks like she means business, don’t you think?  Seriously, we have such a great time at class – it’s all about fun, fitness and friends.  It’s not about competing or being the best, it’s just about like-minded people (men included) who get together for a fun work-out.  If this picture isn’t motivational, then I don’t know what is!!  I like this picture as it shows her energy and strength.  It’s great how the movement of her hair was captured also – that was a bonus for me.

When I mentioned the social scene, as an illustration of how much fun we have, here is another picture taken on the same day – we were given free access to the rides at the funfair, which, naturally the girls took full advantage of.  I think the expression of sheer enjoyment on their faces says it all – a great advert for having fun, no matter where you are, what age you are or what kind of shape you’re in.

Part of me thinks, they are holding on for dear life but they did assure me they were having a great time and would do it all again!

Woohoo!

Monday

The older kids from the Art department at school are starting a new project, this usually involves thinking up scenarios which I photograph under their direction. They then compose their canvases using the photos as reference.

The theme this time was ‘treachery’ so they concocted various scenarios involving mistresses and betrayed wives. Here is one photo from the shoot, the mistress with the errant husband. We then went on to photograph the discovery by the wife and subsequent recrimination scene.

For the ‘discovery’ scene we used my wallet with a piece of paper tucked inside containing a lipstick kiss and a phone number. After the shoot I said I’d better throw away this piece of paper or I’ll be playing out this scene when I get home. To which one of the girls replied “yes, especially as it’s my phone number.”

Tuesday

On Tuesday we took some of our sixteen year olds to the mountains so that the PE staff could asses their skiing and snowboarding skills for the upcoming GCSE examinations. As we can’t take the examiner to the mountains with us, we have to shoot a video of them doing their stuff.

The PE teacher asked me if they could borrow a camera for the day, I said “no, you’re going to need a professional photographer for this one, so you’re going to have to take me with you.” Having completed the video in the morning, after lunch we took some of the more suicidal kids to the snow park where they could practice their jumps while I snapped away.

Fortunately I managed to get a decent picture of each student jumping, and also a good one of the teacher, so I think I’ve managed to secure my place on the bus for next year’s trip.

Wednesday

Wednesday found me photographing the young boys in the Judo class. They have all just received their yellow belts and the teacher wanted to make a fuss of them. After a group photo and individual shots I got a chance to snap some of the action.

This is quite a fast sport and you can see some blurring of the feet even when using flash. I feel though, that the blur just adds to the atmosfere of the shot. That’s my excuse and I’m sticking to it.

Thursday

On Thursday I had to create a poster for the school production of ‘Grease’, one of the big productions of the year. I enjoy making posters, which is a good thing as I have to make quite a few each year. The Drama teacher in charge of the production gave me a rough outline of what she wanted and selected the actors who were going to appear in the shot. As you can imagine, the ensuing make-up and hairdressing session went on for what, to a mere man, seemed like hours.

It’s times like these when I really appreciate the immediacy of digital photography, I can try out different lighting setups and see the results straight away. In the old days we had Polaroid to help with this but it wasn’t the same as seeing the finished shot right away. By the way, I didn’t nick the title lettering from anywhere, it’s all my own work.

Friday

Friday was ‘Red Nose Day’ in the UK. This is a charity event organised by British comedians which raises many millions of pounds each year. We had 350 red noses flown over from England for the event so that we could ‘do our bit’, and they were all sold out before 9am. I had fun going round photographing all the teachers with their noses on and even managed to get shots of the director of the school and the head mistress. I am not, however, stupid enough to publish them here, I’m too fond of my job.

As you can see it’s been quite an eventful week photographywise so, even though I dutifully brought my camera home intending to shoot some of the spring wildlife this weekend, it has stayed firmly in the camera bag. Well, maybe next weekend.