I'm trying to get some close ups taken of scale patterning and eye color of my corn snake but everything just goes blurry. Does anybody know is there good method to taking close up shots with a digital camera or would it just be better to go bribe my sister into doing a photo shoot for me with her nikon as I know it takes great close up photos.
-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
close up shots with a digital camera?
- Thread starter yojoe05
- Start date
tyflier
[Insert Witty Commentary]
This will deteriorate your image quality very quickly. Unless you are using something like Genuin Fractals which can extrapolate image data and create good enlargements, I try to avoid removing pixels at all costs. Digital zooms essentially "crop" the photo, but enlarge it to cover the same area size. *Most* standard editing software cannot extrapolate information well enough to produce a quality enlargement. Genuine Fractals does a decent job, and there are a few others...but you still lose quality.
VampMN
New member
I like to take the largest picture my camera will allow. Then, I can crop it down to better highlight what I was taking a picture of. Also, I don't have to worry about losing quality by zooming in using software if I want a large picture. And if I want a smaller picture, I don't lose quality in zooming out. I hope that made sense...
tyflier
[Insert Witty Commentary]
If you only plan on posting and sharing online, you don't need much more than 800 pixels per side for a reasonable viewing size, so you can get away with a fair amount of cropping. But at 100ppi and 800 pixels on the longest side("standard" web size), the largest print you'll get of reasonable quality is about 2X3 inches.
My full resolution images on my hard drive are about 250ppi and 3648 on the longest side. I can print 16x20. I couldn't get quality prints that size if I cropped out large portions and zoomed in.
So it really depends on what you plan on doing with the images...
tyflier
[Insert Witty Commentary]
Are you looking to blow up 48" landscapes or 8X10 for the home and family? If you're just looking to make a 2X3 into a 5X7 there are free programs available online that *should* suffice. If you're looking to make quality prints at large sizes without investing in a full frame, professional DSLR camera, the software's gonna cost a couple hundred. It can get pricey. Most of them are "plug ins" for Photoshop, so you need to start with a more recent edition of Adobe Photoshop. Most likely, CS2 or better...
Nanci
Alien Lover
I'm using Adobe Lightroom. I think it's about $150, but I bought it at the educational price of $80...And then I had to buy tutorials in how to use it! But I love it. It takes some work to go from a generic "enhance" command to doing each step manually, but the results are worth it. (And if you look at my photos, they are still far from perfectly processed, still...)
tyflier
[Insert Witty Commentary]
Read your camera's manual. If it has a "Macro Mode", use it. In the manual it should tell you what your minimum focusing distance is. This is the minimum distance from your subject to the front lens element that your camera can physically focus on a subject. Use a tripod and use this minimum focusing distance for closeups. Here's an example:
This is a praying mantis. My front lens element is about 4 inches from the mantis' face. This picture is uncropped. It IS resized for web viewing, but the image is as it looked when the camera took the shot. It's crisp and clear because it is sharply focused and not cropped or zoomed digitally. You can get similar results using a point and shoot camera with a macro or super macro mode, and careful focusing. You just need to know where your minimum focusing distance is and be ready for the shot...
tyflier
[Insert Witty Commentary]
Sigma makes an outstanding 105mm macro lens for most major DSLR mounts. That's what I use, and it's just an extraordinary lens. And it's usually less than $500...
Nanci
Alien Lover
I'm just uploading this pic here to see what it looks like. Crap, probably! I would like all the body parts to be in focus. I don't know what to do to change that.
Chris, I just have a Sony NEX...I can't commit to a big DSLR that will just sit at home, then, because it's huge. So it's a small body, but you can put E-mount lenses on it.
I was surprised yesterday that Katie used a telephoto lens to photograph the spider. She said she could focus more clearly with that. Something for me to think about, I guess.
So I was thinking about this macro lens
but maybe a telephoto would be more versatile? I mean, she was taking pics of a green anole 30 feet up in a tree, that I couldn't even see!! Like this one.
The lens I have on it now is 18-55mm.
Chris, I just have a Sony NEX...I can't commit to a big DSLR that will just sit at home, then, because it's huge. So it's a small body, but you can put E-mount lenses on it.
I was surprised yesterday that Katie used a telephoto lens to photograph the spider. She said she could focus more clearly with that. Something for me to think about, I guess.
So I was thinking about this macro lens
but maybe a telephoto would be more versatile? I mean, she was taking pics of a green anole 30 feet up in a tree, that I couldn't even see!! Like this one.
The lens I have on it now is 18-55mm.
Attachments
tyflier
[Insert Witty Commentary]
Telephotos can work well, but they typically have a minimum focusing distance of 3' or more. Not a problem if it's a 600mm lens and you're shooting hawks. A bit of a pain in the arse if you're shooting wild rattlers or spiders because you have to stand back so far. Teles also tend to have narrower apertures making it a bit difficult to soften backgrounds, especially from 3' away, and seriously inhibiting your natural light shooting abilities. It's gonna be slower in soft light or shade, meaning shooting without a tripod is gonna be tougher...
That macro looks pretty good. f/3.5 is a nice wide aperture for soft bokeh in the background and quick shutter speeds in soft light and low ISO. And with a minimum focusing distance of 1", you should have no problem getting tight, clean, and laser crisp photos. It's a 30mm lens, but they call it a 1:1, so my guess is that your camera has a 1.5X focal length factor. That basically means, it would be roughly equivalent to a 50mm lens with a 1/2" minimum focusing distance, on a 35mm film camera. A perfect walk-around, portrait, and macro lens. A lens that should be in every serious photog's bag of tricks...
That macro looks pretty good. f/3.5 is a nice wide aperture for soft bokeh in the background and quick shutter speeds in soft light and low ISO. And with a minimum focusing distance of 1", you should have no problem getting tight, clean, and laser crisp photos. It's a 30mm lens, but they call it a 1:1, so my guess is that your camera has a 1.5X focal length factor. That basically means, it would be roughly equivalent to a 50mm lens with a 1/2" minimum focusing distance, on a 35mm film camera. A perfect walk-around, portrait, and macro lens. A lens that should be in every serious photog's bag of tricks...
I don't know if my camera will have the detail that your photos have but I'm going to fool around with the photos a bit and see how things go. I did just do a photo shoot with Rapunzel and her scale details and everything definitely did seem to stand out more and I was able to take photos of her from only 4-5" away now instead of almost a foot.
