|
Is there any way to force the exposure simulation thing to stay on for longer on Canon cameras? Like I have the camera on a tripod using live mode and I half-press the shutter so I can see the thing at 1/250 f22 or whatever, then I move the tripod to recompose and like six seconds later the simulation stops and I get a black screen with the UI on it again. I scoured the menu but couldn’t see any exposure simulation settings. Edit: Of course right after this I find the context-specific menu item. tuyop fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Aug 13, 2022 |
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:50 |
|
|
Not sure you're actually shooting at f/22 but, just in case, you probably shouldn't. The loss of sharpness is drastic and the gain in depth of field is almost certainly not enough to be worth the trade-off. It'll also cut off a lot of ambient light you'd capture otherwise, resulting in darkened backgrounds unless they're very close to the subject (i.e. within reach of your flash) or under direct sunlight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 03:03
|
|
|
seravid posted:Not sure you're actually shooting at f/22 but, just in case, you probably shouldn't. The loss of sharpness is drastic and the gain in depth of field is almost certainly not enough to be worth the trade-off. It'll also cut off a lot of ambient light you'd capture otherwise, resulting in darkened backgrounds unless they're very close to the subject (i.e. within reach of your flash) or under direct sunlight. Nah I was exaggerating, I'm mostly shooting at f/10 to f/18.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 14:37
|
|
|
tuyop posted:Nah I was exaggerating, I'm mostly shooting at f/10 to f/18. At 1x f/10 = effective f/20 due to the bellows effect Effective aperture f/(set aperture * magnification factor) If you shoot ISO 100 f/11 1x not much non flash light gets though, so your background needs to be close to get in shot, you can use a fake background to help. In fact you want no natural light mostly, because sun driven highlights that are bright enough will create weird effects in your shots. You can shoot at lower sync speed (you want ISO for detail and aperture for DoF)If you get the balance right it works but you have to manage the non flash light, too much and you get ghosting and shadows.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
 Small White Butterfly by Aves Lux, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2022 18:12
|
|
|
Some picks from this month. Last three were taken using the Godox MF12 flash I've just received. As expected, it needs significant diffusion, but so far I'm very happy with the QoL improvements over my old setup and also and the possibilities it provides - last photo was taken late at night, thanks to effective integrated modelling lights.      
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2022 03:43
|
|
|
Incredible!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2022 03:52
|
|
|
tuyop posted:Incredible!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2022 12:02
|
|
|
Adorable! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
I need to learn more about where cool bugs live so I'm not just hoping for bees to wander by and hold still for a second.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
What are people using for flash brackets? I’ve got a 90D and a 430EX if that helps. The speed light has a little bracket mount on its side, but I can’t find the piece that’s supposed to thread into there at Henry’s or Amazon. Should I just ignore that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2022 14:45
|
|
|
tuyop posted:What are people using for flash brackets? I’ve got a 90D and a 430EX if that helps. Before I got the MT-26EX-RT I was using a cage and some angle backets with cold-shoes to mount a hotshoe extender for my Yonnguo/AD200 head  Holly Blue by Aves Lux, on Flickr  Bumblebee feeds on Verbena by Aves Lux, on Flickr jarlywarly fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Aug 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2022 14:57
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:Awesome Bumblebee I really like how your shots come out. Unless it's a secret what kind of post-processing do you do on shots like that or in general? And for some content:  Sweat Bee on Flower by M Musket, on Flickr DSCF2775 by M Musket, on Flickr DSCF2534 by M Musket, on Flickr Planthopper by M Musket, on FlickrThe Planthopper isn't the best shot, but they are just super rad so had to share it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 00:30
|
|
|
Drone Incognito posted:I really like how your shots come out. Unless it's a secret what kind of post-processing do you do on shots like that or in general? For bees I have a weird process that I should probably review or understand better myself because it doesn't really make much sense when I go through it.. I shoot under exposed, even though bees are mostly dark, the light bits are key to the tone and I really don't like the shots I have tried at "normal" exposure they look over "flashed" in bad 90's way. One key thing is to make sure you adjust your white balance if you are shooting flash, all the green from the surrounds can screw up AWB and it's an easy fix in LR. A lot of other bee shots I see around are not your classic UK Garden Bumble Bee (red tailed, garden, buff tailed etc) i.e. lighter in general Wool Carder, Blue Mason Bees etc which I don't tend to get in my northern UK garden and are all easier to shoot from a colour perspective as they have less deep black in key places, eye/face etc. The bees I shoot tend to be darker, and basically black hair and black eyes that is very dark and hard to expose, i.e. like a black cat. But over revving the flash gives a look I don't like for all the other bits of the bee and the surrounds. So I shoot under exposed and then I do all the things that you are told not to do when you edit, I "HDR" (max shadows and min highlights) the poo poo out of it in Lightroom, then I export to Topaz then I HDR the poo poo again out of the TIFF file because the sliders wont let me do it in LR to just the CR3:) So I am essentially relying on the ability of the R5 RAW file to be abused to gently caress and breaking all the "rules" but the result seems to be something that shows the details of this almost "vanta black" subject without overrevving the other bits. Maybe my lighting just sucks.. Maybe there's some subtler way to achieve it.. From right to left, on import, after LR edit, after Topaz and reimport. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 10:15
|
|
|
Thanks for that! Seeing everyone's behind the scenes process is very helpful. It's kind of amazing how clean that all looks when you crank that shadows up that much. I'm not sure if my Fuji RAWs would have as much details recoverable without noise. Time to play around in Capture One a bit. I do at least one thing similar to you. That Highlights slider is going wayyyy down. Feels like a quick and dirty way to remove some of the hotter spots from my flash. Maybe a bigger or better diffuser could help with that too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:blasphemy I'm reporting you to the macro police. Interesting technique, the results speak for themselves. You can see a watercolor-y glow in the OOF areas, but it's surprisingly unobtrusive. Denoisers have come a long way. And the R5 is a hell of a camera, of course. Though I will say I prefer the middle photo, the second pass tones down the lights too much IMO      
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 00:46
|
|
|
Wow, the colors in this one 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 11:59
|
|
|
Really love that one too. I have such a hard time getting good pictures of lighter colored crab spiders on bright flowers, since they like to mimic the color of the flower, nice job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
I've only come across a few spiders on flowers and every single time, they rotate up and under the petals. I found an amazing white one and I was telling the duder to come out and he wasn't having it. People around me probably thought i was nuts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 15:29
|
|
|
I assume people think I'm being a weirdo when they see me being hyper fixated on a flower when I do find a crab spider, but hopefully the camera with the big diffuser hood makes them think I'm not. There's a really fun Attenborough documentary on netflix called Life in Color that dedicates some time to jumping spiders and crab spiders, if anyone cares. I honestly wasn't aware crab spiders could color shift based on what flower they were on until I watched it. Hunting for them whenever I walk past a flower is a fun little pastime of mine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
That spider on the pink flower is the most soothing spider I've ever seen. Never seen a spider with vaporwave aesthetic before. I find it really funny when people walk by when I'm trying to take insect photos. If they say hello or ask what I'm up to it's always fun to give them a little walkthrough and show them the cool critters they are just walking past. As an aside I find it a bit sad how sheltered people are from all the awesome small creatures around them. I started posting my things in the local hiking group for my state and it always ends up with questions like "Wow! What is that?" on a picture of a common millipede. It was surprising to me that people who you would assume like the outdoors are ignorant of all the things that are out there with them. It does provide an educational opportunity though, which only gives me more reasons to get out there and find interesting bugs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
seravid posted:I'm reporting you to the macro police. YES YES INJECT HOVERFLY FEEDING SHOTS INTO MY VEINS
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 20:56
|
|
|
Re. crabs in flowers: I, too, look like a dork carefully inspecting every flower I come across. Some of these spiders are real tiny. Then it's a numbers game. Some days you find zero, some days you find two in a row: Ethical question for the thread: the foreground is too busy and ruins the shot. Should I content-aware that away? As far as bad practices go in macro, this wouldn't even register but, to me, it still feels like a step too far. jarlywarly posted:YES YES INJECT HOVERFLY FEEDING SHOTS INTO MY VEINS Got a couple more for you  
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 22:05
|
|
|
 IMG_0459-Edit.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr Harvestman
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 23:08
|
|
|
thats awesome love this guy too
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 04:11
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 11:47
|
|
|
They are super cool
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 12:21
|
|
|
Neon Noodle posted:I have never seen their weird little face beaks before I posted the pic in the pets channel of my work Slack and I'm getting ... mixed reactions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 14:50
|
|
|
Don't worry, ma'am, I'm fully licensed to walk around at night looking into every nook and cranny with two illuminated marmalade containers attached to a camera  
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 01:03
|
|
|
3.5:1 macro of a moths eye - Laowa Ultra Macro on a Canon R7
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 15:25
|
|
|
AceClown posted:3.5:1 macro of a moths eye - Laowa Ultra Macro on a Canon R7 Dope! Besides cost, is there any reason you didn't go with the MP-E?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2022 03:50
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:Dope!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2022 04:56
|
|
|
Yeah it's an odd space for a lens though a min of 2.5x is not real practical in the field so it's mostly useful as a stacking in the studio type lens where an objective might do a better job. There really needs to be a FF 0.5-3x lens with electronic aperture control, Canon MP-E65 is getting older now and does suck over 2.5x with diffraction mostly, but Laowa lenses recently seem to all be manual aperture which is tough to use in the field with a laggy viewfinder. I really need to get motivated to send my EF Laowa 100mm 1x to China to get flashed so it doesn't auto crop on my R5 (god drat Canon why not make it optional again) If you are going to the trouble of shooting dead insects I would look to get some lights and stack them with a rail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2022 08:13
|
|
|
 Dance Fly by Aves Lux, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2022 08:28
|
|
|
If I wanted to get above 2x while balancing working distance and image quality, what are my options? I currently have a 180 mm macro and a 2x extender. I feel I have plenty of working distance, but not as much image quality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2022 14:35
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:If I wanted to get above 2x while balancing working distance and image quality, what are my options? I currently have a 180 mm macro and a 2x extender. I feel I have plenty of working distance, but not as much image quality. I'm currently using an old Sigma DG EX 24-70 f2.8* with two (stops? rings? levels?) of extension tubes to get around that level of magnification. I have to manually set the aperture to F8 then do the trick where you take the lens off while holding down the AP button so I can't change it on the fly but I've found F8 just works. I also have to extend the lens all the way to 70mm and it gives a working distance of about 6 inches. This is an uncropped image from APS sensor on the R7:  * I think this lens is now discontinued but I can't think of any reason why a regular 28-70 wouldn't work in its place
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2022 16:34
|
|
|
That's nowhere near 2x though right? R7 sensor 22.30mm x 14.80mm 2x would be a 2:1 representation on the sensor, ie 5mm of subject would become 10mm on the sensor plane. A hoverfly of ~10mm would fill the frame end to end at 2x Your setup might have a max mag of 2x at MFD but those images are not demonstrating it. 1x is well close enough for most larger insects especially on crop, 2x is a large bees face almost filling your frame. If you want to shoot live insects over 1x getting really really close is just part of it, it's rare to be able to get close, weather conditions are the biggest part. Everything else gets harder as well 1x effective apertures are f/11 = f/22 2x f/11 = f/33 So diffraction and light loss are huge as well as DoF decrease.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 08:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:50 |
|
|
jarlywarly posted:That's nowhere near 2x though right? Yeah sorry, I'm not knowledgeable about the technicals of it yet really and was just assuming "insect is twice as big uncropped therefore must be 2x" lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 10:29
|
|