Butterflies & Conservatories

[paddler4]

Thanks

That's not taking away the clear "pros" of using full-sized screens and heavier software, but usually for me, the "cons" side of the equation is too large.

Yup, different goals. I rarely sell prints, but I enjoy getting the best results I can. And for stacking flowers, where there is often a substantial distance from an edge to the surface behind it, plain vanilla stacking in Photoshop won't do it. You get ugly halos. You can often minimize those by changing settings in Zerene, but what I rely on more is the retouching capabilities. You can create two composites, one using a depth map algorithm (which does a better job of preserving colors) and another using the PMax algorithm that is far less prone to halos. Then tell Zerene to retouch the first using the PMax as the source for corrections and simply paint over the problematic areas.

 

[ShutterbugsstationStan]

Again looking for what makes "a good look". Angles, colors, behavior, composition? All of them.
View attachment 201481View attachment 201482

The top shot here is my favorite of the set. Outstanding work!!

 

[Michael456]

Wow, lots of amazing photos!! Colors, composition, depth of field - fantastic. You've been posting loads of very impressive macros lately. Hope you'll do more butterfly and dragonfly photography this year.

 

[Skygod44]

Thanks



Yup, different goals. I rarely sell prints, but I enjoy getting the best results I can. And for stacking flowers, where there is often a substantial distance from an edge to the surface behind it, plain vanilla stacking in Photoshop won't do it. You get ugly halos. You can often minimize those by changing settings in Zerene, but what I rely on more is the retouching capabilities. You can create two composites, one using a depth map algorithm (which does a better job of preserving colors) and another using the PMax algorithm that is far less prone to halos. Then tell Zerene to retouch the first using the PMax as the source for corrections and simply paint over the problematic areas.

Thanks so much for the constructive reply, and I couldn't agree more.
Another reason why I moved away from editing every photo on my PC was the RSI that my Canon EOS FF system was starting to cause.
I tried all sorts of weird keyboards and fancy mouses (mice? ), ending up with a Wacom tablet and pen...
...but it was the quantity of photos using heavy gear + editing, so that was that.

Now that my OM-3 has arrived, I'm excited to try out, among other things, the in-camera stacking.
Will it work?
I'll post something soon as I can.


Catch you in the threads,
Simon

 

[Mr Roboto]

Thanks



Yup, different goals. I rarely sell prints, but I enjoy getting the best results I can. And for stacking flowers, where there is often a substantial distance from an edge to the surface behind it, plain vanilla stacking in Photoshop won't do it. You get ugly halos. You can often minimize those by changing settings in Zerene, but what I rely on more is the retouching capabilities. You can create two composites, one using a depth map algorithm (which does a better job of preserving colors) and another using the PMax algorithm that is far less prone to halos. Then tell Zerene to retouch the first using the PMax as the source for corrections and simply paint over the problematic areas.

Great tips! I'll definitely look into Zerene in the very near future and I'll come back to these tips for guidance. Thank you!

 

[Mr Roboto]

The top shot here is my favorite of the set. Outstanding work!!

Thank you so much, Stan!
It's very helpful to hear what "works" and what doesn't. Being so close to the work sometimes introduces biases so it is great to understand the preferences of the viewers.

This thread is meant to be a learning experience for all. Critiques, comments, and questions are always welcome

 

[Mr Roboto]

Wow, lots of amazing photos!! Colors, composition, depth of field - fantastic. You've been posting loads of very impressive macros lately. Hope you'll do more butterfly and dragonfly photography this year.

Thank you, Michael.

I will definitely do a lot more macro work once spring arrives. Looking forward to it with great anticipation!
My new tripod, head, focusing rail, some lighting, and field bags are all here and packed and ready to go. But will probably end up with me walking the fields with just one lens and no other gear - old habits are hard to break

 

[paddler4]

A couple of thoughts that may be helpful:

Zerene has great, very detailed tutorials on line. Rik (the author of the program) does a very good job of clearly explaining how to use its various functions.

Re equipment: for bugs, I have never managed to use a tripod. Too slow. My approach in the past was to put the camera and flash on a monopod, with AF taken off the shutter. Then I would set the lens for the magnification I wanted and slowly rock the camera on the monopod to try to focus on the eye. It worked, although with a high failure rate.

This summer I am going to try something completely different. I bought an OM-1 II and a Godox flash that refreshes quickly enough to take multiple shots in a stack. I'm going to try to use the focus stacking function, although doing the actual stacking in Zerene, not in camera. You can see the technique I'm going to try here, if you skip the intro stuff on flash units.

 

[Mr Roboto]

Does Zerene allow direct Canon RAW stacking like Photoshop? It is very handy to bypass the conversion step.

 

[paddler4]

No, but if you use Lightroom, it's simple. There is a Zerene plug-in that does this for you. You set the plug-in for the parameters you want--I use 16 bit TIFF Prophoto to preserve detail. This is persistent--you only have to it once. Then when you have images to stack, select them in the LR filmstrip and select export to Zerene. The plugin converts the files, executes Zerene, and loads the images into Zerene. When you are done, one way to exit Zerene will remove all of the temporary files. So getting them into Zerene is only two mouse clicks after selecting the images.

Photoshop is a different process. Once you move from Camera Raw into Photoshop, you aren't working with a raw file anyway. You just haven't saved the new file that Photoshop has created.

 

[Mr Roboto]

I found a long-forgotten folder in one of my many backup SSD collection. Images I haven't laid eyes on in MANY years - it's almost as good as taking pictures themselves

Anyway, here they come as they finally see the light of day...

Incorporating the Chihuly display into the background, I had to find specimens with suitable complementary colors. I think it is too much.

 

[Mr Roboto]

I tried using the inexpensive EF85mm f/1.8 lens.
Using extension tubes of course, but still surprisingly good corner-to-corner sharpness (at least on APS-C bodies).

These two are uncropped:


The reason I took the EF85mm was to get in-flight images. The focus throw on the EF180mm macro is too long and I always found it difficult to manually focus on flying subjects. The focus throw on the EF300mm is perfect for in-flight birds and bugs, but I don't have the luxury of standing back that far in a crowded conservatory.

 

[Mr Roboto]

I even tried using the EF24-105L just for kicks.
With tubes, you can see the distortion in the corners begin to creep in (uncropped):

 

[Mr Roboto]

Of course one of the goals is to get "good wings".
But wings are typically non-planar so getting them completely in focus can be challenging especially if they are not holding still. Getting the head, thorax, and abdomen in focus at the same time makes it even more difficult in a one-shot capture.

 

[Mr Roboto]

Different species feed differently. Some are relatively calm - others flutter/move more vigorously.

One of the more vigorous ones. Working with the motion to show species-specific characteristics:

 

[Mr Roboto]

Conservatories almost always have good lighting. I sometimes use fill flash but I try to limit the use in order to retain as much of the natural look as possible. On uncrowded days, I sometimes use a small collapsible reflector disc instead. But that can get a bit unwieldy if shooting alone. I find it most enjoyable just shooting A La Carte.

In general, bright sunny days are good if you want actively feeding butterflies. They tend to be more docile on cloudy days. So you can tailor your approach for any given day.

I liked the lighting and shadows on this one:


Thinner wings tend to look good when back-lit.

 

[Mr Roboto]

Trying to capture the "essence" of a particular species is a fun exercise. What translates well onto "film"? What part are you trying to emphasize? What difference are you trying to show? How do you incorporate the body shape into the composition?

Same questions one would ask for every shot anywhere. At least here, practice comes with plenty of opportunities. One can develop a style that can later be used out in the wild.

 

[Mr Roboto]

The same specimen in the same setting as image #1 in post #1 as it moved around against different backgrounds:

 

[Mr Roboto]

A few more example of subject angles and compositions

 

[Mr Roboto]

Of course taking advantage of the plentiful flora is a huge benefit