What's better: move in close, or shoot from a distance and crop?

[Archibald]

I think most of us try to get close to our macro subjects so they occupy a lot of the frame. However, it is well known that you get deeper Depth of Field when you shoot from a distance and crop (with the same aperture). It is the equivalent of shooting with a smaller format sensor. We can always use more DOF! So, should we routinely shoot from a distance and crop in post?

I'm assuming here that we are shooting hand-held out in the field with on-camera diffused flash. What are the pros and cons of shooting close or far?

I ran this little test today to shed some light on this quandary. Here is a comparison of a green stinkbug nymph shot near (on the right) and far (on the left).



And here are my observations.

The far shot definitely has more DOF. That is a benefit. However, the rendition of detail is not very good in the far image. This could be due to focus error, or motion, or increased diffraction, or a combination of all three. I suspect there was some motion that the flash was unable to freeze, because the flash power had to be increased which increased the flash duration.

The far image has more noise, which is especially noticeable in the background. There are bright areas on the reflective bug. They are smaller but more intense in the pic on the right.

I shot these on my Canon R7, which has a pixel-rich sensor. The cropped image ended up being around 1200x850 px. That is OK for the web, but not so great on a hi-res monitor or when printed.

Overall, I don't think the strategy of shooting far and cropping works well. The lure of increased DOF evades us again.

I do crop many of my macro images, but try to be moderate about it.

 

[Archibald]

Here are the two pics at a bigger size. These show that detail is poor in the far shot.

Near


Far

 

[ShutterbugsstationStan]

Well done shots! For some things it is better to shoot from afar, as trying to get closer will cause you to lose the subject. Others that are more stationary, not prone to fly off, it is best to get in close for clearer detail. At least in my humble opinion. Trying to get in close on some butterflies and Dragonflies is nearly impossible it seems. Some bees too.

 

[Archibald]

Yes, agreed. For bigger bugs like dragonflies and butterflies, it can help to maintain a good distance. To get good IQ, it would be best to use a tele lens for those.

My examples show the perils of too much cropping when the aperture is narrow. That increases apparent noise and can make diffraction softening noticeable.

 

[MSH411]

Both, at least when I am shooting Macro.

I start at a distance and if my subject holds tight for me I slowly move in until I am tight or my subject gets camera shy and beats feet. It gives me choices when I move to post. I end up having to review more frames and culling images but I normally end up with what I had in mind, my goal when I started shooting.

 

[Archibald]

Both, at least when I am shooting Macro.

I start at a distance and if my subject holds tight for me I slowly move in until I am tight or my subject gets camera shy and beats feet. It gives me choices when I move to post. I end up having to review more frames and culling images but I normally end up with what I had in mind, my goal when I started shooting.

That's what I do too, and why I use AF when shooting bugs. It keeps the bug in focus as I move closer.

 

[LoneRider]

Always best to cover more pixels optically.

You can increase DOF with smaller apertures to a degree or use a higher focal length to allow greater distance from camera to subject which will increase DOF as well.

The R7’s in-camera focus stacking as another option

 

[LoneRider]

Just a quick example.

Both shots are 174mm, f/6.3, 1/125s, ISO 20000 taken with the R7 from about 6’ away

Top is single exposure, focusing on wrapper text

Bottom is 10 shot in-camera focus stacking

 

[MSH411]

Now I want a Reese's.

 

[LoneRider]

And here is a 25 shot in-camera stack

1/80, f/6.3, ISO 10000

 

[Greyswan]

Amazing how well the in-camera stacking works. I used to do that in photoshop, often with artifacting needing cleanup.

 

[Archibald]

Yeah, stacking works great, but it is hard to get a usable stack from a bug sitting on a weed that is moving in the wind.

Maybe I should switch to Reese's photography!

 

[LoneRider]

Yeah, stacking works great, but it is hard to get a usable stack from a bug sitting on a weed that is moving in the wind.

Maybe I should switch to Reese's photography!

Electronic shutter fires the exposures of pretty quick. This one was 25 exposure but it stopped at some point due to movement

To be fair, “ Breeze” not “wind”

 

[Archibald]

Electronic shutter fires the exposures of pretty quick. This one was 25 exposure but it stopped at some point due to movement

To be fair, “ Breeze” not “wind”

View attachment 174882

That's pretty good!

 

[Wilt]

You can increase DOF with smaller apertures to a degree or use a higher focal length to allow greater distance from camera to subject which will increase DOF as well.

yet In macro photography, DOF depends primarily on just two factors: aperture value and magnification. And if you use longer FL with proportionally greater shooting distance, the effective magnification of the subject DOES NOT CHANGE, and so the DOF remains THE SAME.

And like shooting at non-macro distances, if you back up (to gain DOF) when you magnify the image in the darkroom and crop the image, if the FINAL SIZE of the subject is the same size on the print, the DOF is THE SAME.

 

[Archibald]

@Wilt , DOF also depends on format size. And cropping is effectively the same as shooting with a smaller sensor.

 

[paddler4]

It is the equivalent of shooting with a smaller format sensor.

It isn't, unless the two cameras have the same pixel density, which they rarely do.

Let's leave aside stacking, which is a big issue not not directly answering your question. In doing bugs (not stationary objects), I generally try to get as many pixels on the subject as I can. That's why I do bugs with my old 7d generation 1 rather than my otherwise vastly superior R6 II. Macro depends on crisp detail, and you loose it in a hurry if you crop and enlarge.

The amount of noise isn't affected by distance. The appearance of noise is. The noise pattern is the same relative to the sensor. So when you crop and enlarge, the noise blobs become larger relative to the frame and are more apparent.

Re stacking: my R6 II of course will stack in camera. I never let the camera create the composite because I wouldn't want to give up control over stacking, but I do sometimes let the camera create the stack and then open the stack in Zerene. For bugs, the additional complication is that under most circumstances, you will get the best results with diffused flash, so you need a flash that can keep up with at least several shots in the burst. My EX 430 II won't, but there are some Godox flashes that will with reduced power. In my ideal world, someone would decide to give me an OM-1 Mark II, the Zuiko 60mm macro, and an appropriate Godox flash. Or even an OM-5. MFT is IMHO the ideal for bugs: high pixel density, larger DOF, very light weight. So far, no one has offered.

 

[Archibald]

DOF is made by the lens, not the sensor.

 

[paddler4]

DOF is made by the lens, not the sensor.

Nope. You are not taking something essential into account: the angle of view for a given focal length, which is determined by sensor size and affects depth of field. There are lots of posts online explaining the impact of sensor size on DOF, e.g., https://fstoppers.com/education/understanding-how-sensor-size-affects-depth-field-312599. That one also goes into the effect of distance to the subject. For a more technical explanation, you can look here: https://bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html.

 

[JKT]

On the original pictures the difference in the details is not as large as you'd first think. Look at the leaf, not the bug! I don't know what the problem is with the bug - it may be out of focus or maybe it moved - but the leaf has pretty good detail. The problem with noise is obvious, though. That depends on the resolution you have inside the cropped area. I've noticed that R5 II is pretty forgiving on that issue ... and good DR helps as well.