Macro photography

[sologuitarist61]

Having just responded to a thread by Keiran http://stargazerslou...page__hl__pence, it got me to thinking (never a good idea lol).

Now I have been into photography for a long, long, time but still find it surprising that someone hasn't come up with a better way of getting over the shallow depth of focus in macro photography in one single exposure, so that all of the butterfly, bee or dragonfly that I am trying to photograph is in focus from head to tail. Would guess there must be an answer in this digital age and personally would love to see it become available to all.

Any ideas that anyone has seen?

[Moonshane]

take a step back. the DOF increases markedly with a small decrease in magnification.

these are all single shots:

not all perfectly focused but with a bit more care and less mag could be.

[sologuitarist61]

Very nice shots, thanks for sharing them :smiley:. However, I notice that two of the three are flat on to the camera, so little depth of focus is needed and quite a wide aperture will suffice. I am talking more about subjects that have more depth, the leaf in shot one is a good example - the insect is great and in good focus but if it had been facing toward the camera it might have been more difficult to 'get it all in'.

I take you point about moving further back from the subject and that will indeed improve the depth of focus.

Beautiful shots though, love the moth in shot three, beautiful colours and well caught.

[pixelsaurus]

Having just responded to a thread by Keiran http://stargazerslou...page__hl__pence, it got me to thinking (never a good idea lol).

Now I have been into photography for a long, long, time but still find it surprising that someone hasn't come up with a better way of getting over the shallow depth of focus in macro photography in one single exposure, so that all of the butterfly, bee or dragonfly that I am trying to photograph is in focus from head to tail. Would guess there must be an answer in this digital age and personally would love to see it become available to all.

Any ideas that anyone has seen?

There is the Frazier lens, invented by an australian. He was hard done by by his american partners and was embroiled in legal battles for a number of years relating to patent issues.This vid shows some of the lenses capabilities. Astoundingly, more than a few critics think it is some kind of trick using clever phrases like " this lens disobeys all of the laws of physics", whatever that means. Enjoy

[Moonshane]

I think the videos show a depth of field which I'd associate with a high f stop and although I don't know a lot about video, these are all in natural light and suspect stills would be quite different. in terms of camera based images I do think that depth of field like focal ratio, light gatthering per inch of aperture or magnification in telescopes, is governed by set laws. it would be interesting if this were not the case though.

I am sure I read somewhere that the size of the chip in a digital camera makes achieving more DOF a little easier sometimes? I think a smaller chip = more DOF at macro settings?

[jgs001]

I have heard the same Shane, and in fact, it makes sense... As DOF is dependant upon the aperture, the focal length and the working distance, by using a camera with a much smaller sensor (P&S or Bridge) the focal length is much less. And example from my Z2, even though the focal length in 35mm terms is something like 380mm, in actuality, it's actually something like 60mm (I don't recall the exact figures). If I attach my Raynox to the Z2, I can get some pretty good macro type images, with much larger DOF than I can using my SLR. The issue is the same about getting light onto the target mind you, and that becomes much harder, as I do not have any flash accessories available for it (best I can manage is my SLR flash in optical slave mode).

[sologuitarist61]

There is the Frazier lens, invented by an australian. He was hard done by by his american partners and was embroiled in legal battles for a number of years relating to patent issues.This vid shows some of the lenses capabilities. Astoundingly, more than a few critics think it is some kind of trick using clever phrases like " this lens disobeys all of the laws of physics", whatever that means. Enjoy

I want one!!!!!

[sologuitarist61]

This may be of interest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_lens

[pixelsaurus]

I want one!!!!!

The GBO InfinityLens™ is available. I understand that there were/are plans to release it to the digicam market. I have always thought it was a great bit of kit yet it still seems to be shrouded in suspicion.Jim Frazier has formed a company ( http://global-bionic-optics.com/ ) to build and market these lenses but you will have to dig around the internet for info. National Geographic made a tv doco on Jim Frazier ("The Aussie That Baffled The World") which is a really good watch if you can find it.

[sologuitarist61]

The GBO InfinityLens™ is available. I understand that there were/are plans to release it to the digicam market. I have always thought it was a great bit of kit yet it still seems to be shrouded in suspicion.Jim Frazier has formed a company ( http://global-bionic-optics.com/ ) to build and market these lenses but you will have to dig around the internet for info. National Geographic made a tv doco on Jim Frazier ("The Aussie That Baffled The World") which is a really good watch if you can find it.

After seeing the initial thread I spent some time trying to find out more about it in the 'net and to be honest there is very little out there other than the film in the first post. The wiki link I showed earlier has a little more but it still gives no idea as to how the system works - intriguing I think the word is.

[pixelsaurus]

After seeing the initial thread I spent some time trying to find out more about it in the 'net and to be honest there is very little out there other than the film in the first post. The wiki link I showed earlier has a little more but it still gives no idea as to how the system works - intriguing I think the word is.

The original patent http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20110205621

and the aftermath http://articles.latimes.com/2003/apr/15/business/fi-camera15

[Alastair Rae]

Maybe somebody could invent in-camera macro stacking - focus bracketing and stacking all rolled into one. If they can do it for HDR, why not?

[sologuitarist61]

The original patent http://www.faqs.org/...app/20110205621

and the aftermath http://articles.lati...ess/fi-camera15

Thanks Mike will take a look at that later.

[sologuitarist61]

Ummm, seems funny that they can call it a sham, when Hollywood have been using it for years and that they then give him an Oscar for it. I always thought there wasn't a brain cell still alive in Hollywood-land, but surely they aren't that silly :huh:

[pixelsaurus]

I know the lens is magic but " the breaking of the laws of physics " bit is a laugh. This from the country where it is illegal to hunt whales in Utah.

[sologuitarist61]

This from the country where it is illegal to hunt whales in Utah.

Classic !!!!! :grin:

[GlassWalker]

On the question on increasing depth of field for one-shot macro, then the use of tilt-shift lenses is one possible avenue to explore. Instead of having a plane parallel to the sensor with conventional lens, the tilt action will give you a wedge of focus. If you can position that region on your subject, you can get more subject in focus. But it is rather a pain to set up and you might still not have enough depth of field, but just in a different axis.

That Frazier lens looks interesting and I just tried to get around what exactly it does wrt DoF effects. No one seems to be have written about that in a useful way that I can find. I had to resort to looking at the patent, which generally speaking is also unreadable. In my initial impressions so far it doesn't so anything magic for high resolution stills. See a parallel with the focus screen included with most modern DSLRs, which only shows a depth of field equivalent up to f/2.8 regardless of lens attached is faster. Only by replacing that screen type can you see a shallower depth of field.

[sologuitarist61]

On the question on increasing depth of field for one-shot macro, then the use of tilt-shift lenses is one possible avenue to explore. Instead of having a plane parallel to the sensor with conventional lens, the tilt action will give you a wedge of focus. If you can position that region on your subject, you can get more subject in focus. But it is rather a pain to set up and you might still not have enough depth of field, but just in a different axis.

Yes, tilt and shift lenses are great, used to have one when I had a 5"x4" plate camera. The only trouble for macro work is, that 1) they are the wrong focal length and you usually have to get closer than you would wish, and 2) they are a to get set up - by the time you have everything as you want it any respectable insect is long gone. Oh, just theought of a third ....3) they cost an arm and a leg!!!! :smiley:

[Moonshane]

_{personally, for macro shots I like the separation of in focus foreground / subject and the out of focus background.}

[GlassWalker]

Wrong focal length? Depends what you're after I guess. Canon go up to a 90mm, and chances are it'll take a 2x extender if you must and give you more magnification too. 180mm should cover it.

I can't argue on the pain to set up part. I've only got the old 24mm one and sticking the focus plane where you want it isn't something I'm anywhere near mastering by a long shot... cost is helped a bit if you keep an eye on the used market. Still, it is another option if stopping down hits practical limits and you can't do a focus stack.

[sologuitarist61]

Wrong focal length? Depends what you're after I guess. Canon go up to a 90mm, and chances are it'll take a 2x extender if you must and give you more magnification too. 180mm should cover it.

I can't argue on the pain to set up part. I've only got the old 24mm one and sticking the focus plane where you want it isn't something I'm anywhere near mastering by a long shot... cost is helped a bit if you keep an eye on the used market. Still, it is another option if stopping down hits practical limits and you can't do a focus stack.

Absolutely. Sorry, wasn't trying to put you down. I appreciate the idea.

[jgs001]

The Frazier lens is a form of tilt/shift from what I could find. On my phone at the mo, but will see if I can dig out the link again later

[sologuitarist61]

Would be interesting John.

[pixelsaurus]

That Frazier lens looks interesting and I just tried to get around what exactly it does wrt DoF effects. No one seems to be have written about that in a useful way that I can find. I had to resort to looking at the patent, which generally speaking is also unreadable.

I think part of the problem with the Frazier lens is the lack of a mathematical description of how the thing works. To that end, Jim Frazier (GBO) sequestered a boffin away in some idyllic french locale for this very purpose. The NatGeo doco on this subject is well worth the watch.

[sologuitarist61]

First I've heard of the NatGeo documentary on this subject. Any idea how to view it, ie is there a link to a web page that might have it?