dragonfly

One of the things I find most difficult about taking macro is getting an even, out-of-focus background. This picture looked ok with depth-of-field preview, but when I had the slides developed the dark areas were greatly exaggerated. I find them a bit distracting, but I don’t know any sure fire way to avoid them. Any comments are appreciated.

Alex

Hey Alex,
Great shot. I see what you mean about the darker spots in the background... you could touch up the shot in post-production a bit, though, and edit them out, or at least softer. Finding a completely even background with macro shots is as much luck as anything else. Like you said, you can preview a shot, and think everything will turn out ok, but in the end, there's not a whole lot you can do about it. :? The dragonfly itself, though, turned out great. :D

yip. thats what post is for. 99.99% of shots aren't gonna come out pefect straight from the camera.

nice macro btw

Here you go.

Aaron

What tools did you use to remove the black spots, Aaron?

That certainly looks much better. A little Photoshop can do wonders! Did you use the clone tool for that Aaron?
As Thrill00 said, it is so difficult to achieve a perfect photo right out of the camera. When I consider the need to worry about focus, metering, exposure compensation, depth-of-field, background light/dark spots, composition and framing, and all of this with a subject that is often moving around, I sometimes think it’s amazing we get any decent shots at all!
With a digital SLR, the picture can be viewed immediately. This is obviously a huge advantage. I have to admit I am getting very tempted to make the switch.

Alex

Yes, did it in Photoshop and used the clone tool.

Aaron

Ahhh... should have guessed. ;)

So you haven't made the switch yet, Alex? What's holding you back? ;)

here is a tip im not sure if it works but use your greay card in the background if you can some shots you can do your set up and wait for the firefly in this case to come to you, but set your card in the background so when you shoot your getting it as a background you can use other colors of your choice and other things that you think will look good in the background

Well, I think digital has a lot of things going for it. The price of a decent digital SLR is not low, but when you consider the savings in film cost and processing, it will eventually pay for itself. I think the main thing that is holding my back right now is that it is difficult to get a larger file with a digital camera. With a film scanner, I can scan optically at 4000 dpi and higher. Even if I am not getting any add ional information from the slide at these high settings, the scan still produces a reasonably good image. With digital, it would be necessary to use interpolation in Photoshop the get an image of this size and so far I have found no way to do this and match the quality of a high resolution scan. If anyone knows of a better way to interpolate up I would be grateful but I have had no luck with the basic Photoshop function. I have heard that there are some plug-ins that do a better job or interpolating that Photoshop, but the differences are not huge.
I realize that for non-interpolated output digital SLRs can match or even exceed the resolution of film, but I guess I am still holding of till they can do the same at larger print sizes.

Alex

Thanks for the suggestion Mickey. Unfortunately the background in that photo would have been in the middle of a pond. I suppose I am not a dedicated enough photographer to get my feet wet!

Alex

lol i suppose there are limits to everything LOL!

as far as a digital versus a scan what size finished prints are you getting? the rebel and the 10-d will make a nice 8x10 with out thinking of it i have seen them larger then that with out noise or deterioration and i know they have photo shopped some of them but even in the raw mode the file sizes are huge for the average 8x10.

if you want bigger then that they do have 22 meg a pixel cameras out that are more then capable of doing a billboard if you want one. so i guess in short
the limits would not be the same as your scanned print but at 4000dpi are you really getting that much more detail and information then say at 1200dpi?
we have done commercial work and only scan it in for even models at 1200dpi and you could not tell they were a digital print even if layed next to a neg,print

I'm not trying to pick on you but I'm curious as to what size your fished product it and what their use is for at 4000dpi?

I'm not trying to pick on you but I'm curious as to what size your fished product it and what their use is for at 4000dpi?


Not to worry! I joined this forum to learn. I appreciate you taking the time to share your experience.

Well, I’d like to have the option of printing at 13x19 or larger. With a 4000 dpi slide scan I am getting a file that is about 5200x3500 pixels. If I print at 260 dpi, that translates to a print size of 20x13.5 inches.
With a 6 MP sensor like the one in the 10D, the output is 3070x2048 pixels. Printing at 260 dpi that’s about 12x8, though I have heard of people printing slightly larger that that with pretty good results.
The problem I have found is that to achieve the same file size with the digital camera image it is necessary to use software interpolation which (at least in my limited experience) always leads to a very noticeable degradation in image quality.
As you pointed out, it is true that scanning slides at very high resolutions does not bring out any additional information; it only results in a larger file size. No additional detail is resolved, but the results of the optical scan at high resolution seem better than would be obtained from a smaller file that was interpolated up to the same size. The interpolation really softens the image.
I realize there are some 22 MP medium format camera backs out there, but they are currently way beyond my budget.

I realize there are some 22 MP medium format camera backs out there, but they are currently way beyond my budget.It's just a matter of time... ;) Well thought out post, btw.

...it is true that scanning slides at very high resolutions does not bring out any additional information; it only results in a larger file size. No additional detail is resolved, but the results of the optical scan at high resolution seem better than would be obtained from a smaller file that was interpolated up to the same size.
Not that I disagree with you... but I've never heard that before, at least not with regard to optical (not digital) dpi. Is there a point in which it levels off (i.e. 2400dpi) or does it really depend on the scanner, I guess...?

I think it depends to a small degree on the scanner. Some scanners have better optics/software/sensors than others, but main factor influencing what the highest resolution needed recover all the details is would probably be the type of film used.
A very high resolution, fine grain film like Velvia 50 could benefit from scanning at a higher dpi setting than a grainy high-speed film with less detail. So I think it really depends on what film is being used, at least that is my understating of it.

Alex

Yes, excellent point about the film as well... I guess with technology ever getting better, we are getting to the point where resolution has caught up to film to a certain extent... grainier (is that a word? :lol: )film probably would't benefit from 2400+dpi as much as a fine grain film would.