• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

It is all in the eyes!

Will Thompson

Will Thompson

Well Known Member
This discussion has upset Will concerning very technical details of a shot. The picture was of an eye taken wide open with a 180mm Macro lens at close distance. So the argument her comes down to how Macro DOF differs from a regular lens. So imagine an eye with the lashes not all in focus. Hopefully Will's picture will reappear by magic! :)

Everyone has basic good will, just that experienced guys can see things differently. Will is a generous guy who can fix anything and understands a lot on light, aberrations, color balance and lenses. Frank is an excellent teacher who makes his living teaching photographers. He is trying to help get people to shoot better especially women in fashion. He is concerned with focus, lighting and how the skin looks. Asher


From wednesdays location shoot.

Almost a full frame shot. Cropped a wee bit.

Will_Thompson_C_2008_012K4128PSac.jpg

180MM f3.5L Macro 1/125 f11 ISO 200 1DsMKIII Canon MR-14EX Macro Ring Lite Flash
 
Last edited by a moderator:
F

Frank Doorhof

Guest
Why not for fashion ?
When you post a close up in my book it should be sharp ???
Maybe I'm nitpicking but I love to have the correct sharpness in a shot.

It's not downconversion, look at the right side, there the lashes are very sharp.

If you can't get it handheld than use a tripod.

Sorry if it all sounds very picky but I think that it's sound advise.
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Frank,

I think it's the depth of field. The lens open like this works that way.

I'd sharpen only the white of the eye and pupil and blur the rest slightly.
 
F

Frank Doorhof

Guest
Asher,
When you look at the photo you can see a very sharp area in the right part of the eye.
That's what I meant.
That point for my FEELING should have been on the middle eyelashes.

But I'm a focus nut :D
 
Will Thompson

Will Thompson

Well Known Member
Frank Doorhof said:
Why not for fashion ?
When you post a close up in my book it should be sharp ???
Maybe I'm nitpicking but I love to have the correct sharpness in a shot.

It's not downconversion, look at the right side, there the lashes are very sharp.

If you can't get it handheld than use a tripod.

Sorry if it all sounds very picky but I think that it's sound advise.
Click to expand...

It is not a close up it is a macro shot. If it was a 100% crop this would be true but it is 90% of the original image.
 
Will Thompson

Will Thompson

Well Known Member
James Newman said:
Please explain the difference between a close-up and a macro shot.
James
Click to expand...

A macro shot approaches a magnification of 1 to 1 on a 35 mm camera and the depth of field can be as shallow as a fraction of a MM. In a macro lens you can focus so close that AF will not work.

A close up is when the subject of interest is close to filling the frame but the magnification is .25 to 1 or less and the depth of field can be as deep as 30 to 40 MM and more wide open. In a non-macro lens the lens will still auto-focus to the closest focusing distance.

This is as correct as my fried brain can do this early with no sleep.
 
F

Frank Doorhof

Guest
Macro is indeed a 1:1 shot or greater.
Meaning something that measures 1mm should also be 1mm or greater on the 35mm frame.

DOF has nothing to do with it.
What does count is that because you are VERY close to your subject (often CM's or MM's) you need flash to get a small aperture because you will need SOME DOF.

Fact stays that sharpness should be on the center point of attention, on crops, macros etc.

And again I don't post this to "bitch" but to give a solid advice, so it's with all good intentions.
 
Will Thompson

Will Thompson

Well Known Member
With the 1DsMKIII shooting at anything less than wide open with the EF 180 f3.5L Macro is an unacceptable compromise due to defraction. As you can see at f11.
 
Last edited:
Doug Kerr

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, James,

James Newman said:
Please explain the difference between a closeup and a macro shot.
Click to expand...

Macrophotography is basically defined as the photography of small objects but not so small as to require the use of a microscope as the optical system (which would be called microphotography, or photomicrography, depending on your occupational orientation).

Some workers arbitrarily define macrophotography as photography where the image magnification is at least 1.0 (1:1). But that doesn't necessarily lead to a sensible concept. On a camera with a format size of 10" x 8", at a magnification of 1.0 a suitable subject is an entire lady's high-heeled shoe.

Closeup photography similarly doesn't have a fixed definition. In cinema work, it often refers to photography where a single subject's head (or another object of interest, such as a letter) basically fills the frame.

Best regards,

Doug
 
Doug Kerr

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Will,

Will Thompson said:
With the 1DsMKIII shooting at anything less than wide open with the EF 180 f3.5L Macro is an unacceptable compromise due to defraction. As you can see at f11.

Last edited by Will Thompson; Today at 10:38 AM. Reason: Spell checker can not spell defraction!
Click to expand...

Mine neither. It does better with diffraction.

But I think your first version was spot on!

Best regards,

Doug
 
R

Rachel Foster

New member
That's something I'd like to know too...how close-up and macro differ.

Great shot, by the way. I'm following with interest and learning from the discussion.

Edited to add: I didn't realize there was a page 2 with question answered. OOOPs! And the good Dr. Freud was here, as well!
 
Last edited:
F

Frank Doorhof

Guest
Diffraction kicks in on different appertures on different cameras often on f11-f13 with the DSLR's.

Sweetspots of most lenses are on 2 stops closed, so often f5.6-f8.0

For macros however or closeups I strongly believe that a small aperture helps to get everything in focus were it should be.

Small example, 100% crop:
eyecrop.jpg


App f11 on a MF camera.
 
F

Frank Doorhof

Guest
Hi,
What I try to show is that when I shoot (and that's personal) I want the sharpness to be on the eyeball and eyelashes.
Meaning I will select the aperture for that effect.

Again, it's not an attempt to attack you as a person but a forum is a nice way to discuss things and see other opinions and learn from each other.

The remark about shooting nothing less than wide open just isn't true, I have shot for a long time with a 5D/20D/10D and all these cameras became alot softer above some aperture, but NEVER before f16
Most of my 5D was done on F11 somehow that was my personal favorite setting, razorsharp and pleasing DOF, one eye razorsharp and the other already getting a nice fall off, however this is a personal opinion. on the 5D everything from f13 and up became softer.

Always remember that what I post is with good intent and MY PERSONAL opinion :D
I just can't agree upon the reason you give that diffraction kicks in when you close down a lens, it does kick in but not before f13 on most DSLR's.
And that gives you ALOT of playroom.

My sample is I think a good sample for the discussion.
The eye is in an angle meaning I would need even more DOF than a straight on eye, and f11 on a MF system is a lot less DOF than f11 on a DSLR, app 2 stops (due to the larger sensor and longer lens).

I'm not trying to prove a point to get my points :D
However I do try to explain something for who is interested, so please don't take it the wrong way.

I only post a 100% crop to show what I mean when I say I would like to see the focus on a certain point, I hate people who just claim they would do it an another way but can't back it up, so that's why to clear things up I posted a sample.
 
Will Thompson

Will Thompson

Well Known Member
Frank Doorhof said:
Diffraction kicks in on different appertures on different cameras often on f11-f13 with the DSLR's.

Sweetspots of most lenses are on 2 stops closed, so often f5.6-f8.0

For macros however or closeups I strongly believe that a small aperture helps to get everything in focus were it should be.
Click to expand...

Please reference this post from Bart_van_der_Wolf:

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:
Hi folks,

This is a demonstration of the effect that (narrow aperture) diffraction has on microdetail. I chose the MP-E 65mm because it shows the effect very clearly and because there is a lot of misinformation about its optimum working aperture. The diffraction principle however, applies to all lenses.

In the following composite (sorry for its size, but it was necessary) you can see the same subject (the residual 'skeleton' of a small leaf) with identical focus, but shot at different apertures (f/5.6 - f/16). They are 100% zoom (=actual size) crops from 4 EOS-1Ds Mark III files. The 'Dsd' legend stands for 'Diffraction Spot Diameter', and describes the diameter of the diffraction induced blur spot (Airy disk to its first zero, for 550nm wavelength), which I have expressed in 'sensel widths'. Since the DSD is only dependent on aperture number and wavelength, the blur effect of a given aperture will vary with the sensel size. Larger sensels integrate the incident light of a larger area, and can therefore stand a larger diffraction spot diameter before it exceeds their boundaries and spill the detail over to neighboring sensels.
DiffSpotDiameter.jpg


The actual DOF at the magnification factor used (3:1) is very narrow (less that 1/4 mm at f/8), so one is tempted to select a relatively narrow aperture, but the images show that the detrimental effects of diffraction soon overshadow the gain of DOF. Beyond a certain value everything gets blurred, even the parts that are in focus, and total image quality is compromised. The only solution to mitigate the per pixel loss of microdetail from diffraction, is by down-sampling the image or by viewing it from a larger distance. Whether that is really a solution, depends on the required output dimensions.

My experience with current CCD and CMOS sensors that use a Bayer CFA is that once the diffraction spot diameter for green light exceeds approx. 1.5 times the sensel pitch, loss of microdetail becomes significant enough to cause a quality problem that cannot be solved by e.g. simple sharpening.

Bart
Click to expand...
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
All the modern < 7 micron size sensels are already diffraction impaired by f8 and certainly by > f11. However you do get more detail, with smaller sensels! The latter detail is best realized wider such as below f8 or even 5.6! However, for fashion, this trade off is not liked as depth of field is needed. For portraits, I shoot at 1.2 to 2.8, at the most 4.0! For Large Format, 4.5 to f16!

Asher
 
F

Frank Doorhof

Guest
Wow that's very bad for the 1DsIII.
I did one or two sessions with the 1DsIII and shot standard on f11, but if diffraction indeed kicks in at f8.0 it misses the total use for studio shooters.

If I could not use f11 the camera would be useless for me.
With MF we don't have that problem luckely :D

But as mentioned before I tested this with the 5D extensivly and for my eyes on the 100% crops the diffraction kicked in at f13 and became really visable on f16.

On the other hand you will always have to make the consideration about what is important, if we look at your crop of the eye for me that's not a usable quality, again this is not meant to attack you, but a simple fact of life.
For normal studio work I used anything from f2.8 to f16 (when I shot on a DLSR).

On f2.8 I also always tried to get the centerpiece of the eye in focus and the rest OOF.
BUT... that was an artistic choice, if this is really a problem with the 1DsIII I think Canon have to reevaluate the product.

Although to be completly honest I find the quality of the f8.0 still acceptable, f11 is just over the edge for me, but it's much worse than with the 5D.
 
Will Thompson

Will Thompson

Well Known Member
Frank, You missed the whole point it is not a crop!

Here is a 100% crop that is sharper than sharp we can see with your own eyes!
Will_Thompson_C_2008_012K4128PSac100Crop.jpg



And here is the whole original capture:
Will_Thompson_C_2008_012K4128PSacNoCrop.jpg


I thought I'd point this out!
 
M

Mike Shimwell

New member
Asher Kelman said:
All the modern < 7 micron size sensels are already diffraction impaired by f8 and certainly by > f11. However you do get more detail, with smaller sensels! The latter detail is best realized wider such as below f8 or even 5.6! However, for fashion, this trade off is not liked as depth of field is needed. For portraits, I shoot at 1.2 to 2.8, at the most 4.0! For Large Format, 4.5 to f16!

Asher
Click to expand...

Also, the 1Ds3 doesn't capure any less detail than the 5D at f11, but it shows you the diffraction blurring more celarly (i.e. more actual information about the image on the sensor). Whether you want to sharpen this away is a matter of choice, but I tend to shoot at 5.6 or les for a lot of work anyway these days (I don't know what I'll do when I buy/beg/build a 10 by 8 camera)

Mike
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Mike Shimwell said:
Also, the 1Ds3 doesn't capure any less detail than the 5D at f11, but it shows you the diffraction blurring more celarly (i.e. more actual information about the image on the sensor). Whether you want to sharpen this away is a matter of choice, but I tend to shoot at 5.6 or les for a lot of work anyway these days (I don't know what I'll do when I buy/beg/build a 10 by 8 camera)

Mike
Click to expand...

Of Course Mike!

However, to get the most benefit with small sensels we should consider opening up a tad! :)

Asher
 
Doug Kerr

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Will,

Will Thompson said:
Frank, You missed the whole point it is not a crop!

Here is a 100% crop that is sharper than sharp we can see with your own eyes!
Click to expand...

Could we see this in a 105% crop, please?

You probably mean, "at original resolution".

In any case, how dare the MUA force a socially-unacceptable and professionally embarrassing shot by the application of the infamous mascara blur (for which there will be no corrective filter until PS7).

Best regards,
 
F

Frank Doorhof

Guest
I thought it was a crop.
There is detail in the eyewhite indeed, but I hope you agree with me that when you look at the full picture the attention is drawn to the sides were the lashes are in focus, that's where in the original post I gave the remark about.

Downsizing is always a problem of course, but it was posted as in the first post and that triggered my remark, again all done in good faith and with good intend.
 
M

Mike Shimwell

New member
Asher Kelman said:
Of Course Mike!

However, to get the most benefit with small sensels we should consider opening up a tad! :)

Asher
Click to expand...

Asher, not trying to teach you to suck eggs, I'm just a bit aware of the constant mantra on the web that implies that diffraction makes a 21Mp sensor less good at resolving detail than a 12...

Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top