My first macro pics, I have a question.

[99allturbo]

These are some of my first pics since receiving my XTi 2 days ago. They were taken in macro mode and I noticed that only part of the car is in focus. I took several more pics with the same result, only part of the car is in focus. Is this what I should expect in macro mode? or will the same happen in the creative modes (Tv,Av,M)? I didn't attempt to take the pics in the creative modes since I'm new to an SLR camera and I'm just trying to get familiar with the camera and it's settings. Thanks in advance.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/99allturbo/IMG_0037_4.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/99allturbo/IMG_0038_3.jpg

[aparmley]

Carlos. The solution to your problem is DOF. How much Depth Of Field do you need. There are a few factors to consider. The smaller your aperture number (2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0, 11) (or the larger your aperture) the more shallow your DOF (in other words part of your car is blurry). The larger your "f" number (or the smaller your aperture) the more depth of field you gain. Also, distance and focal lenght play a factor. Generally speaking, the closer you move to your subject at any aperture number the smaller your DOF becomes.

What lens were you using and what was your aperture setting used?

To give it a quick try, try using the scroll wheel to adjust your exposure settings in macro mode if it allows it. Otherwise switch it over to AV select F16 and take a photo (you may need a tripod) see if that gets all of your car infocus. Is the wall behind your car also in focus? you might be able to open your lens up to F11 to get the whole car in focus but blur the wall a little. . .it all depends play around and see what happens.

[cwphoto]

Parm, I checked the EXIF:
86mm, 1/13s @ f/4.5, ISO 400.

If you change your aperture to something like f/11 (no more than that as you will introduce diffraction) then you will get more depth.

Just go to Av and dial in 11 and you're away. :)

Oh, and use a tripod like Andy said. ;)

[cdifoto]

f/4.5 is way too wide of an aperture to get a macro subject of that depth entirely in focus. Try f/16. Macro requires small apertures (big numbers) and usually flash, tripod, etc.


Set your white balance to tungsten while you're at it.

[24Peter]

These are some of my first pics since receiving my XTi 2 days ago. They were taken in macro mode and I noticed that only part of the car is in focus. I took several more pics with the same result, only part of the car is in focus. Is this what I should expect in macro mode? or will the same happen in the creative modes (Tv,Av,M)? I didn't attempt to take the pics in the creative modes since I'm new to an SLR camera and I'm just trying to get familiar with the camera and it's settings. Thanks in advance.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/99allturbo/IMG_0037_4.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/99allturbo/IMG_0038_3.jpg

Hi Carlos! Welcome to the forum. I'm not a macro expert but I'll chime in until someone more knowledgeable comes along.

The short answer is, in order to get the entire car in focus, you'll want to maximize the depth of field (or area of focus). The way to do that is to use a smaller (i.e., higher F-stop #) apeture. The smaller the apeture, the more area that will be in focus, but also the less light that will be let in meaning longer shutter speeds that will be required. The longer the shutter speed the more suseptible you'll be to camera shake, so a tripod may be required.

The "macro" mode on your XTi doesn't really work the same as a macro mode on a point & shoot digital camera. From what I can tell, it selects the metering mode, drive mode and focus points but will not automatically select a higher F-stop for you. So you may have to abandon the auto modes and use Av or Manual mode to maximize your depth of field.

Finally consider purchasing a macro lens if you're serious about doing macro photography.

(Hmm - I had to take a conference call while I was prepping my response so it looks like you guys got there first...)

[cwphoto]

Set your white balance to tungsten while you're at it.

Good call.

[99allturbo]

aparmley- In Macro mode, I am not able to make any changes to ss or aperture (it's basically an auto mode, as far as I know).

Christian- I'll try the Av mode both of you are recommending. I recall now reading that with a smaller aperture, the object will be more in focus. I'll use the tripod next time as well and also play with colors in Photoshop.

Thanks to you both.

[EDIT: Thanks to all of you, by the time I posted I didn't realize there were more than 2 responses.
Peter, yes, I plan on abandoning the "auto" modes asap. Thanks. ]

I'll take some pics tonight and post the results.

[aparmley]

(Hmm - I had to take a conference call while I was prepping my response so it looks like you guys got there first...)

Work work work. . . crank out that tar, tarboy!:D

[99allturbo]

Took the pic below in Av mode, 18-55 kit lens, F/11, w/b in Tungsten, I believe ISO 200. It came out ok. Then went to F/16 and the pic got blurry (although I had it on a tripod). Then my battery went dead. So I'll have to continue tomorrow. There aren't enough hours in the day!


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/99allturbo/IMG_0095_1.jpg

[cdifoto]

Took the pic below in Av mode, 18-55 kit lens, F/11, w/b in Tungsten, I believe ISO 200. It came out ok. Then went to F/16 and the pic got blurry (although I had it on a tripod). Then my battery went dead. So I'll have to continue tomorrow. There aren't enough hours in the day!


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/99allturbo/IMG_0095_1.jpg

You need a helluva sturdy tripod for exposures longer than half a second (which you certainly did need because you're already at 1/2" f/11. f/16 would put you even slower yet). If your tripod isn't rock solid you'll have shake.

This is why I don't do macro. Too much like work! :eek:

[cwphoto]

Took the pic below in Av mode, 18-55 kit lens, F/11, w/b in Tungsten, I believe ISO 200. It came out ok. Then went to F/16 and the pic got blurry (although I had it on a tripod). Then my battery went dead. So I'll have to continue tomorrow. There aren't enough hours in the day!

I think you are starting to push the boundaries of your gear. The loss of sharpness at f/16 can be put down to diffraction.

[24Peter]

I think you are starting to push the boundaries of your gear. The loss of sharpness at f/16 can be put down to diffraction.

Yes, the kit lens breaks down at F16. Better lenses will perform much better though, esp. a dedicated macro lens.

[99allturbo]

This is why I don't do macro. Too much like work! :eek:

Yes it is like work!


I think you are starting to push the boundaries of your gear. The loss of sharpness at f/16 can be put down to diffraction.


Yes, the kit lens breaks down at F16. Better lenses will perform much better though, esp. a dedicated macro lens.


Understood. Now I atleast know not to expect the best results when I'm using the wrong lens like in this situation. Thanks for all the help.

[jwhite]

If you change your aperture to something like f/11 (no more than that as you will introduce diffraction) then you will get more depth.

What do you mean by diffraction?

[24Peter]

What do you mean by diffraction?

May fall under the category of "too much information" but here ya go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction

[jwhite]

May fall under the category of "too much information" but here ya go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction

Thanks. Yeah, I remember some of this from Physics in college, but didn't think about it applying to camera lens. I guess it makes sense since it is still light passing through an aperture.

Jason

[99allturbo]

Parm, I checked the EXIF:
86mm, 1/13s @ f/4.5, ISO 400.




I forgot to ask, how can you retrieve that info (EXIF) from a picture, both your own and a picture on a website, as you did? Thanks

[cdifoto]

I forgot to ask, how can you retrieve that info (EXIF) from a picture, both your own and a picture on a website, as you did? Thanks

Since I use Firefox, I installed FxIF (http://ted.mielczarek.org/code/mozilla/fxif/).

[cwphoto]

I forgot to ask, how can you retrieve that info (EXIF) from a picture, both your own and a picture on a website, as you did? Thanks

Tyically, right clicking in your choice of editing application will do it. In your case I simply, ahem :o , copied the image to my machine and opened up DPP to have a look.

[99allturbo]

Thanks cdi, the thing is I don't use ff.

Christian, I don't know what DPP is. :confused:

[cwphoto]

Thanks cdi, the thing is I don't use ff.

Christian, I don't know what DPP is. :confused:

Canon's Digital Photo Professional - it shipped with your camera.

ZoomBrowser EX would work as well.

[forno]

Thanks cdi, the thing is I don't use ff.

Christian, I don't know what DPP is. :confused:

Digital Photo Proffesional, should be on the cd's you got with the XTi

[cwphoto]

Digital Photo Proffesional, should be on the cd's you got with the XTi

Gotcha! ;) :D

[99allturbo]

Doh! Well if I would have installed it on my PC on Tuesday when I got the camera, I would've known what you were talking about. LOL

[forno]

Gotcha! ;) :D

Your fast enough in the minivan, you dont need the Ferrari

[cwphoto]

Your fast enough in the minivan, you dont need the Ferrari

Has a Ferrari ever been about need? :cool:

[forno]

Has a Ferrari ever been about need? :cool:

You dont understand:confused:

I neeeeeeed the Ferrari:D

[99allturbo]

forno, I see you're a WRX owner. Here's a pic of my real Evo. :) (taken with my p&s btw)



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/99allturbo/EVO/MY_EVO_downtown_4.jpg

[forno]

Nice:cool:

I am liking them more and more

Cooler and springs! What else have you done??

[99allturbo]

Nice:cool:

I am liking them more and more

Cooler and springs! What else have you done??


Thanks.

HKS RS intake, HKS 272 int/ex cams, Fidanza cam gears, 3" turbo-back exhaust, S-ACF, AMS intercooler, lower i/c piping, Hallman mbc, Exedy twin disk clutch, methanol injection and a Jestr ecu flash. Quickest I've gone in the 1/4mile is 11.90@117mph on 93octane and methanol last month. I love it. :D

You guys have some sick cars over there, including the Skyline which I'm a big fan of.

[forno]

Thanks.

HKS RS intake, HKS 272 int/ex cams, Fidanza cam gears, 3" turbo-back exhaust, S-ACF, AMS intercooler, lower i/c piping, Hallman mbc, Exedy twin disk clutch, methanol injection and a Jestr ecu flash. Quickest I've gone in the 1/4mile is 11.90@117mph on 93octane and methanol last month. I love it. :D

You guys have some sick cars over there, including the Skyline which I'm a big fan of.


Yeh skylines are pretty tough cars.

Trying to find a pic of my car:confused:

[forno]

http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/7681/hatch3zn.jpg

[99allturbo]

http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/7681/hatch3zn.jpg

I liked that generation/body style WRX the most, but we never got the turbo version, only naturally aspirated.

[forno]

I've done
H&R springs
KYB AGX sadjustable shocks
Cusco underbody braces
Strut braces
APS 3" turbo back exhaust
APS intercooler
Apexi PowerFc ECU
Water spray
.....

I think thats it, never done the 1/4 but I have done a little bit of circuit

[99allturbo]

Cool, I'm more of a horsepower junkie (heck, my only suspension mod is springs), but I need to attend some tracks to make use of the Evo's talent. Plus I need some practice.


Sorry about the OT discussion. It is my thread, no? :D

[forno]

You can never have enough grunt:D

Mate has a 930 Turbo with 280KW at the wheels, in a 1250kg car thats geared to about 240km/h so it really jumps when you stand on it:cool:

[cwphoto]

Thanks.

HKS RS intake, HKS 272 int/ex cams, Fidanza cam gears, 3" turbo-back exhaust, S-ACF, AMS intercooler, lower i/c piping, Hallman mbc, Exedy twin disk clutch, methanol injection and a Jestr ecu flash. Quickest I've gone in the 1/4mile is 11.90@117mph on 93octane and methanol last month. I love it. :D

You guys have some sick cars over there, including the Skyline which I'm a big fan of.

That's a rocketship.

I once had an FD RX-7 (actually, I have had two) which ran similar times. Had to sell once the family came on board. Could I sell the idea of an EVO to my wife as a family car?! :D

[99allturbo]

That's a rocketship.

I once had an FD RX-7 (actually, I have had two) which ran similar times. Had to sell once the family came on board.

I like the FD, There are quite a few in the Orlando area making some nice power. A friend just sold his which had over 500hp. It was a beauty.


Could I sell the idea of an EVO to my wife as a family car?! :D

I'm sure you could, cause I'm sure your family is feeling like they're in an oven in the back of that minivan that forno posted. :D

[Honest Gaza]

Your "mods" suck guys.

I put mudflaps and weathershields on my XR6T :D

[Honest Gaza]

Back to the original topic....

When you take further photos of your model, ensure that you have it on an angle as per your original photos. Your question related to depth of field but the later photos showed the car effectively parallel with the camera lens.

By having the car at an angle, you will see evidence of the changes in depth of field. :)

[forno]

Your "mods" suck guys.

I put mudflaps and weathershields on my XR6T :D

WHACK A BOOST CONTROLLER ON IT;) :D

[Honest Gaza]

WHACK A BOOST CONTROLLER ON IT;) :D

The mudflap or the weathershield ? :p

[forno]

The mudflap or the weathershield ? :p

on the hairdryer ya big poof:D

[Honest Gaza]

....gees, to think I was gunna let you come and help paint my tyres :D

[forno]

....gees, to think I was gunna let you come and help paint my tyres :D

ill bring the mario grease:p