Sunday, 8 November 2020

A7ii with Laowa 100mm 2X macro and paired teleconverters

 These examples were captured using a Sony A7ii and Laowa 100mm 2X macro lens, six of them with a pair of 2X teleconverters, and four of them with one 2X teleconverter and one 1.4X teleconverter. All used a Venus Optics KX800 twin flash. The raw files were processed with DXO PhotoLab with image-specific adjustments in Lightroom and output sharpening and noise reduction using Topaz DeNoise AI.


Click on an image to see a larger version













Full frame camera for invertebrates

 In terms of photographic equipment and technique the big change has been that I have started using a full frame camera with a manual focus macro lens to photograph invertebrates.

From 2007 to mid 2020, when photographing invertebrates I used close-up lenses mounted on fixed lens small sensor bridge cameras or on telezoom lenses on micro four thirds and APS-C cameras. With all of these I used autofocus. 

And with all of these setups I used minimum aperture so as to get as much depth of field as possible. This equated to around f/45 for full frame. This is a much smaller aperture than most people would use because of diffraction destroying fine detail at such small apertures. However, I found that with suitable post processing I could get acceptable results as long as I kept the outputs small. I settled on 1300 pixels high for images prepared for viewing on screen.

In the summer of 2020, with Coronavirus limiting me to our garden, with only a limited range of subjects, I decided to have a serious attempt at getting decent images of some very small flies on our tiny pond. I had tried before but had never managed to get satisfactory results. I spent some hours single-mindedly concentrating on them, but to no avail. Eventually I came reluctantly to the conclusion that I simply couldn't get sufficient depth of field for these tiny subjects. That was with single images. Focus stacking was impractical because the flies were hyper-active and typically flew off after one, two or not many more seconds.

The full frame Sony A7ii had been sitting on the shelf unused for months. The only subject matter I thought it suitable for was sunsets, and I hadn't been doing any of those, especially since being confined to our home and garden in the Spring.

The problem with the small flies was insufficient depth of field. I knew that when using the higher magnification that was needed for smaller subjects I could get greater depth of field if I used a macro lens, extension tubes, teleconverters, bellows and/or reversed lenses. This is because the effective aperture gets progressively smaller as the magnification goes up, according to the approximate formula:

Effective f-number = Nominal f-number * ( 1 + magnification )

where "Nominal f-number" is the f-number you set on the camera/lens. So for example if you use f/l6 at a magnification of 3:1 then the Effective f-number you are using (which is what determines the depth of field) is

f/ ( 16 * ( 1 + 3 ) ) 

which is around f/64.

In contrast, I was limited to f/45 with all my close-up lens setups because the effective aperture does not change with magnification when using close-up lenses.

So, by using effective apertures smaller than f/45 I would be able to get greater depth of field. That would be good for the small flies, although with apertures even smaller than f/45 the loss of detail from diffraction would be even more serious, so much so that the images might be unusable. Based on a very brief experiment some years previously that is what I believed would be the case. However, since I had the necessary kit, and having plenty of time on my hands and not much by way of subjects to photograph, I thought I would see what happened if I tried using even smaller apertures to photograph the tiny flies.

I had various kit I could use, including a Laowa 25mm macro lens that went from 2.5X to 5X magnification. It was a Canon EF mount lens, so I could use it on my Canon 70D dSLR, but I also had adapters so I could use it on the A7ii and on my micro four thirds cameras. I tried all three. Here it is shown on the Canon 70D.


Click on an image to see a larger version


The screen on the A7ii gave me a clearer view of what was going on than the other cameras, and that was important as the Laowa 25 mm macro is manual focus only, so I needed to have as good a view as I could. Also, the A7ii gave me a stronger focus peaking signal than my micro four thirds Panasonic G9, which also made it better for manual focusing (and the 70D didn't have focus peaking). So the A7ii turned out to handle best for me.

To my surprise I was ok with manual focus. The failure rate was high, but I wasn't surprised by that given how small and how active the subjects were, and I don't think autofocus would have been any better. And most important, where the focus did fall in the right place, the image quality looked to be better than I had managed with any of my close-up lens setups. This is one of the early shots that convinced me that this tiny aperture approach might work for small subjects. This one was captured with the A7ii and Laowa 25mm macro.

This led on to a number of experiments with various cameras, lens arrangements and flash setups. As I tried various lenses and combinations of lenses and teleconverters I came to realise that not only did the tiny aperture approach work for small subjects, but it could give me better results with larger subjects too. Here are some examples from the test sessions. These two were captured with a Sigma 105mm macro lens and 2X teleconverter on the A7ii. 



The next three were captured with the A7ii with a 2X teleconverter and a Laowa 100mm 2X macro lens.




I am currently (at least for now) using a pair of 2X teleconverters and a Laowa 100mm 2X macro lens, which like the Laowa 25mm macro is a manual focus lens. 


The Laowa 100mm 2X macro goes from infinity focus to 2X magnification with a minimum working distance of around 72mm, with apertures from f/2.8 to f/22. With the pair of 2X teleconverters it goes from infinity focus to 8X magnification (scene size 4.5mm x 3mm) with an unchanged minimum working distance of around 72mm, which is a very good distance for 8X magnification, and apertures from f/11 to f/90. 

I have been getting results that I like with effective apertures much smaller than the f/45 equivalent of my close-up lens setups. It turns out that some modern processing software can pick up weak signals of detail from images that are highly softened from diffraction, and can bring those details into visibility without looking forced or unnatural. To do this I am shooting raw and using DXO PhotoLab for raw conversion and some associated processing, using Lightroom for image-specific adjustments, mainly to tonality, and cropping, and using Topaz DeNoise AI for output sharpening and noise reduction.

There are some examples in the next post.





2019 -2020. A settled approach to botanical subjects

 It is over 18 months since the previous entry. Much has happened since then, the most important of course being Coronavirus and all the implications of that. Since my wife and I are in the "vulnerable persons" category we have not been off our property in 8 months apart from a couple of visits to the doctor and dentist. My photography since March 2020 has been solely what I could find in our garden.

Prior to Coronavirus, in Spring 2019, I did an exercise (written up here) comparing single-image captures with focus-stacked images for botanical subjects to help me get a better balance between the two methods. Since then I have been using both methods. Sometimes it is too breezy for stacking to work, and sometimes it is obvious that only stacking will work for a particular subject, so in either case I use just one of the methods. Very often though I use both methods and choose which method's images I like best for each individual subject.

I have simplified my processing for focus stacks and now have a workflow that is fairly fast and efficient. Stacks can consume huge amounts of time. To avoid that, when stacks become difficult I simply move on to another subject.

Here are some examples. I picked these without regard to whether they were stacks or single-capture images. As it turns out half of them are focus stacked (from 6K video) and half are single-capture images. this is a fair reflection of how I have been using the two methods. The first eight used a Panasonic G9 with Olympus 60mm macro, the last but one used a Panasonic G80 with Olympus 60mm macro and the last one used a Panasonic TZ90 pocket superzoom. 


Click on an image to see a larger version
























Thursday, 28 February 2019

Post processing

Right from the outset, 12 years ago, post processing became an integral part of my photographic experience. I haven't counted, but I expect I have spent much more time processing images than I have spent capturing them.

I enjoy post processing, learning how to do it better, experimenting with different techniques and products, discussing it with others. I can't imagine simply using images straight out of the camera. 

I am convinced that post processing can make a big difference to the look of images and can usually (for my images, and my visual preferences) improve them compared to what comes out of the camera.

I hope that my post processing has improved over time. One of the things I did while preparing these posts was to reprocess some images with my current processing products and workflow to see how they compare to how I processed them four to five years ago in 2014. Two were captured with a Panasonic FZ200 small sensor bridge camera, two with a micro four thirds Panasonic G3 and two with an APS-C Canon 70D. All six are small aperture shots with image quality dominated by the softening effects of diffraction (the first five used apertures equivalent to around f/45 on full frame, the last one an aperture equivalent to around f/26 on full frame). I believe diffraction-softened images like this are particularly susceptible to improvement in perceieved sharpness/detail from effective post processing.


Click on an image to see a larger version


Comparison 1: Panasonic FZ200, f/8, 1/250 sec, ISO 100, flash



Comparison 2, Panasonic FZ200, f/8, 1/640 sec, ISO 100, flash



Comparison 3: Panasonic G5, f/22, 1/160 sec, ISO 160, flash



Comparison 4, Panasonic G5, f/22, 1/160 sec, ISO 160, flash



Comparison 5, Canon 70D, f/32, 1/250 sec, ISO 800, flash



Comparison 6, Canon 70D, f/16, 1/80 sec, ISO 1600, available light
(I made a mistake in processing this one and included the extra sharpening in Silkypix that I normally use only for invertebrates. The fine crystalline structure of the petals is therefore probably a little overdone.)



I know, because people have told me, that my post processing looks to be complicated and time-consuming. That is not how I see it. I deal with large numbers of images and over the years I have deveoped a workflow that lets me deal with these large sets of images quite quickly and with much less effort than might appear from a description of the process. This involves using several pieces of software, using each for what it is particularly good at, and using batch processing to get images into a state where they are easy to handle before I start making any adjustments to individual images.

I currently use between two and six software products while processing a set of images. Depending on the circumstances this may include some or all of the following:

  • Fast Picture Viewer, for an initial, very rapid trawl of the images to get rid of the obviously unusable ones. Fast Picture Viewer uses the small JPEG images embedded in raw files rather the raw files themselves as used by Fast Raw Viewer, but for my purposes the embedded JPEGs are good enough and Fast Picture Viewer has a macro facility which I use to file the selected (actually, the non-rejected) images by ISO, which makes DXO processing much easier.
  • Either DXO PhotoLab (for stills) or Helicon Focus (for stacks) for the first stage of the processing, using PhotoLab for noise reduction of noisy small sensor raw files and using Helicon Focus for botanical subject stacking and associated retouching to cure or at least hide stacking problems.
  • Sometimes, Silkypix to add extra sharpening/revealing of fine detail for invertebrates and/or rescuing colours from very bright areas, especially for flowers.
  • Always, Lightroom, to apply image-specific adjustments such as cropping, adjusting tonality or localised sharpening or noise reduction, and select the images I want to keep.
  • Very occasionally, Photoshop to do some additional processing that I can't do in Lightroom, for example complicated cloning.
  • Quite often, XNView to review the processed images as output by Lightroom and see if I still want to keep them or not, or see if they need some additional processing.
  • Always, Faststone Image Viewer to deal with the bureaucracy of renaming images, deciding what order to display them in and make backup copies locally and on line.


I use batch processing when using PhotoLab and/or Silkypix. In the case of PhotoLab the presets I use are specific to a camera and ISO. The PhotoLab batch processing can be very time-consuming, but it only takes a very small amount of time to set it up and the rest of the time I can leave it to cook and do other things.


Sensor size and image quality

This is yet another topic that generates intense debate. All I'm going to do here is to say what conclusions I have come to from a practical perspective for my types of subject matter and my working methods.

I like having a camera which is small enough to put into a pocket but which can cover a very large range of focal lengths from wide to telephoto. For the range I want it seems inevitable to me that the camera must use a very small sensor and one must simply put up with the consequences for image quality. I don't think this is at all controversial.

For invertebrates, where I used minimum aperture almost all the time, I don't think it matters what the sensor size is because the effects of diffraction limit image quality to a similar level for all sensor sizes. I have a lot of experience and examples with sensors of 1/2.3", micro four thirds and APS-C size. I have not had a chance to test this yet with my full frame camera. I will be very surprised if that is any different from the others in this respect, but as always I would prefer to be evidence-based on this rather than just leaving it as a supposition and so I intend to run some tests in due course.

For flowers and other botanical subjects I have produced images that I like using cameras with small sensors, but I tend to prefer the look of botanical images captured with sensors of micro four thirds size or larger. For single capture images I have not developed any preference as between micro four thirds and APS-C, having used both quite a lot for botanical subjects. In two exercises where I compared images of the same subject captured with a micro four thirds camera and a full frame camera, here, and here, I could not discern any image quality benefit of using full frame. For stacked images I can only use my Panasonic cameras and I have a strong preference for the micro four thirds G9 over the G80 and the small sensor FZ330.

I am part way through comparing micro four thirds and full frame for sunsets and cloudscapes. Early indications are that full frame may produce noticeably better image quality for sunsets, both for high dynamic range scenes where the sun is still above the horizon and for low light scenes after the sun has set. That is for single shots. For exposure bracketed shots combined using exposure fusion ("HDR") there may be little difference for scenes with high dynamic range when the sun is still above the horizon. However, more thorough testing may change these early impressions.

RAW or JPEG?

This is another question that is the subject of periodic, and sometimes ill-tempered, debates, especially at dpreview.com. My own view is that which is best depends on the context. (And sometimes it may be better to use both and decide afterwards which to use, although as it happens that is not an approach I have ever used much.) 

I started out using JPEG because at first I didn't know about raw. Then I knew about it but my cameras did not. Then my cameras knew about it but I didn't know how to deal with raw files. Then I knew about how to deal with raw files (at least in outline) but wasn't convinced it was worth the extra effort. Eventually I came to the conclusion that there were advantages to using raw and as I used raw more I came to realise that it didn't involve any more effort than using JPEG, and in some cases actually less effort.

It remained like that for some time, until I started using stacking. For focus bracketing with the Panasonic G80 I quickly switched from using raw to using JPEG because with raw the buffer would fill up and then the capture rate would become extremely slow. But I didn't use focus bracketing much because I found that I preferred using post focus to capture videos from which to extract JPEG images to stack. So now I use video-derived JPEGs most of the time for botanical images, and raw for everything else.

I took an active part in a very long (and in this case good-natured) series of threads at dpreview about JPEG and raw, discussions that I found very informative. (This post at dpreview contains links to the 12 threads concerned.)

Aperture and exposure bracketing

I have occasionally used exposure bracketing, sometimes for sunset scenes with the sun in the shot or, on only a handful of occasions, for botanical shots with a flower against the sky. Mostly though for contre-jour botanical shots I expose for the highlights and do deep shadow lifting. On reflection, it might be better if I used exposure bracketing more often for both these types of shots.

On the other hand I have used aperture bracketing a lot, always for botanical scenes. For me, one of the issues with botanical shots, especially flowers, is trying to get a pleasing balance between the amount of the subject that is in focus and the look of the background, both of which change as the aperture changes. Before capturing a shot I can't tell how that balance is going to work out for a particular aperture. Often, with micro four thirds or APS-C, it may be around f/8 to f/13, but from time to time it can go as far as f/4 or f/16, and occasionally right out to f/22 or, very, very rarely f/2.8. Trying different apertures and reviewing them on the LCD slows down the flow of a session, giving it a very different feel, dulling my creativity. And in any case it can be ineffective because it is difficult to judge accurately from what appears on the LCD, especially in bright sunlight, and even more so if the capture has been underexposed to protect highlights.

Starting with the G80 and now with the G9 I can use aperture bracketing; with one press of the shutter button I can have exposures all the way from f/2.8 to f/22, and I can then take my time choosing which to use when viewing them in subdued light on my PC, if necessary after some initial processing to lift the shadows. I have found this to be very effective for my purposes, in terms getting results that I like the look of and also in terms of keeping capture sessions moving at a good pace.

There is a downside to aperture bracketing that needs to be weighed against the advantages. The ISO is constant during an aperture bracket sequence. That means that the shutter speed doubles in length for each stop reduction in aperture. I therefore need to use an ISO that will give a tolerable shutter speed at the smallest aperture that I am likely to want to use. Quite often that means using ISO 800 or sometimes ISO 1600, and even then the f/16 and f/22 exposures may sometimes be too slow to avoid motion blur. That means that if I use one of the shots with a more typical aperture then the ISO will be higher than I would have set it if I had been shooting a single shot with that aperture. So, using aperture bracketing, ISO is suboptimal a lot of the time, which can make the processing more complicated than it would have been for a lower ISO single shot, and my degrade the perceived image quality in some cases.

On balance I thought the advantages of aperture bracketing outweighed the disadvantages, and so I used it a lot with the G80 for botanical subjects, at first mixing it with single shots and then eventually using it most of the time without using single shots.

This changed when I got the G9 and soon started using focus stacking most of the time for botanical subjects.

I have never tried aperture bracketing for invertebrates because getting the maximum DoF coverage of the subject is my primary concern for invertebrates.