Middle Hill Common

GardenersHelper

GardenersHelper

In Memoriam
Messages
6,344
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Middle Hill Common is a small (1.5 hectares, 4 acre) nature reserve one mile from our house. I have only visited it three times before because I didn't find much to photograph there. I visited it again yesterday, the first time in four years. I had more success this time. Here are some images from the session. (The rest are in this album at Flickr.)

I used a Sony A7sii with a Laowa 100mm macro lens with Kenko 2X and 1.4X teleconverters and a Yongnuo YN24EX twin flash. All the captures used f/40 set on the camera/lens, so the effective apertures would be in the range of around f/50 to f/120 depending on magnification.

The raw files were processed using presets in DXO PhotoLab, Adobe Lightroom and Topaz DeNoise AI, with image-specific adjustments in Lightroom.

#1

1904 001 2021_05_29 DSC03382_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#2

1904 130 2021_05_29 DSC03927_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#3

1904 034 2021_05_29 DSC03530_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#4

1904 054 2021_05_29 DSC03585_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#5

1904 057 2021_05_29 DSC03591_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#6

1904 077 2021_05_29 DSC03648_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#7

1904 083 2021_05_29 DSC03696_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#8

1904 098 2021_05_29 DSC03764_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr





--
Nick
Summary of photo activity since 2007 https://fliesandflowers.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-i-retired-in-2006-i-had-it-in-mind.html
Flickr image collections http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/
Blog

Flies and flowers and ...... whatever. Ramblings

fliesandflowersetc-ramblings.blogspot.com fliesandflowersetc-ramblings.blogspot.com
 
Wonderful stuff Nick, looks like you're getting along very nicely with the A7S. Lighting looks excellent too, have you made changes to your setup? I'll have to have a catch up on the macro journey thread...
 
Son_of_Thor said:
Wonderful stuff Nick,
Click to expand...

Thanks Si.

Son_of_Thor said:
looks like you're getting along very nicely with the A7S. Lighting looks excellent too, have you made changes to your setup? I'll have to have a catch up on the macro journey thread...
Click to expand...

As I mentioned in my latest post in my journey thread, you may need to look elsewhere for updates. I recently started a blog and that is where the best information about my journey may turn up. That said, I've been so busy doing photography lately that I've fallen behind with the blog so the latest changes I've made are not covered yet..

As to the lighting, yes I have made a change. I'm now using a Yongnuo twin flash rather than the Venus Optics KX800 that I have used for several years. But I don't think this change will have made a significant change in the quality of the lighting. I'm using exactly the same diffusion arrangement and I have the flash heads positioned pretty much where they were with the KX800. It is possible that the A7sii is handling dynamic range a bit better than other cameras I have used (for example possibly doing better with problematic flash reflections off of shiny insect bodies) and giving me more to work with in post processing. These things are very complicated though, with lots of interacting factors, so I wouldn't be drawing too much by way of conclusions.
 
Another cracking set Nick, that visit obviously paid dividends (y)
 
GardenersHelper said:
Thanks Chris. It certainly did pay dividends. I ended up keeping almost 150 images from the session. (Flickr album)
Click to expand...
I just went through the session, I understand why you kept so many, they are all great.

Is there something wrong with the EXIF data? Is an aperture of 40 too high or is it common for FF? I have never seen higher than 22 on my Fuji. The figure doesn’t line up with the depth of field I saw in some of your shots.
 
Mauri3205 said:
I just went through the session, I understand why you kept so many, they are all great.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Mauri3205 said:
Is there something wrong with the EXIF data? Is an aperture of 40 too high or is it common for FF? I have never seen higher than 22 on my Fuji. The figure doesn’t line up with the depth of field I saw in some of your shots.
Click to expand...

No, the EXIF data is correct. The Laowa 100mm macro is f/2.8 to f/22. When you add 2.8X teleconversion this becomes f/8 to f/64. Because the teleconverters are smart, f/8 and f/64 is what the camera shows as the minimum and maximum f-number. With the camera showing f/40, the Laowa would be set to f/14, and the 2.8X teleconversion turns this into f/40.

The effective f-numbers I mentioned used the formula:

effective f-number = lens f-number * teleconversion * ( 1 + lens magnification / pupil magnification )

with the pupil magnification as usual being unknown and as usual assumed to be 1, the formula becomes:

effective f-number = lens f-number * teleconversion * ( 1 + lens magnification )

During the session I used the lens with magnifications between 1:4 and 2:1. With the lens magnification at 1:4 the overall magnification would be 0.25 * 2.8 = 0.7X. With the lens magnification at 2:1 the overall magnification would be 2 * 2.8 = 5.6X.

Using the formula, with the lens f-number set to f/14 and the lens magnification set to 1:4,

effective f-number = 14 * 2.8 * ( 1 + 0.25 ) = around f/50

And with lens f-number set to f/14 and the lens magnification set to 2:1

effective f-number = 14 * 2.8 * ( 1 + 2 ) = around f/120.
 
Last edited:
GardenersHelper said:
Thanks Si.



As I mentioned in my latest post in my journey thread, you may need to look elsewhere for updates. I recently started a blog and that is where the best information about my journey may turn up. That said, I've been so busy doing photography lately that I've fallen behind with the blog so the latest changes I've made are not covered yet..

As to the lighting, yes I have made a change. I'm now using a Yongnuo twin flash rather than the Venus Optics KX800 that I have used for several years. But I don't think this change will have made a significant change in the quality of the lighting. I'm using exactly the same diffusion arrangement and I have the flash heads positioned pretty much where they were with the KX800. It is possible that the A7sii is handling dynamic range a bit better than other cameras I have used (for example possibly doing better with problematic flash reflections off of shiny insect bodies) and giving me more to work with in post processing. These things are very complicated though, with lots of interacting factors, so I wouldn't be drawing too much by way of conclusions.
Click to expand...

That's interesting regarding the A7S II Nick, that's some difference if that's what's at play! As you say though, lots of factors potentially involved.
 
Son_of_Thor said:
That's interesting regarding the A7S II Nick, that's some difference if that's what's at play! As you say though, lots of factors potentially involved.
Click to expand...

I was wondering whether it was making a difference, but setting up closely "like for like" image comparisons is impractical out in the field. I tried doing possibly the next best thing after doing 4 sessions in the church grounds with the A7sii with a 2X and a 1.4X teleconverter several days ago. I did a fifth session, also in the church grounds, with the same setup except for using the A7ii instead of the A7sii. The results are in this album at Flickr. The previous four A7sii sessions are in this collection at Flickr. I couldn't come to any firm conclusion as to whether the A7sii was better. My gut feeling is that it is, but if I can't really convince myself of that I'm sure I wouldn't be able to convince anyone else of it.
 
GardenersHelper said:
No, the EXIF data is correct. The Laowa 100mm macro is f/2.8 to f/22. When you add 2.8X teleconversion this becomes f/8 to f/64. Because the teleconverters are smart, f/8 and f/64 is what the camera shows as the minimum and maximum f-number. With the camera showing f/40, the Laowa would be set to f/14, and the 2.8X teleconversion turns this into f/40.

The effective f-numbers I mentioned used the formula:

effective f-number = lens f-number * teleconversion * ( 1 + lens magnification / pupil magnification )

with the pupil magnification as usual being unknown and as usual assumed to be 1, the formula becomes:

effective f-number = lens f-number * teleconversion * ( 1 + lens magnification )

During the session I used the lens with magnifications between 1:4 and 2:1. With the lens magnification at 1:4 the overall magnification would be 0.25 * 2.8 = 0.7X. With the lens magnification at 2:1 the overall magnification would be 2 * 2.8 = 5.6X.

Using the formula, with the lens f-number set to f/14 and the lens magnification set to 1:4,

effective f-number = 14 * 2.8 * ( 1 + 0.25 ) = around f/50

And with lens f-number set to f/14 and the lens magnification set to 2:1

effective f-number = 14 * 2.8 * ( 1 + 2 ) = around f/120.
Click to expand...
Thank you for taking the time to explain it in so much detail, much appreciated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top