Spider Wrapping Up Lunch

[mykadog]

Found this with a group photo shooting through a reserve.



Is this considered a macro or should I have focused in tighter on maybe a specfic body part rather than the whole scene?

Camera Model: NIKON D300
Date/Time: 2011:07:02 10:09:58
Resolution: 700 x 667
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 70.0mm (35mm equivalent: 105m...
Exposure Time: 0.0063 s (1/160)
Aperture: f/6.3
ISO Equiv.: 200
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: spot
Exposure: program (auto)

[mrteacherdude]

If I've interpreted everything I have read about macro photography correctly, this is technically not a (true) macro shot. My understanding is that true macro yields a lifesize (1:1 ratio) image on the sensor. A 100% crop of the image would show you about 23mm (width) of the subject. In this case your frame would be filled with the chelicerae ("fangs") of the spider puncturing the grasshopper, and perhaps the rest of its head (not sure how big the spider is).

However, I think the term macro has become accepted as reference to a sharp closeup photograph at the MFD (minimum focusing distance) for a particular lens. In this case it would seem that you do have a closeup, and hence close to a "macro." You indicated in your post that you could have focused in tighter, so that implies that you were not as macro as you could have been. Others with much more experience than me will hopefully add to this post if clarification is in order.

With this particular photo, I don't personally think that focusing tighter would improve it; I would actually prefer to see just a little bit more in the lower right corner so the spider is complete. If your goal was to get in as tight as you could though, then you probably should have focused on one specific portion of the scene and brought it in as close as possible. Which part? I can't say. If you were able to get a photo from the other side of the spider however, that seems to me that it would be interesting to get tighter focus on the head end of the little beast.

[winegeek]

Originally Posted by mrteacherdude

If I've interpreted everything I have read about macro photography correctly, this is technically not a (true) macro shot. My understanding is that true macro yields a lifesize (1:1 ratio) image on the sensor.

I am new to photography, so please take what I say with a grain of salt, but if I understand what you are suggesting (and I am not trying to be a troll here), 1:1 is what it says...basically actual life size. Please correct me if I am mistaken on this.

The spider in the picture is a common garden spider and they (females) are usually about 3/4" to 1" in size. That said, wouldn't this be larger than a 1:1?

From the standpoint of the image itself, I think it is a pretty good shot, though I agree that I would like to see the head end doing its business on the grasshopper. Just my $.02

Cheers,

Matt

[mrteacherdude]

Originally Posted by winegeek

The spider in the picture is a common garden spider and they (females) are usually about 3/4" to 1" in size. That said, wouldn't this be larger than a 1:1?

Disclaimers first: I think digital macro photography, and digital photography in general, can be quite confusing. I believe part of that confusion originates from "what you see on the screen is not necessarily what you get when you print it out." I know many people that never do print out their photos, only looking at them on a computer screen or on their cameras, phones, ipods, etc. I also know many people that simply dump the contents of their memory cards into a drug store kiosk and come back an hour later for all the 4x6 inch prints. Nothing wrong with this, I just believe it can lead to confusion for those of us who are trying to learn to be better photographers and need to know all the technical details that go along with that process of improvement. I recently ran into a long-time professional photographer who only shoots medium format film. When I asked him why, he listed a whole bunch of technical problems with digital photography that one doesn't experience with film; but I digress.

When it comes to macro photography, the confusion can be exacerbated by the fact that virtually all P&S cameras as well as entry level DSLR's have a macro setting on them to optimize the camera for shooting at the MFD of the lens under particular lighting conditions. As I mentioned above, the term macro seems to have become universally accepted to be a closeup shot. I really don't have a problem with that, but I do have a strong tendency to be "technical" and rely heavily on precise definitions. I have struggled (and continue to do so) with the macro photography concept for quite some time. I rely partially on what I've read, and partially on my own experience playing with macro photography techniques without the benefit of a true macro lens. Others with way more experience in macro photography can certainly address this much better than I can. End of disclaimers.

In regards to the original photo in this thread, the presence of the grasshopper, or what I interpret as a grasshopper, leads me to believe the animals are fairly large; larger than the sensor of the camera. While I have seen quite small grasshoppers in juvenal or nymph stages, this one appears to be mature and my experience suggests fairly large. If, however, the spider really is that small (and I'm not saying that it's not), and the photo has not been cropped, simply resized to satisfy the requirements for posting in this forum, then I guess it would be about a 1:1 ratio. The OP did not mention anything about cropping though.

The reason I mention cropping is that it is relatively easy to crop an image to make your subject fill the frame. When that image is "shrunk" to display on the web, such as this is, at 72 dpi, then it can look fine on the screen. However, if you were to try to print it out at typical print resolutions, it just wouldn't look right. Been there, done that.

For (extreme) instance:

Photo #1. A random shot I took and which I don't remember why I took it, simply resized to fit here. At 300 ppi, the full resolution version of this photo would print at roughly 12x18 inches. But notice the small white flowers to the right of and slightly beyond the black dog.



Photo #2. A 740 pixel crop of one of those flowers out of the original full resolution photo. At 300 ppi this would print at about 1.6 x 2.5 inches. Yea - it looks awful and this would not be one of those cases of cropping and having it look fine onscreen. If I really wanted it to look good, I would have gotten closer to the subject in the first place. If photo #1 was printed, you wouldn't likely even notice how lousy the flower looks until you got really close to scrutinize the details.



Photo #3. A single flower taken with a reverse mount 50mm prime lens that yields about 1:1 (determined by the "taking a photo of a ruler method"). The photo has simply been resized to 740 pixels to be displayed here. Printed out at 300 ppi, the original full resolution image would be about 12 x 18 inches.



Photo #4. A 740 pixel wide crop taken out of the center of the full resolution version of the previous image. At 300 ppi, this image printed out would be the center 1.6 x 2.5 inches of image #3.


(Note also that none of the previous images been altered yet other than resizing or cropping for the purpose of display here).

I'm also partially relying on the equipment stated by the OP, which seems to indicate to me that there is not a macro lens in the collection, nor is there any mention of a reverse mount setup, extension tubes, or some other method used to achieve life-size or larger images.

Originally Posted by winegeek

From the standpoint of the image itself, I think it is a pretty good shot, though I agree that I would like to see the head end doing its business on the grasshopper.

I agree that it is a nice image (smile).

[winegeek]

I totally hear what you're saying on the printable quality of the photo. Especially in light of the fact that the OP is using a D300, I would expect greater focus on an un-cropped image. I suspect that you are correct in assuming that it has been blown up and cropped for post. I, too, do not yet have the luxury of a macro lens and am relegated to utilizing ext. tubes and mag filters for my camera. In short, I'm pickin' up what you're putting down.

Cheers,

Matt

[phil24]

I myself do not know what classifies as a true macro, but I do know when I like a shot someone has posted and this fits the bill. Things I picked up on that impressed me were the color is vibrant and a good contrast. The focus is fairly sharp as you can see the web and the "hairy parts" of the spiders legs. (probably there is a technical term for that not sure). Having tried to get spider web shots many times, I have found it very difficult to get a really clear image as a slight breeze or movement by the spider and everything is fuzzy, so good job. If only you could have got the other side of the web that would have been interesting to see, but you shoot what you see when your out in nature and are thankful that you saw what you did.

[mykadog]

Thank you all for your comments and discussions. It appears that the answer to my original question is that this is not a macro. It has been cropped and resized significantly. It was shot with the Sigma 70-300 which claims to have macro capabilities within the 200-300 range, but it was shot at 70, so I don't know exactly what that means. It was a good sized spider, but definitely not as big as the picture on the screen...don't know what it would be printed. Anyway I do appreciate the lessons and realize I need to do a lot more studying. Here is another shot from a different angle...cropped but not resized.

[mrteacherdude]

Mykadog -

Each shot you have posted of the spider is pretty cool and has lots of potential. The second one I find particularly intriguing because you can see the spinnerets. If the photo were just a little more in focus in that region, it looks like you would be able to clearly see silk being sprayed out around the hopper. You may be able to do a little PP to bring that out.

I have a Sigma lens similar to the one you referenced, but probably a much older version. It was given to me by my father because he didn't like it, preferring a newer version Canon lens without the macro function. The macro function does only work in the 200-300mm range of the lens, so at 70mm you have a 70mm lens. The switch on the lens must be changed in order to activate the macro functionality, which somehow shortens the MFD for the lens in that focal length range, allowing you to get much closer to your subject for tighter framing. But it is not a 1:1 magnification. However, it does allow you to get pretty tight framing of relatively large subjects that you would otherwise not want to get too close to or would try to get away when approached. I wish I would have used mine when I was lying down in the middle of an ant hill trying to get closeups with my shorter focal length kit lens of the little stinging beasties. I think I would have achieved the same or better results and would have avoided the welts and incessant itching.

I have not used that lens very much though as I found that my images were a little too soft for my liking, but that could be a characteristic of my particular lens. However, I did get some nice closeups of some wasps (from a 'safe' distance) that I would not have gotten with the other equipment I have.

The next time you have an opportunity to shoot something like the spider, or bees, or... , I would try using the same lens but in the macro mode out at 200 to 300 mm. If your lens behaves like mine, it won't even let you switch into that mode until you are actually in that range. You'll probably be shooting at about the same distance as you did with it set at 70, but the lens will allow you to focus on the subject and so will frame it much tighter. You may find you have to stop the lens down a little to increase the DOF, which means a slower shutter speed (monopod or tripod can help with this, and/or flash), bump up the ISO, or both. If shooting in bright light, it shouldn't be a problem. Try it, I think you'll like it

BTW - There's nothing wrong with frame-filling closeups if you can get them. In many instances I think it is preferable to the true macro which will only allow you to get a small portion of the subject. I personally only try to get 1:1 or greater on small subjects, or if I am interested in a smaller portion of the larger subject (compound eyes, the edge of a scab, etc.)

Have fun and keep at it.

[mykadog]

Thanks very much for the information. My Sigma is also a gift from years ago and your description in exactly like mine. Never knew what the switch was for, but I will be trying the closer focus soon. Thanks again for the comments and encouragement. It's all for the fun!

[mrteacherdude]

Originally Posted by winegeek

I, too, do not yet have the luxury of a macro lens and am relegated to utilizing ext. tubes and mag filters for my camera.

Just thought I'd mention that there are people recording amazing images with extension tubes, you can find some of them in this forum posted by members such as "i speak in math." People also use a variety of other configurations of reversed lenses, a reversed lens on top of a regular mount lens, bellows, and other exotic setups, all with the goal of getting the lens farther away from the sensor. I've even seen the results of people making their own extension tubes with things such as toilet paper tubes or PVC pipe and duct tape to hold everything together. If memory serves me right, bellows with a short prime lens was the way to go for macro photography form many years. One of my favorite scenes in the movie "Never Cry Wolf" is the biologist using a bellows system to try to get a closeup photo of a very small flower in the Alaskan tundra.

True macro lenses, as near as I can tell, tend to make the process of getting the closeup easier. The canon MPE-65 may be an exception here, being easier that is, but I have no experience with that lens.

~ too much coffee... I'll stop now.