couple of fly macros with the cheapo lens

wez130

wez130

wez130

Soldato
Joined
31 Jan 2004
Posts
11,308
Location
Matakana New Zealand
both taken with the reversed 35-80 canon cheapo lens reversed.

flyy.jpg


flyy2.jpg


who needs expensive 100mm macro lenses :D

cropped the edge off both and resized in CS2
 
call me a noob, but when you say reversed...you mean you put it on the wrong way round?

good shots :D

edit- that sounds incredibly silly now I've re-read it :p
 
philio16 said:
but when you say reversed...you mean you put it on the wrong way round?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what he means, he's a master at it too ;)

Nice work Wez :)
 
Cuchulain said:
How do you fix these reversed lenses to the body?
Click to expand...

You get a special adapter ring with an EF mount on one side and a male threaded connector on the front. Screw the lens onto the mount and away you go.

Problem is that you can't stop down most autofocus lenses manually to give the required depth of field so you then might have to be tricky or use older manaul focus lenses with aperture control on the lens itself. You can stop down some autofocus lenses by setting the aperture on the cam, using dof preview and while it's closed switch off the camera. With some lenses the diaphragm sticks at the setting chosen. try at your own risk :)

Really good, cheap alternative to a dedicated macro.
 
dod said:
You get a special adapter ring with an EF mount on one side and a male threaded connector on the front. Screw the lens onto the mount and away you go.

Problem is that you can't stop down most autofocus lenses manually to give the required depth of field so you then might have to be tricky or use older manaul focus lenses with aperture control on the lens itself. You can stop down some autofocus lenses by setting the aperture on the cam, using dof preview and while it's closed switch off the camera. With some lenses the diaphragm sticks at the setting chosen. try at your own risk :)

Really good, cheap alternative to a dedicated macro.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I've tried it handheld but the DOF is unbelievably narrow (50mm prime), tried putting it back on the right way round and upping it to F22 but it makes no difference, it must reset itself when it's taken off again.
 
AdWright said:
I was under the impression that you had to leave the camera on, hold down the DoF preview button and then remove the lens?
Click to expand...

My memory could be playing tricks, does that at my age :p I think you're right though, apologies :)
 
wez130 said:
both taken with the reversed 35-80 canon cheapo lens reversed.



flyy2.jpg


who needs expensive 100mm macro lenses :D

cropped the edge off both and resized in CS2
Click to expand...
I don't mean to seem critical, but that is very dark (on my monitor).

Can I suggest a bit of levels adjustment like :-

SequoiaUK-Flymacro.jpg


I've probably overdone that a bit (a lot, in fact), as it was a very quick tweak, but there was a vast amount of detail in that original shot that was hidden.

Anyway, it's just a suggestion. You may not like the result. If you want me to take my tweaked version down, just say so.
 
Sequoia said:
I don't mean to seem critical, but that is very dark (on my monitor).

Can I suggest a bit of levels adjustment like :-

[/IMG]

I've probably overdone that a bit (a lot, in fact), as it was a very quick tweak, but there was a vast amount of detail in that original shot that was hidden.

Anyway, it's just a suggestion. You may not like the result. If you want me to take my tweaked version down, just say so.
Click to expand...

IMO, that is far too far - the whole thing is too high key and the noise is pretty atrocious! Somewhere between the two would be a touch better, once passed through a noise reduction filter it should be fine.

I agree that there is a lot of hidden detail in the original shot though :)
 
DRZ said:
IMO, that is far too far - the whole thing is too high key and the noise is pretty atrocious! Somewhere between the two would be a touch better, once passed through a noise reduction filter it should be fine.

I agree that there is a lot of hidden detail in the original shot though :)
Click to expand...
Yeah. I wasn't trying to produce a finished result. For a start, it was done with a quick and very crude levels adjustment and a 100% unsharpen. I was trying to point out the amount of hidden detail that was there for a sensitive tweak to produce.
 
Sequoia said:
Yeah. I wasn't trying to produce a finished result. For a start, it was done with a quick and very crude levels adjustment and a 100% unsharpen. I was trying to point out the amount of hidden detail that was there for a sensitive tweak to produce.
Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from, though from my post that isnt exactly obvious :)

james.miller's effort is close to how I would personally have processed that I think :)
 
james.miller said:
fly3.jpg
Click to expand...
Not bad. Certainly better.

But given time, an adjustment mask, separate fly from background, tweak the detail in eye, leg joints, etc, feather, curves and a gentle unsharpen should be able to bring the fly out a bit more without blowing out the background (as I did) or bringing in the noise.

But I wasn't trying to promote Photoshop editing - just to highlight the detail that was there, but obscured.

In any event, for a cheap lens and a reversing ring, it's a damn fine show, wez.
 
hehe. It's really easy to get to 90% or so of where you want to be with a photo. You can do that in minutes, its the other 10% that takes hours and hours lol.

I just edited mine again. far better now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom