A white Peony (Paeonia lactiflora) that grows in our gardens here in London, Canada.






Nikon D800, AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED
1/160s @ f/22, ISO 100, EV -1, aperture priority,
manual focus using a 4-way focus rail and remote
tripod, PS CS6 post processing

If it is of any interest the D800 is an excellent combination with this lens.

Thanks for looking!

Gerard Pas

Ars est celare artem — It is true art to conceal art.
http://www.gerardpas.com

I see you are enjoying your super megapixel D800
Nice capture. One comment. The shadows indicate this was captured in direct light. Although it is no big deal for this shot, there is a way to get rid of those by using a diffuser which can be hand held or held in place with some type of McClamp device. I own a 12" and 22" folding diffuser (and many relfectors-see profile) that I sometimes stick in my bag for shooting flowers in hard light. Again, on this shot it really doesn't need it but I am just mentioning it for those that aren't aware of that trick.

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

You know I've been meaning to get one of those clamps for sometime because your right, it would be both handy to hold said diffuser and the flower as well. I was a bit of a windy day and I could of used one.

Hey Albert, every year and twice a year my Computer / HD Projector goes to your website to show students how to use a "shutter" to capture waterfalls from your site. I think of you often and am grateful for all the contributions you helped me with over the years. Such as your comments above.

I think the D800 is great with the macro lens although the files sizes are creating all kinds of problems for me, even in reducing them to the web.

I hope all is well with you. Thanks for commenting.

Gerard Pas

Ars est celare artem — It is true art to conceal art.
http://www.gerardpas.com

As Albert says the shadows are no big deal in this shot. I sometimes shoot macro with and without the diffuser, then decide later which I prefer. I like the shadows in this shot.

I see you shot at f22. Looking at this photograph, I think I may worry too much about refraction! I often try to avoid shooting smaller than f10 when using the 105mm on my D300. I often wish for more DOF, but I'm reluctant to go smaller. If you aren't concerned using a D800, then I see no reason to worry when shooting with my D300!

Thanks Gerard.

Kind regards,
Paul

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

The smaller the pixels the faster diffraction creeps into the mix but with websized images it is likely not noticable. The thing is that FX has less DOF than DX for the same aperture and composition. The reason for this is that DOF is related to 3 things, aperture (bigger is less DOF), Focal length (longer is less DOF), and distance to subject (shorter is less DOF). So to capture the same composition on a FX body one needs to either A) get closer or B) use a longer FL from the same position, both of which shorten DOF. This why those little compact cameras can do so well for macro, they use short FL and which therefore enhance DOF. For macro where the area that you want sharp is 'deep' is might require one to consider options like stacking.

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

I see I used the word refraction, but I'm pleased you realised I meant diffraction. No idea why I did that, as I do understand the difference. Apologies for any confusion.

I understand DOF as you explained, and as you have pointed out, at web sizes loss of IQ from diffraction would not be noticeable.

I think my point was that I worry too much about loss of sharpness due to diffraction, and maybe I am overly cautious. I would expect diffraction to kick in and be visible at f22 on a 36MP sensor, but maybe it's not as bad as I expect. I wasn't saying it should be visible here as posted, but the fact that Gerard used f22, must mean that it's not too bad.

In conclusion, I think I may experiment more with smaller apertures and worry less about the effects of diffraction. It's a question of balancing sharpness against required DOF, but I think I may over-estimate the negative effects of diffraction, and over-inclined to cut back on the ideal DOF. Stacking is not really an option for me.

Cheers.

Kind regards,
Paul

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Paul, I knew you meant diffraction. Also, I have the same concerns as you about its effect which is part of the reason I prefer to shoot DX since (putting the diffraction issue aside) you can get the same DOF with DX at a larger aperture (smaller f/stop). This means that for the same DOF with DX you get to shoot closer to the sweet spot - for example, f/16 is softer than f/11 from the standpoint of the optics. But, if one is going for a more shallow DOF, like for portraits, sports, and wildlife subjects then the ability to blur background has an edge for FX but of course one loses the reach. So there are virtues and liabilities for each format making it best to consider what you shoot before deciding on which body.
With regard to diffraction, it begins at roughly f/10 or f/11 for a D300 but sometimes stopping down further has advanatage, like when 'sharp' DOF is not important but you want a slower shutter speeds for special effects... With a 36mp body diffraction likely begins at f/6.7 or near there, and f/6.7 is like f/5.6 on DX for DOF of the same composition. That's the theory but marketing says that more is better, or better stated, more sells. The extra pixels are often welcome for those that want to make huge prints and people seem to really love their D800's. It is interesting that Nikon's flagship camera, the D4 only has 16MP which seems like a great balance. I am happy with my D300's 12mp and hope Nikon doesn't design the next flagship DX body with an overdose of pixels. I would like to see Nikon offer two types of sensors for two types of bodys, DX and FX, one with a supersized sensor like the D800 and smaller number like the D4 for FX, and the same for Dx. But, I am not holding my breath and their lack of D300 update or clue to their product roadmap has me on hold with all Nikon related purchases. I personally plan to stick with DX for the versatility, I go from fisheye and 10mm to 500mm DX, and would rather have pixels with better ISO and dynamic range than just more pixels - but then I would have all that I needed and no need to buy another camera and that's not good for business. If a D400 DX only becomes available in 24mp then my eyes will be open to see how other companies are doing.
Despite all the above, Gerards picture holds plenty of sharp detail at f/22 and his posts in wildlife, where shallow DOF is desired, but of course they are websized but he has the pixel power to do the same for very large prints. DOF is a concern for most types of macro work so stacking software may be needed to get sharp results when plenty of DOF is desired. It never ends but I can happliy say that my equipment does the job and the limiting factor is the photographer not my gear

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

Thanks Gerard, glad my website has been helpful and I do shoot many waterfalls but not all are posted. I've done a lot of backcountry hiking the last few years to find and shoot rarely seen waterfalls - no fun lugging a tripod 5 miles uphill sometimes but over time I started enjoying the hike more than the shoot. I'll send you a PM as a I have a handhout you might find useful on this.
I own two sets of clamps, one has a long stake to push into the ground and the other has a clamp at both ends to attach to my tripod.

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

I think Albert's erudite answers above require no further comment on my part.
What a treasure you are Albert! I actually learned about diffraction from Albert in a more practical way here. Even though I knew what it was for many years before as a film shooter. Having it occur when documenting my sculptural works in poorly lit museum environments. I always took enough shots at the time and discard the messed up ones.

I won't shoot past f/22 for fear of diffraction. Like a cars speedometer that says a car will go 260Km per hour I've only ever had a car go up to 225Kph hahaha. I don't know why our camera's even have an f/32?

Like you Paul I prefer to shoot with a larger aperture, for all the reasons which we know, movement caused by the wind, etc. I was testing the D800 on this shot and I really wanted to reach deep into the Peony after manually focusing on the closet petals to the camera. The center of the flower is still a little soft in the full resolution image but not offensively (I could print it).
I was happy for the 1/160s @ f/22 because it was a bit breezy, thus the noon day shot. I love a well done "stacked image" (like Teitzy does) but would rather try and get one good shot straight out of the camera; stacking can be so tedious - although I've done it when I have to with insects / butterflies.

In an ideal world I would of been happier to shoot this at f/16 but I wanted the reach (DOF) more or I wouldn't of used f/22. The beauty of digital is that it allows us to experiment in ways we would never of as film shooters because of cost. (Now we pay at the outset in ever changing equipment with no film costs).

Albert, I'd gladly take any thing you can send me, not just for my own learning curve but for those much younger than you and I who would benefit from it. When you write a manual or book of which I wish you would, I'd include it as a text book or make the library buy several of it.
Your waterfall shots are next to none, top tier stuff! They really show how to use a shutter and create with it.

Gerard Pas

Ars est celare artem — It is true art to conceal art.
http://www.gerardpas.com

Gerard,


I'm the kind of guy that learned long ago not to believe everything he reads. Too much false information or half truths are floating around everywhere, from photography, to what is really okay or not okay to eat (I've lived long enough to witness endless flipflops on food - especially the egg, six months ago they said too little salt is bad for the heart...). Anyway, when I was learning photography I spend plenty of time setting up experiements to islolate a single variable to learn, like shooting the same thing with a different aperture, shooting the same thing at different focal lengths, white balance... That's how I learned the real truth since so many half things i read are just wrong and I wanted to know how these variables really manifest themselves - yeah, I'm becoming the kind of guy that yells at the television...


Anyway, if I was you I would set up some tests to understand real world effects of diffreaction. For example, I would take a D800 and a sharp f/2.8 lens mounted on a tripod. Then find a subject that is relatively flat with plenty of detail (perhaps a newspaper or even the old brick wall subject). Then I would focus and shoot at each aperture from f/2.8 to f/22, perhaps in half stop intervals. This will be a good test for diffraction (and edge sharpness, vignetting...). The key to the subject is plenty of detail and it must be flat. Flat takes out the DOF variable so your results are strickly about sharpness at each aperture - just make sure the lens is exactly 90 degrees to the subject else DOF will make some areas look soft and others sharp at wide apertures (see my butterfly entry in this months contest where I shot my macro lens at 210mm and f/5.6 to get a shallow DOF but can only get key areas sharp by putting them in the same narrrow plane). Then look at the results at 100% mag. In theory, for a sharp f/2.8 lens you will peak in center sharpness around f/4 - f/5.6 and certainly have the best corner sharpness at f/5.6 (remember, that macro lenses are much better at corner sharpness and close focusing relative to other lenses that may be slightly soft at the edges or show vignetting wide open, or optimized more for infintiy than close focus). It might be interesting to repeat this experiment with your DX body to see if/how sharpness falls off as a function of aperture.


The above test should let you know what to expect so you can picks the optimal settings for what you are shooting. I personally test all my cameras and lenses when I get them to discover their strenghts and weaknesses... Reading reviews are nice but getting to know you gear personally is preferable and it may dispell many myths . Also, when it comes to macro lenses they are all pretty sharp so most people only consider focal lenght for working distance. But, the longer FL macros often a narrower FOV which allows for easier blurring of the background and color pallettes.


As for that book, I have kicked around the idea for a few years but concerned about marketing it if I did write it but I have strached out crude outlines. I did send an PM through Nikonians this morning. If you did not get it then send one to me so I can send that water handout.

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

Thanks guys.

You have certainly changed my way of thinking, and I have learnt an important point... Not to take everything I read as fact without checking it out myself in the real world. Years ago, I would shoot at f22 as often as I needed, and didn't even think about diffraction. The more I read about it, the less inclined I was to stop down past f10, but I never actually did tests to see if the effects of diffraction were as bad as I thought. There is more to photography than physics

Sorry to get this thread onto the subject of diffraction Gerard, rather than discussing your lovely flower macro, or how well the 105 works with the D800. I loved the shot.

Interestingly, I prefer using my Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro, for the exact reasons you stated, Albert.


Thanks again

Kind regards,
Paul

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I'll run these tests on both D800 and D300 bodies.

Gerard Pas

Ars est celare artem — It is true art to conceal art.
http://www.gerardpas.com

Lovely, Gerard simply lovely. For whatever reason (and please don't analyze this) I'm reminded of of the wonderful 'Can-Can' images of..... damn old age! Regardless, I think the images are wonderful. stan

Stan Miller
A Sacramento CA Nikonian

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Gerard, really nice shot! Glad to see you hanging around here again.

Mike

Truly Magnificent!
I am shooting w/ this combo tomorrow and also shot w/ it last week- did not get a shot that came close to touching this beauty!

Ps: did you have it on full switch or did you focus & then switch to full?

Art is the only way to run away without leaving home.



www.TinkersRealm.com

glad to hear that the 105 goes with the D800. Now I just need to get the D800! lovely image.

Rob,
I hope that you read Albert's analysis above before you do. It's an expensive camera. I bought mine more to do very large size (billboard) prints and might not of if I only had concerns for web images and smaller prints. It's very slow and takes up a lot of disk space with 45MB NEF's as well you loose the crop factor of the DX.

Gerard Pas

Ars est celare artem — It is true art to conceal art.
http://www.gerardpas.com

Thanks Kelli - good luck with your shooting. I noticed I'm using much more -EV with this camera than my other cameras.


Gerard Pas

Ars est celare artem — It is true art to conceal art.
http://www.gerardpas.com

Thanks Mike,

My heart still has a special place for the macro, I've just been so preoccupied with birds and birding. I think that this summer I'll spend more time in my garden with the D800 and as a result more time here.

Gerard Pas

Ars est celare artem — It is true art to conceal art.
http://www.gerardpas.com

Thanks Stan,

I've been to the Moulin Rouge and... damn old age

Gerard Pas

Ars est celare artem — It is true art to conceal art.
http://www.gerardpas.com