The Planted Tank Forum banner

Why are my macros so grainy?

8K views 67 replies 15 participants last post by  treyLcham 
#1 ·
I recently bought a used macro, this one (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html)

I thought the shots would at least be clearer than my old inverter+telephoto setup.

But I've been getting --


This is a huge step-down from what I was using before, a $10 inverter+kit lens --


Is it because it's a 100mm and I have to be farther away--water is causing distortions? or are my ISO and f/stops all messed up. I'm using an above tank flash too. What would the recommended settings be?
 
See less See more
2
#5 ·
you have not mentioned about the camera that you are using, but this type of grainy pic can be because of high ISO try keeping it below 400), can compensate the light but decreasing aparture to 5.6(try experimenting with lower too), lower exposure (i gfuess with shrimps 1/80-1/100 would be fine and increasing the amount of light.
 
#6 ·
I agree, the results look more like high ISO (6400 certainly qualifies) than lens-related noise. Check the settings from the other shot you posted. Also compare lighting in the two shots.

Low(-ish) ISO and plenty of light are key to sharp, clear, and noise-free shots. I try to keep my ISO at 800 max, preferably lower, but it depends on the capabilities of the camera. Some don't look good even at 800, others can be surprisingly clean considerably higher. But you're going to see graininess on cameras at 6400 ISO.
 
#7 ·
Sure looks like noise from high ISO . Try a series of shots of some stationary object at increasing ISO's and see what is the highest you can get away with .
Different cameras have different limits . With my Canon 5D Mk2 I regularly go to 2500 , sometimes 3200 while with my M9 I don't like to go much over 800 .
If you're not already using them , a tripod and remote release are real helpful as is using live view . Your lens is fine , I've got one , it's gold .
 
#8 ·
Ah I see. I didn't realize manual had ISO on auto on default, and it doesn't account for lighting from the remote flash. Also I did mention above it's an entry T4i (Canon), so probably does not have that of a high ISO limit. Thanks all, haven't taken macros for a while and completely forgot how to do it.

So I'm going to try just adjust the flash brightness to max, ISO to 100, and then play around with f/ and exposure settings.

Also, please refresh my memory, was it f/ or exposure that affected DoF?

For increased DoF I want smallest aperture (but that means largest f# right?)

To account for motion blur I want faster shutter speed (lower exposure)?

Also, has anyone tried using a real macro lens in combination with a diopter to further enhance the magnification? I'm finding this canon 100 to give less magnification than the reversing ring.
 
#9 ·
DOF is controlled by aperture (f stop). Smaller numbers mean you're opening the aperture larger. This gives you shallow DOF and more light reaching the sensor, so you can use a higher shutter speed. If you need more DOF, stop down the aperture by increasing the F stop number number, but that cuts out a lot more light so you'll need to slow the shutter or add more light. (or raise ISO but as you've learned there are limits to that)

To reduce motion blur increase shutter speed (again, which reduces the amount of light hitting the sensor, so open the aperture by lowering the aperture number).

Shooting tiny moving objects requires decent shutter speed (1/60-1/200, in general), and enough aperture to get the DOF you want to have the whole critter in focus (unless you want it super shallow), that f stop will vary widely.

You can probably feel safe bumping ISO at least to 400 without too much grain. But once you find the right focal point, shutter speed that adequately stops the motion, and f-stop that gives you the right DOF, you usually need a lot more than ambient light unless you're shooting in bright sunlight, thus the need for strobes.

I started shooting seriously underwater, where adequate light is ALWAYS a big issue (unless you're in 10' of water in the Caribbean), so powerful strobes (usually two) and a modeling light (to assist focus) are used to help compensate, especially shooting macro critters the size of most dwarf shrimp.
 
#11 ·
Here's a link to the owners manual for your lens :

http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/7/0300003507/02/ef100f28macrousm-im2-eng.pdf

f-stop affects depth of field ….. the higher the numerical value the greater the depth of field .

Higher (faster ) shutter speed is more effective for stopping motion .

A more detailed explanation here: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm

Your lens will focus up to life size , but you'll be pretty close to your subject.Maybe 12" . I've never used a diopter with any lens , but have used both extension tubes and a 2X Kenko extender ( not at the same time ) on my 100mm macro for outside bug photography and it worked pretty well .

The big issue is that the combination of high f-stop and fast shutter just ain't gonna happen without flash . On the higher end Canon's there's a custom function that'll set the default shutter speed to 1/250 when using flash and
aperture priority mode ( AV) . Don't know if you've got that , or if your flash is an ETTL enabled one .

Assuming that your flash is pretty generic , why not try this ….

Set your ISO to 400 . Set the top control dial to M , so you're shooting in full manual mode . Set your shutter speed to as close to 200 as you can without going over ( probably 180 ) Use the front dial , by the shutter button , to do this . You're doing this because Canon shutters will synch with non Canon flashes at speeds of 1/200 or lower . Set your f-stop to f11 , it's a good starting point that will get you reasonable depth of field . Use the back dial to do this .
Set your flash output to maximum and try a few tank shots . See what happens . If its' overexposed , cut the flash output down some . If underexposed , either go down to f8 or up the ISO to 800 .
Alternatively , you could just start with f11 and 1/180 and set the camera to bracket exposures +/- 1 stop , there's probably a custom function that'll let you do this . And set the drive to continuous .This way you can hold down the shutter until it shoots 3 continuous shots , one underexposed , one on your setting , and one overexposed. Gotta check your manual . T4i ' s are somewhat different than the bigger Canons . Shoot RAW plus JPEG if you can , this way if the jpeg doesn't work out , you can tweak the RAW image some to compensate for white balance , color , exposure &c.
You've just gotta play around . Hopefully this'll give you a starting point.
 
#12 ·
TY for all the tips, think I'm getting a better feel for manually setting ISO, aperture, exposure. As you said the ISO 100 shots came out the best.


ISO 100 f/11 1/160


ISO 100 f/16 1/160

Even stepping up to 200 something just looks off.. or maybe my hand shook, it's definitely less detail.

ISO 200 f/18 1/160


ISO 400 f/18 1/160
 
#13 ·
Your camera (which IIRC is a low end DSLR?) should be good to at least 400 if not 800 before grain starts to become objectionable. The lowest ISO is always best, however, as long as there is enough light. Nice shots! That first shot is especially good.
 
#14 ·
Thx :) yes the cheap flash provides plenty of light. With the cheap flash however I also can't do continuous shots like someoldguy recommended with +/-1 exposure range, so I usually just do some post effects editing for shadow/highlights/brightness.

If ISO 100 to 400 doesn't make a big difference even on an entry, another thought is maybe cause shots 3 and 4 were of shrimp farther back in the tank, and water is causing some distortion (it's very tannic water). I find I can only get good shots of things closer to the glass.
 
#15 ·
Are you shooting with the light off camera? If so lower your shutter speed, start with say 125th of a second. Since you are using a speedlight it will free the motion and will let more light in so your photos are either brighter or you can go for more depth of field.

ISO can be raised to allow more light as well, but with a rebel I would go up to ISO 800 at max
 
#16 ·
Yeah camera light is off, I have the remote trigger thingy inserted there, speedlite right above subject (this is hard in densely planted tanks to get a good angle)

I'm actually in the market for a step up from the rebel series. Do you guys think a full-frame justifies the cost? 7d is ~900 right now, 5d mark III is what, $3k? mark II I think fell to ~2k. I don't know much about Nikons and have only ever used Canons or Panasonics.
 
#17 ·


unedited shot with my nikon d750 just using a bounce flash on camera. Yeah, nice equipment can make a difference.

I don't know about pointing the light down on the tank. I honestly haven't tried it myself, but I've had good luck pointing lighting down on an angle into the tank. It's especially good if you can use something black as a background on the tank as it will eat up the light so there is no reflection back and the main focus is the light hitting your subject.
 
#20 ·
For macro photography, no, I don't think full frame justifies the cost. Higher priced EVERYTHING for the rest of your life. And in macro, there are advantages to smaller sensors.
Not really. Remember it is a crop not an enlargement. The disadvantage to a cropped sensor becomes highly apparent when shooting wide angle, there is no disadvantage to FF. Except the cost of the body.
The actual image size hitting a cropped sensor is exactly the same size image that hits a FF.

Bump:
Yeah camera light is off, I have the remote trigger thingy inserted there, speedlite right above subject (this is hard in densely planted tanks to get a good angle)

I'm actually in the market for a step up from the rebel series. Do you guys think a full-frame justifies the cost? 7d is ~900 right now, 5d mark III is what, $3k? mark II I think fell to ~2k. I don't know much about Nikons and have only ever used Canons or Panasonics.
Pentax is coming out with a FF camera this year IIRC. The cropped sensor cameras get great reviews, and you can use any lens ever made with the K mount. And any lens ever made for any camera with the M42 screw mount. Image stabilization is in body so even my 45 year old M42 450mm lens gets IS. Can't say that about any other manufacturer. Pentax has had some awesome glass over the years that are useable. Just stay away from the radioactive lenses. (actually all manufacturers made radioactive lenses at one point)
 
#25 ·
Remember also that a macro has to be focused perfectly.If the little critter moves just a bit it could be out of focus. I have tried macro on my aquariums and found that is it very hard to control the focus. If you have a zoom lens that came with the camera and it zooms out to 135 or so try that. It won't fill the frame but it might be a lot easier to control focus.
 
#30 ·
Lots of good advice here; even with the fantastic CCD's in digital cameras now, physics is physics and DSLR's behave essentially the same as film SLR's. The smaller the aperture, the deeper is DOF and the lower the ISO (ASA, argh!) the less grain. For fast moving objects, lots of light is needed for the relatively grain free shots you get with med aperture/ISO and high shutter speed.

I didn't look into the details of your camera/lens combo, whether the camera/lens CPU's communicate well or not; that can make a difference, too. The fundamentals of good photography are vastly more important than details, though. I can take great fish pix with my Nikon D7000 and an old 50 mm dia f1.8 E lens used manually. Takes some trial and error, but the pix are almost as good as the ones from the vibe reduction 70mm dia zoomer I normally use.

Take advantage of post processing software, too; software can make good pics spectacular and poor ones good.

Your pix got much better as the topic progressed!

Here's some AR Variegated I shot a few weeks ago with the Nikon (no flash, 1/200 shutter speed, f4.6, ISO 3200) along with a crop of the upper left portion of the image as it came from the camera. In reverse order of course :) . Faststone is the image software used, the pic wasn't set up, no extra lighting, handheld lying prone on the floor in front of the tank. Digital photography is really quite amazing!
 

Attachments

#31 ·
When you get really good you get those great shots in film.
 
#32 ·
With a large format film camera, yeah. When digital became viable after many years of pasty low res digital cameras, some of my buddies and I tried to replicate it with very slow film and lots of lighting in 35 mm and eventually we ate crow. But we weren't totally stubborn, we gave up before Kodak did! :)
 
#35 ·
Film captures way more data than an equally sized digital sensor. If the film is printed wet process and analog it is better than digital. As soon as film is scanned it becomes a different story however. Film also doesn't get moire like digital.
In your experiments did you scan the film? You lost tons of the detail in that film shot if you did.
And if you're looking at it on a monitor then it is degraded to the resolution of the monitor.
All that said I can't recall when I last did a shoot in film. But maybe this spring I'll break out one of the old bodies.

What do you mean by large format? 8 x 10 press camera or do you really mean medium format. Like the old Mamiya 2.25 square?
The best medium format out right now is the Pentax D645. Unless you want to spend 10s of thousands on a Hasselblad.

Truth is given the same size system megapixels don't really matter for the most part.
 
#33 ·
Even medium format is getting replaced with digital these days.

5 years ago, the graphic editors at my then-job (at a large Hollywood ad agency) told our photographers they didn't want 35mm film used anymore. Good DSLR raw was better and easier to work with. They still requested film for medium format. That has changed, by now, with the advent of good digital backs for medium format cameras.

I think large format is still ruled by film, but even there, it's days are likely numbered for all but the most esoteric special-purpose needs.
 
#37 ·
Son, really. Hey I've been doing this for a full 6 months. I know what I am talking about. I know, after a full six months, all about it.

Or maybe it's 38 years in printing/design/photography. I have a hard timer remembering how long. I look at everything through a loupe. I also am a proponent of digital photography. But I also realize its limitations. Just like vinyl has more range than digital film has more gamut and detail. Actual detail.
 
#40 ·
#43 ·
The shot in q 7 in the first link is excellent, nice use of repetitive complimentary shapes with the (I think) Ras' positioned perfectly in front of the anubias leaves; it looks alive.

Mine are just whatever they are, some are good, some not so good, none are great. :)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top