[Ribby]

This is the first shot I've submitted with my shiny new Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro lens. There weren't any nice flowers near my work on the banks of the River Hull so you'll have to make do with a rusty old bolt! Anyway, how did I do?....

[SammyC]

Its a nice clean shot, the trouble is there is no sense of scale i.e. doesn't look particularly macro IYKWIM.

But the lens looks like its a good one, good contrast, saturation and sharpness.

[Boon]

i disagree with sammy - sorry, its a bolt man, since when did scale come into play, what does it matter what size the thing is, its a great shot, great DOF, great colours and pin sharpe.
nice one Ribby.

Edited by CT

Disagree - but disagree nicerer.

[CT]

Nice shot Ribby. It does actually need a sharpen to bring out the detail. Perhaps you forgot to sharpen after you resized?

[RickMezza]

CT,
I know i'm gonna sound REAL dumb here, but will sharpening AFTER resizing result in a better quality image than sharpening THEN resizing?
I never knew that, so I'll have to go off and do an experiment...thanks

p.s. I havent got a clue about the best workflow methods for post processing pics. Thanks

[SammyC]

Originally Posted by Boon

i disagree with sammy - sorry, its a bolt man, since when did scale come into play, what does it matter what size the thing is, its a great shot, great DOF, great colours and pin sharpe.
nice one Ribby.

Edited by CT

Disagree - but disagree nicerer.

I take it I upset someone? It's only an opinion so take it as you like.

This is a critique section, its titled as macro, I couldn't see why it was considered macro.

The point I was trying to make was that this doesn't say macro to me, I can get very similar shots with my very non-macro 50mm lens as long as the bolt is big enough.

Now if there was something is the background to give the bolt a sense of scale (like a fliipin ginormouse 50 pence piece) then I can see that its a small bolt and then we have something that says macro to me.

If its just a shot of a bolt using a macro lens but at normal lengths to show that its a great lens, then that's fine too but in my opinion that wasn't what was posted.

[CT]

Originally Posted by RickMezza

CT,
I know i'm gonna sound REAL dumb here, but will sharpening AFTER resizing result in a better quality image than sharpening THEN resizing?
I never knew that, so I'll have to go off and do an experiment...thanks

It's not dumb at all mate. Sharpening should be the last the thing you do to an image before you save it, as lots of other things you might do afterwards can have an adverse effect on your sharpening.

Ideally therefore, if you're reducing an image in size for the web, you shouldn't really have sharpened the original larger image, but should sharpen once you've reduced the size. Whether you've previously sharpened or not though, when you reduce an image in size , it does lose a little sharpness, and should be sharpened at that stage.

p.s. I havent got a clue about the best workflow methods for post processing pics. Thanks

It depends whether you shoot RAW or jpegs, but I'm the last person to advise you, as my workflow is all over the place - something I need to get sorted.

[CT]

Originally Posted by SammyC

This is a critique section, its titled as macro, I couldn't see why it was considered macro.

It depends how big the bolt is. To be technically correct, macro photography is reproducing a life-sized image (1:1 reproduction ratio) on the sensor or film, so if you get a life sized image or greater on film.... it's macro.

Actually, to be really anal about it, larger than life size images on the sensor is properly referred to as micro photography.

[Ribby]

Thanks for all the comments everyone. I appreciate what Sammy says and can see his point (it wasn't a small bolt, I was trying to get the detail in the rust).

One thing I'd noticed was that the top of the bolt and some of the side are in focus but the nearest corner isn't. Is this something I should be worried about or should try to avoid?
This is the first time I shot at f/2.8 and my word is the DOF shallow!

[CT]

Yes, I did have a look at your shot Ribby and it will sharpen, but you've got the optimum point of focus midway between the far and near edges of the nut - not necessarily a bad thing, but a smaller aperture might have got both edges in focus. I say 'might have' because as you've discovered, DOF is severely limited at macro distances even with smaller apertures, and significantly smaller apertures usually means using a tripod... or flash, but that's macro photography - very demanding but very rewarding when you get it right.

Excellent shot with nice subdued colour.

[mrgubby]

With a 105mm lens @ f2.8 the DOF is about 0.4 inch with the camera a foot from the subject . Get closer and the DOF gets proportionally less, ie sweet FA