Macro DOF: A Discussion on eyes, environment and interest

[Dawid Loubser]

I wanted to ask this in my earlier thread about the cranefly, but I thought this warrants a discussion in itself. There appears to be two schools of though around depth of field when shooting insects: Some people dismiss a "nature" image outright if the entire subject is not in focus (some magazines around here are very prone to this) whereas others are more tolerant.

Since I do not have a flash, and yet I love doing macro photography, I am always forced to use reasonably large apertures (at 1:1 on a 100mm lens, even f/10 is considered large). Luckily I do not shoot Macro commercially, as I can see the rationale of always controlling 100% of the image yourself with a good Macro flash, but I am more concerned from the artistic perspective here: What do you typically consider (or what is your approach to achieve) a pleasing macro image when there is limited DOF?

As examples, I post here the most boring kind of subject (the ubiquitous fly) to remove any bias as to the subject. The first one is my earlier cranefly:

The second one, a housefly sitting outside right after a vicious thunderstorm in the late afternoon, everything was wet and the sun was peeking through the clouds, creating beautiful warm light:

In the first one, the environment is still a strong component of the image (though a shallow depth of field largely blurs it), and indeed the reason why it's an interesting image in my opinion. In the second one, I tried to completely eliminate the environment, to almost produce a dream-like state.

Just as with most other living things, I've found that if you don't focus on the insect's eyes, the image is not interesting. Why is this the case? Does our instinct to seek emotion, to connect with our subject, even apply to these miniature machine-like beings? Does anybody have interesting Macro insect shots to post where the eyes are not the subject of focus? (please share them!)

 

[outiv te]

I think shallow DOF shots in macro photography is very important. I also enjoy not using flash and being forced to use large apertures. Your shooting style is very similar to mine!

Regarding the eyes in focus, I have found in general that the subjects eyes need to be focused or it becomes distracting. The only time when this is not the case is when you do not really see the eyes. Here is my example

I am sure however, that there are great photos out there which don't have the eyes in focus, but I think it is quite rare.

 

[Marian Howell]

i agree that the "eyes have it", but sometimes they too busy

i shoot more environmental than portrait style, natural light. and the challenge can be to find a DOF that makes the image work in a complicated environment.

 

[Erik DeBill]

I, too, think images of insects usually work better if you get the eyes in focus. I'm not sure if it's entirely a matter of emotional connection, though. The head is a place with a lot of interesting detail that helps the image work. By contrast, an abdomen or thorax is unlikely to be quite so interesting, and if you can get the thorax and legs in focus you've probably got the head as well.

There might be an evolutionary bias to always look for the head of any animal, since that's one of the parts most likely to do you harm (e.g. snakes bit). Of course, we also tend to anthropomorphise anything we look at, which would encourage us to look at the "face" to try to glean clues about the animal's emotional state.

 

[Asher Kelman]

i agree that the "eyes have it", but sometimes they too busy

Marian,

The camera has captured a strand of a spider web. That is an extra nice detail. The insect in the flower is a shot that appears unique to me. It makes me wonder why spiders don't seem to build their web across the top of the flower? Wouldn't that be the most efficient. Is it possible that the clor of the flowers or the scent keeps away the spiders?

Asher

 

[Marian Howell]

asher,
i believe this is a form of sweat bee. these guys are very tiny, about 5mm, as is the sea lavender flower he is enjoying. sea lavender grows in the marsh in the intertidal zone. the plants are either tall (maybe 2') and sway alot in the breezes that blow along the water's edge and the wash of the waves themselves (making the web akin to a crow's nest at the top of the mast on a tall ship in a heavy sea!) or they are smaller and more quickly inundated by the incoming tide. however, during their flowery season everyone (spiders, ladybugs, mantis, and various bees) is trying to get a taste!

 

[Dawid Loubser]

Marian,

Both your images are beautiful, and what I really like about them (apart from the fact that they are, in my opinion, perfectly composed and focused) are the non-typical environment (coastline). I don't have many interesting coastal "macro" shots, apart from this one: A Blue Button being eaten by a carnivorous "surfer" snail (taken in Mossel Bay, in the Wester Cape province, South Africa):

© 2006 Dawid Loubser

 

[Jörgen Nyberg]

I took one yesterday, that I think illustrate quite well, what shallow DOF is:

This guy is even smaller than Marians Sweet Bee, I would guess about 3 mm, the DOF somewhere around 0.8 mm.
Shot with EF-S 60 and a 500D Close up lens, taken on the roof of my car.

 

[Marian Howell]

thank you dawid for the compliments. you should check out some of the tidal pool shots that Sean DeMerchant posts here. he lives on whidby island of the coast of washington state and he finds some great stuff there! your "blue button" reminds me of some his...

 

[James Newman]

I find your thread extremely interesting and relevant to my latest attempts at macro photography. I use a Nikon D40 and I recently purchased the 105mm AF-S VR lens in hopes of getting some of the close-up shots that I see and enjoy so much. I've always had an interest in seeing things magnified and I wanted to try some myself. The first issue I ran into was the manual focus delimma. I was having a really hard time seeing well enough through my viewfinder to get a good, sharp focus. I still do at times but it's getting better. The second issue I ran across was exactly what you are speaking of. Shallow DOF. I never really thought about it or realized exactly what the challenges can be in macro until I actualy started taking the photographs. DOF is a continuing battle for me at the moment. I use my tripod and remote release but sometimes I have to use the largest aperture as well and, well, my results are just as you describe. Sometimes it works for me and sometimes it doesn't. So in furthering my abilities in this field I have purchased the Nikon R1C1 macro speedlight system. It will be delivered tomorrow and I am really looking forward to experimenting and seeing what I can come up with next. (I also ordered an extension tube set to see if I can get even closer)
Here are a couple that I was able to get using the 105mm and the SB-600 flash that I currently have.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I've always had an interest in seeing things magnified and I wanted to try some myself.

Same here, although for me it applies to both the astronomical as well as the Macro/Microscopic dimension.

The second issue I ran across was exactly what you are speaking of. Shallow DOF. I never really thought about it or realized exactly what the challenges can be in macro until I actualy started taking the photographs. DOF is a continuing battle for me at the moment.

Not to discourage you, but shallow DOF will always be an issue and even more so as you get in closer. Sometimes there is little choice because not all subjects allow tripod shooting, which inevitably leads to shorter shutter-speeds/exposure-times and, as a result, aperture compromises.

This is a simple natural light handheld f/5.6 example:

The DOF was barely enough to cover the tiny clump of pollen on the dove poop feast for the fly (the file name mentions a 'common' house-fly, but it actually is a (common) 'Sarcophaga carnaria' or gray meat-fly). More DOF requires a lot of light, and as you get closer (or rather as the magnification increases) even more light is needed. Dedicated flash is the best approach if you shoot a lot of this type of images, as you have found out.

So in furthering my abilities in this field I have purchased the Nikon R1C1 macro speedlight system. It will be delivered tomorrow and I am really looking forward to experimenting and seeing what I can come up with next. (I also ordered an extension tube set to see if I can get even closer).

Looking forward to the results.

Bart

 

[Asher Kelman]

The blue button, Dawid, is so worth viewing again! I have never even imagined anything like that. What sort of creature are there? They look more complex than a star fish.

Found Porpita porpita, Blue button Is it in the order anthoathecata, some hydra? I wonder what they eat and how they change in their life cycle. Do they reproduce asexually?

Cumberland Island, Georgia 5/13/2004 (digital photograph © Carol Ruckdeschel)

Porpita porpita “Blue Button"

This pelagic hydroid colony, consisting of a central "float" (pneumatocyst) surrounded by "tentacles" (zooids), is rarely found washed ashore on the beaches of northeast Florida while it is reportedly extremely common elsewhere. The "tentacles" vary in color from blue to brilliant green. Like its close relative Physalia physalis - Portuguese Man-of-War, Porpita porpita is dependent on prevailing sea currents and the wind for movement"

Source

They get a central bladder which allows them to float. The Portuguese man-o-war, is apparently a close relative and can sting, (and even kill at times)!

Asher

 

[Dawid Loubser]

Hi Asher,

Yes, as per your post, it's very closely related to the man-o-war, so it is also a colonial animal (consisting of a myriad of simple animals living in a community). I actually don't see them very often, so I was lucky to get the shot of the snail eating it. That wasn't taken with a Macro lens, mind you (even though this is a "macro" thread) but with the Canon 28-300L.

Now, those snails I do see a lot of, very feisty creatures that live in large numbers in the surf down on the cape coast. They devour anything that washes out