Lowest F/stop

Eddy

In Macro Pgotography is there a base level of an f/stop you can goto, 2.8 which would give you the main subject surrounded by nice Bokeh,
1) what if the subject had to move ..would all focus and lighting be lost along with the subject being blured with a iso of 200.

i want to grasp the basic settings and knowledge of how far i can tread on the edge of macro..

Lord Vetinari

Eddy wrote:

In Macro Pgotography is there a base level of an f/stop you can goto, 2.8 which would give you the main subject surrounded by nice Bokeh,
1) what if the subject had to move ..would all focus and lighting be lost along with the subject being blured with a iso of 200.

i want to grasp the basic settings and knowledge of how far i can tread on the edge of macro..

Not certain what you are asking but when shooting near 1:1 magnification the DOF is very thin so you tend to get nice OOF bokeh, at F2.8 you would also have most of the subject probably OOF as well.
If you are shooting natural light and handheld then you really need to keep the shutter speed at 1/200th or faster at 1:1 magnification so you have to adjust ISO to an appropriate level to get an exposure at your chosen aperture. Some more info on lighting types and camera settings etc here
http://www.digitalgrin.com/showthread.php?t=64695
Brian V.

IPClark

Yeah I'd avoid F2.8 like crazy. That's not really viable for any kind of Macro photography. As Brian says, DoF is so small anyway that Bokeh comes part and parcel.
Have a look at my frozen water droplet. That was taken at around 1:1.2 - 1:1.5 at F7.1, 1/200 and the bokeh is all there.


In addition to the link Brian provided, here's an example of what happens at F2.8, F8.0 and F20 using my Sigma 105 Macro lens. At F2.8, very little is actually in focus (and these aren't at 1:1, imagine how little would be in focus at 1:1). F8 has lots more in focus but you can see above the screw that the blurring is still very apparant. This would cause bokeh with a better background. At F20, alsmost everything from front to back is in focus. Of course these results are also affected by distance from the subject AND the amount of maginification. Being further away, more of the screw would be in focus at F2.8 but then you're moving away from macro.

Macro lenses at F2.8 make excellent portrait lenses when focused at infinity.

F2.8


F8


F20

Eddy

Thanks Lord and IPClark:
Thats the answer i am looking for ..so 2.8 is absolutely ano go..I wanna concentrate on a certain f-stop IE f11 and go down as in f16 f22 thanks for the answers ..really appreciate it
eddy

IPClark

Again, going beyond F16 isn't necessary and you'll likely experience light diffraction which could cause the overall result to look soft.

Stick around F8, 1/200 and provided you have enough light, you should manage to get decent results which will improve with time.

I'm no where near as capable as Brian or Phil (Goldenorfe) but when I look at my Macros 12 months ago compared to a few I've done recently then, I can see I did get better but I still have a very long way to go.

Make sure you read over those tutorials

paddler4

I think it is less useful to look for rules than to try to get a handle on the principles. The biggest issue is DOF: wider aperture = shallower DOF. This effect is very large, as Ian's photos show, and since DOF is razor-thin at macro distances, there is pressure to close the aperture down.

In my experience, diffraction is pretty minor until the aperture is very small. So, while I try to stick with f/16 or wider--and Goldenorfe, who is much better than I am, said he never goes beyond that--I sometimes find that I would rather take a little diffraction in return for greater DOF, and I shoot some shots at f/20 or even f/22.

Play around with this to see how it works. Take a bunch of shots, varying the aperture. You will gradually get a feeling for it and can decide what works best for you.

for example, this one I took at f/20 because I wanted the extra DOF and was willing to take a little diffraction:

Eddy

IPClark wrote:

Again, going beyond F16 isn't necessary and you'll likely experience light diffraction which could cause the overall result to look soft.

Stick around F8, 1/200 and provided you have enough light, you should manage to get decent results which will improve with time.

I'm no where near as capable as Brian or Phil (Goldenorfe) but when I look at my Macros 12 months ago compared to a few I've done recently then, I can see I did get better but I still have a very long way to go.

Make sure you read over those tutorials

I am in the same boat as you ..but experience is very little, i am hoping by the end of the summer this year i will be ahead in the 70-80% range of Macro

Eddy

paddler4 wrote:

I think it is less useful to look for rules than to try to get a handle on the principles. The biggest issue is DOF: wider aperture = shallower DOF. This effect is very large, as Ian's photos show, and since DOF is razor-thin at macro distances, there is pressure to close the aperture down.

In my experience, diffraction is pretty minor until the aperture is very small. So, while I try to stick with f/16 or wider--and Goldenorfe, who is much better than I am, said he never goes beyond that--I sometimes find that I would rather take a little diffraction in return for greater DOF, and I shoot some shots at f/20 or even f/22.

Play around with this to see how it works. Take a bunch of shots, varying the aperture. You will gradually get a feeling for it and can decide what works best for you.

for example, this one I took at f/20 because I wanted the extra DOF and was willing to take a little diffraction:

A sweet shot paddle this weekend i ma going to try my 3rd shooting of macro...It never ceases to amaze me that this type of photography opens a different world to me..sort of like Alice in wonderland