A patient model
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:26 pm
Today I got round to trying out an idea I had last year.
So often I get shots that aren't as good as I'd like, and I'm often unsure why: Did I choose the wrong settings? Did the butterfly move? Did the shot require a tripod? Is my camera or lens not up to the job? etc. Thinking about how to practise my butterfly photography during the Winter so that I'd be ready to get some better shots in the Spring/Summer, I decided that a model butterfly would let me try out different techniques and work out which camera settings work well.
So here's my first attempt at a model, made from paper, wire and pipe-cleaners! Ideally I'd have a range of models of different sizes, but this first one is about Red Admiral-sized. I designed the patterns so I could fairly easily judge whether different parts of the wing are in focus. There are wires in the wings so I can have them open, closed or anywhere in between. And the pipe-cleaner body makes a pretty good simulation of a real butterfly's hairy body!
#1 Meet Vanessa papyrus
![Image](http://www.pbase.com/dilettante/image/141606259/original.jpg)
I took a first batch of test shots today, with different combinations of tripod/monopod/handheld, anti-shake on/off, with/without cable release or mirror-lockup. Being able to shoot indoors (mostly in my conservatory in the sunshine) meant I eliminated any movement of the subject, so any shotcomings in the photo are of my own (or my equipment's) making. I chose backgrounds (including the sieve!) to help me judge depth of field.
I haven't gone through the results methodically, but already I can see a few things:
If you can get the plane of focus parallel to the wings, even f/4 gets pretty good focus and just about enough depth of field on an insect this size, and my lens (Tamron 180) is surprisingly sharp even though it's almost wide open at that aperture. (These images are resized, so not great for demonstrating sharpness):
#2 On a tripod, f/4
![Image](http://www.pbase.com/dilettante/image/141606257/original.jpg)
#3 Compare with f/16
![Image](http://www.pbase.com/dilettante/image/141606258/original.jpg)
And I was pleased to see that even handheld shots can be pretty sharp, given enough light, I don't need to worry about using a tripod/monopod always, although they certainly help:
#4 Handheld 1/200s f/11
![Image](http://www.pbase.com/dilettante/image/141606256/original.jpg)
Next steps:
- See what more I can learn from the shots I took today
- Make model of a lycaenidae-size butterfly
- Try different lenses
- Learn how to use my Metz ring-flash to good effect
Comments and suggestions welcome (apart from "Get a life!"
)
So often I get shots that aren't as good as I'd like, and I'm often unsure why: Did I choose the wrong settings? Did the butterfly move? Did the shot require a tripod? Is my camera or lens not up to the job? etc. Thinking about how to practise my butterfly photography during the Winter so that I'd be ready to get some better shots in the Spring/Summer, I decided that a model butterfly would let me try out different techniques and work out which camera settings work well.
So here's my first attempt at a model, made from paper, wire and pipe-cleaners! Ideally I'd have a range of models of different sizes, but this first one is about Red Admiral-sized. I designed the patterns so I could fairly easily judge whether different parts of the wing are in focus. There are wires in the wings so I can have them open, closed or anywhere in between. And the pipe-cleaner body makes a pretty good simulation of a real butterfly's hairy body!
#1 Meet Vanessa papyrus
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
![Image](http://www.pbase.com/dilettante/image/141606259/original.jpg)
I took a first batch of test shots today, with different combinations of tripod/monopod/handheld, anti-shake on/off, with/without cable release or mirror-lockup. Being able to shoot indoors (mostly in my conservatory in the sunshine) meant I eliminated any movement of the subject, so any shotcomings in the photo are of my own (or my equipment's) making. I chose backgrounds (including the sieve!) to help me judge depth of field.
I haven't gone through the results methodically, but already I can see a few things:
If you can get the plane of focus parallel to the wings, even f/4 gets pretty good focus and just about enough depth of field on an insect this size, and my lens (Tamron 180) is surprisingly sharp even though it's almost wide open at that aperture. (These images are resized, so not great for demonstrating sharpness):
#2 On a tripod, f/4
![Image](http://www.pbase.com/dilettante/image/141606257/original.jpg)
#3 Compare with f/16
![Image](http://www.pbase.com/dilettante/image/141606258/original.jpg)
And I was pleased to see that even handheld shots can be pretty sharp, given enough light, I don't need to worry about using a tripod/monopod always, although they certainly help:
#4 Handheld 1/200s f/11
![Image](http://www.pbase.com/dilettante/image/141606256/original.jpg)
Next steps:
- See what more I can learn from the shots I took today
- Make model of a lycaenidae-size butterfly
- Try different lenses
- Learn how to use my Metz ring-flash to good effect
Comments and suggestions welcome (apart from "Get a life!"
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)