To start, I run all RAW files through DxO PureRaw, at Standard sharpening level, output to JPGs. Then I do the stacking (they’re around 5-8 manually focused shots per image) with Affinity Pro 2. I check and make a few focal corrections from the results within Affinitiy, then output to a final JPG.
The final JPGs are individually run through Topaz DeNoise (not much needed at this point, really) and then a final tweak with their Sharpen AI.
Yeah, the grain on the unprocessed RAW would seem like a tricky start. But the difference is PureRaw. I do all my stuff (even on a shady, dark log) with this workflow now. It also helps me even for full sun too as I can stop down the lens to f22, crank up the ISO and still get the 1/500s shutter I need for most moving stuff. Plus, everything is just a lot easier to mobilize without a flash and diffuser.
Here’s a screen cap of one of the stack RAWs opened with defaults in Photoshop.
FTR, my camera here is an old (used) Sony Alpha 6000. Lens, Laowa manual 2X 100mm zoom. I have based the purchase of all my cameras (all used) based on the compatibility of their RAW output with PureRaw. For me at least, it’s a game changer.
Interesting. I haven’t hit the point yet where I’m able to really get into macro photography, I need a dedicated lens for it, my telephoto lens is pretty solid but the focal distance isn’t quite where I need it for macro shots. But I’m definitely saving this for if I ever get around to it.
I usually don’t end up needing it for macro fungi (outside of some absolutely tiny ones) but it’d be nice to have it for when I run into slime molds
At the moment this is about the best I can get, though it’d be better if I set up a tripod and did a little more prep work & post processing
I got a real deal on a used Laowa 100mm macro lens a few months back. It was about 200USD. Laowa’s have probably the best reputation for optical bang/buck. They’re not automatic (at least, not most of them) but that’s okay with me. It’s my first dedicated macro lens. It’s 2X on my Sony Alpha 6000. And it’s manual.
But shooting without a flash by using a high ISO shoot/post-processing workflow gives you a lot more freedom than you would think. Especially in the field. Instead of flash settings I’m mostly concerned about ISO settings. I try to keep the aperture at f8 at least, and the shutter around 1/500s for most moving things. And the ISO becomes my main exposure control.
Even with going from shade to sun I can quickly adjust to get control of most natural lighting situations. And the histogram display in the viewfinder has become a good friend!
I think you should look at trying out a Raynox on your telephoto. I still use my Nikon bridge P950 with this and it does very well. The only reason I switched out to my old Sony is that the sensor size allows more ‘wiggle room’ for shooting – plus the Laowa is noticeably sharper and allows me to focus from say 4 feet, until right up close. The Raynox kicks in more like about 15 inches so you have to get in close before focusing. Also, sometimes ‘all’ that extra distance between the subject and lens at the extreme mag is just too shaky to be practical.
So yeah, look into a Raynox. If you lived close I’d let you borrow my extra – no wait, you just reminded me. I already did that for someone. (Thanks!)
I need to learn more about processing my images afterward; it would probably give me a lot more freedom when shooting. For now, I’m using the Raynox lens and a really cheap flash setup with an old camera I inherited (basically as cheap as I could muster). With some tight parameters, I’m able to get some decent shots of more still subjects. Here’s one from the weekend (also a lifer just to stay on topic):
I’m totally self-taught at this whole “photography” thing and I mostly learn on the fly or from reading information online. So far, I’m mostly avoiding post-processing and I have a lot to learn about that side of things, so most of my images are unedited. For now, I’m not even having my camera record the RAW files, just JPG because I don’t need the extra quality and versatility for now.
To be honest, I usually just photo in JPG because for most iNat shots, I really don’t want to bother doing much processing outside of maybe bumping up the brightness/contrast.
It does suck when I’m out and I do manage to snag a great photo I wish I could have more control over, but its not the end of the world
I had to cancel my snorkelling-Sunday due to rainy weather, so decided to go to the Guadalhorce-river mouth, a nature reserve in Málaga. There are still “little grey birds” new to me, in this case a curlew sandpiper - Calidris ferruginea.
I’ll duck out of tech talk on this, but you might want to check out the trial of Topaz JPG-to-DNG converter. It actually does a very nice job of cleaning up JPG artifacting and opening up your tuning space. Especially great for phone and other non-traditional camera (for instance, a borescope) JPG work.
As someone who has worked training others, and has worked in educational publishing, I always kind of cringe when people use the phrase ‘self-taught’.
In my experience (and I have no formal photo education either), every time you watch a video, read a book, or ask questions about something you want to learn on a forum, you’re interacting with somebody who has committed time, thought, talent and resources trying to teach you.
About the only thing we’re generally self-taught in are bodily functions, like breathing and… the others.
I respect and salute all those millions of folks who over the centuries have helped everyone learn what we manage to now learn. And for those who develop and maintain the supporting technology we take for granted now that make this kind of learning possible.
You make a fair point, and I guess I would agree. I don’t mean to discredit the time that millions have put into research, and it might be more fair to say that I don’t have what most consider a formal education in many of the things I regularly do, and have never had a singular main source of information to learn from. I guess I mean that I have chosen to pursue knowledge away from an institution or source where it is more readily presented before me, in a way that I have to seek much of it myself. Using the knowledge of others to learn and make new observations is, in my opinion, part of what makes us human and sort of defines the ability for progress to be made. I feel like the more open choice to pursue knowledge, made possible by such technologies, is a sort of self-teaching in the sense that one must first choose to learn in order to gain this type of understanding, because truly teaching oneself this extent of information is near impossible without the support of others. It seems even definitions of the word vary. “Self-taught,” as defined by Merriam-Webster is “having knowledge or skills acquired by one’s own efforts without formal instruction,” you know, whatever “formal instruction” means. Defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, “self-taught” means “Of knowledge, skill, experience, etc.: acquired or attained by one’s own unaided efforts.”
I thought it was another Reduviidae, but the head and the eyes were confusing me. It turns out to be a species in the family Nabidae, which I have never heard of before. So not only is it a lifer species, but also a lifer family, and based on iNat it also seems to be the “first” observation of this species in Georgia! Cool critter.
I also saw this really cool weevil, but then I lost it and then the next evening I realized I had accidentally squished it when I was moving a chair trying to search for it :(
And then a couple of weeks back I was on a hiking excursion near the Georgia/Alabama border (actually with decent pace and not stopping much for inatting), so I saw a couple of cool lifers too:
bat! The pictures are “world’s worst” , but I linked a video (also pretty bad, but better than the stills).
