A patient model

[dilettante]

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


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


#3 Compare with f/16


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


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!" )

[MikeOxon]

I think you have done a fascinating and useful series of experiments - an excellent way of using the 'closed' season.

It is really useful to learn the limits of your kit, so that you can go into the field with confidence of, for example, how slow a shutter speed is practicable.

I do similar experiments myself, though not with such a beautifully designed test target! Recently, I acquired a 300mm f/4 tele lens, mainly for bird photography, and was initially disappointed with my results. A series of tests helped me understand what I could 'get away with', especially when using a 1.4X converter. I also found that my UV filter had a strongly adverse effect on image quality. It's better to find these things out at home rather than when facing a once-in-a-lifetime shot in the field!

I'll look forward to seeing more results. Incidentally, I have always avoided ring flash, as it seems to give very flat lighting. I prefer to use a separate flash away from the lens axis, to produce some shadow contrast.

Mike

[ScottD]

I've been meaning to do this for ages so well done on actually doing it!
& it seems that we have kit in common - A700/Tamron 180 & Metz ringflash (which, yes, I've got to learn to use ).
Also picked up an A580 recently so will have to compare the 2 bodies for macro.

[MikeOxon]

my lens (Tamron 180) is surprisingly sharp even though it's almost wide open at that aperture.

I think you should expect a high quality lens to perform well at full aperture - it's what you pay for! Cheaper lenses are often rather optimistic about their maximum aperture and, in the case of zooms, image quality tends to fall off before the zoom extremes are reached too.

Mike

[dilettante]

it seems that we have kit in common - A700/Tamron 180 & Metz ringflash (which, yes, I've got to learn to use ).
Also picked up an A580 recently so will have to compare the 2 bodies for macro.

Interesting! There aren't many of us.

I'd love to compare with one of the SLTs like the A77 - I'm curious as to how well the EVF works for manual focusing, and whether the lack of mirror slap reduces vibration significantly. But I can't see myself buying a new body any time soon.

My limited experience with the Metz is that exposure is hard to predict, so I'd like to work out how it behaves. For that I think I need a range of light and dark backgrounds, and light and dark butterfly models.

[Roger Gibbons]

I did something very similar when I first bought a digital camera in 2006. My model was made of cardboard/newspaper and sellotape and had the wings at a 90 degree angle. Nothing as sophisticated as dilettante’s, though. I tried many combinations of focal point at various spots on the wings to see how much depth of field I was getting both in front of and behind the AF point (hence the newspaper print to see the sharpness). I also tried different f number settings to check the depth of field, plus trying the metering settings with different coloured models. In the field, I do not worry about f numbers, I just start at 1/160 sec and if I can get more shots, I scale down the shutter speed although 1/25 sec is about the practical limit (although Rogerdodge did tell me why I wasn’t getting good shots below this).

The key to getting good focus for undersides is, I completely agree, getting exactly 90 degrees on, but obviously in both planes. If I am lucky enough to get a still subject, I try to take a number of photos with a micro-adjustment in the angle because you can never really be sure of getting the angles exactly right with one shot. A ball-head or similar joint is invaluable here.

I know how many test shots I took because my first butterfly photo was number 120.