Left home at 0730 with Nik for yet another macro shoot. For the first half hour or so we found nothing. This may have been because we were both half asleep and in need of coffee, or because the bugs were also half asleep and in need of some sunshine, or both. Either way we agreed that future outings would start a little later.
My initial efforts were hampered by my first use of the OM-D for macro; I kept finding settings I should have changed in preparation for the shoot, but hadn’t. That, plus general unfamiliarity with the camera meant I was less smooth than usual; and I am usually not very smooth.
As well as playing with a new camera, there was also the issue of a pair of macro lights, which seemed like a good idea to throw into the purchasing mix, but in practice seemed to do little more than add light reflections and drain my battery at an alarming rate.
The object of my camera’s affections in the above shot was a spiky spider with a wild colour scheme and a body shape so convoluted it was impossible to work out where the eyes were located. It was also impossible to get a good shot. The spider was keen on spinning, the leaf it was on was blowing in the wind, and there was no clear point to choose to focus on. Better to look at in the wild than photograph.
In this shot you can see it producing web silk out of the little turret at the top left:
Nik resolved to take it home for further evaluation and posing, but his girlfriend banned it from the house on the grounds it looked dangerous.
As usual, we failed to spot much in the way of wildlife. Next week there is to be a grand outing featuring Ian from Pattayadaze so better results can be expected.
Comments 🔗
2013-01-24| Robin Parmar saysGreat shots! The “little turret” is a spinneret.
2013-01-24| Dude saysYou could make two tiny light diffusors out of tea-bags! (this would also improve the smell of your macro lights) Of course I don’t know whether the Lights are strong enough to handle a diffusor… Oh…and there’s one question I wanted to ask: Did you ever have large prints made from your micro43 files? Is a 120cm*90cm print more than 16mp can handle? (16mp at base-ISO developed from raw)
2013-01-25| Spike saysWhat a lovely idea! The scent of Early Grey wafting over the morning landscape.
I haven’t had much printing done; have not achieved enough shots which I feel worthy of printing. If you scroll down this review there is a section on printing and what sizes work at different ISOs, with comparisons to other cameras: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/omd-em5/omd-em5A.HTM Although this review I think was based on processing JPEG. Using RAW and some upscaling routines, you could probably do better.
2013-01-31| Jock says“have not achieved enough shots which I feel worthy of printing” …
can´t believe that one – if we´ve missed the 2012 calendar perhaps the 2013 will hit the street on time … they sell thousands of calendars here of cheap shots of snow covered mountains to tourists.
2013-02-02| dude saysThank you, this link actually was helpfull. Today my prints arrived and i just wanted to share my experience: I ordered three 45x60cm prints on matte paper (there was only matte paper availyble for large prints) and they all look quite good. ISO-160 developed from raw, 16mp, a little bit of sharpening and noise reduction in lightroom 4. If you don’t want to do the math: It was about 200dpi and everything that’s in focus is really sharp. I don’t think 300dpi would look any better. Printing large(-ish) also shows that the bokeh of the 45mm 1.8 Olympus is really smooth and the bokeh of the 14mm Panasonic pancake is a little…disturbing. (still alright though)
2013-02-02| Spike saysEncouraging, one day I will have a go at printing.