Fifteen minutes can save you....

I wish the cloud cover wasn't as heavy today for this shot, but you work with what you have. I hadn't noticed until I started to process this you can see the sky reflection in his eye and the vibrant turquoise color around it. I intentionally used a shallow DOF to accentuate the eye which I think worked.

Oh, and that's using the Nikon 105Macro f/2.8 hand held again.

C&C Welcome.



Date Taken: 2010-04-04 13:39:33
Camera: NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D90
Exposure Time: 0.0062s (1/160)
Aperture: f/8
ISO: 200
Focal Length: 105mm (157mm in 35mm)
Date Modified: 2010-04-04 14:52:08
Photo Dimensions: 3529 x 2848
File Size: 5.05 MB
Flash: flash did not fire
Metering: center weighted average
Exposure Program: aperture priority
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Exposure Mode: auto
Light Source: unknown
White Balance: auto
Digital Zoom Ratio: 1/1
.

I'm GREEN with envy. Very nice. I don't have any nit picks. Give me an hour of staring at it and I'm sure I will think of something.

WELL DONE.

PS. You should have yelled "Show Me Your Money Bag" at him! (wonder how many of you have heard this before, in relation to this lizard?)

When the majority of the subject is out of focus - whether due to camera shake or DOF - the picture is out of focus.

Enough DOF to at least include the front left foot and mouth in focus would have made it a better shot for me.... or cropping the shot from the - say - second rib from the left and getting rid of everything to the right of that.

Lest this be deemed harsh.. here's more of what I had in mind from my archives.

I agree with txbanditrydr, fwiw--too shallow DOF. Would like the head and L front leg in focus; at a minimum its head.

The colors are spectacular.

So, I see that he shot at f8. Is this a DOF issue? Is the DOF for a Macro (Micro) lens really that shallow at f8? To increase that to include the left foot and head, are we now talking f16?

How thin is the DOF at 2.8, Razor Blade?

I can't remember which lens he has, but I think it is the 50mm one. So dof at that distance was about .06cm. Going to f/16 increases that to .12cm. f/2.8 would be .02cm.

Now doubling the focal distance does this: f/2.8 - .13cm, f/8 - .36cm and f/16 - .73cm.

So remember that as focal distance increase, so does depth of field.

I was just using a free iTunes app for dof, BTW.

Yes, the Macro is razor thin, even at f/8 with the subject 10" away. From DOF calculator. That's two-one-hundredths of an inch either side of the focal point even at f/8.

Subject distance 10 in
Depth of field
Near limit 9.98 in
Far limit 10 in
Total 0.04 in

In front of subject 0.02 in (50%)
Behind subject 0.02 in (50%)

And I see what txbanditrydr is talking about with his reference picture. As I was doing post on it, I kept saying "This is really cool with only his eye in focus as I wanted" but I was also thinking "Man I need to go shoot some more of this guy at f/22 or more to get some depth on his head/feet. Good call, thanks!


.

OK, how's this for a better crop based on the original?




.

Please stop posting photos with the 105. I beg you to please stop. You're going to cause us to spend $800+ before the house renovations are done.

JDawg really liked this shot. His initial reaction was....that can't be real. Then I let him read the thread.

I can only hope for a bonus this year.

M38A1 said:

OK, how's this for a better crop based on the original?

Click to expand...

I like it much better... The focal point (eyeball) sits closer to the thirds where before it wasn't. It doesn't fix anything but simply looks better than the original - exactly what I had in mind with my crop comment.

I like the crop, too. And considering you were working with .04 DOF to work with,

IMHO -

Whether by design or accident the soft focus of the lizard’s body & head forces the viewer’s eye to the focal point – the lizard’s eye. The somewhat sharper focus on the lizard’s two toes against the glossy leaf provides balance and a secondary focal point. The soft focus of the top of the head frames and highlights the eye.

The cropped version improves the balance and emphasizes the focal point even more. I think it's a good pic.

The reference photo is boring. Sharp foreground against a soft background – so soft you can barely tell it’s plant matter. Great for a zoology textbook, but as art – not so much.