New World in Macro f3.5

[Roman Kurywczak]

New ground for me here........until I did birds........my life never ventured much away from f22 or higher. I considered f16 low! I've seen Mike Moats, Fabs, and other do it.....so I had to try. Not easy for me......but time to grow. Sorry Ed Vatza, I didn't have my previous post at f3.5.....but I will post the f32 version of this right after.
Mark 3, Sigma 180mm macro with the MT24 lights at minus 2/3 ISO 250, at f3.5 for 1/300 sec.
As always comments welcomed and appreciated.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Here's the same version but at f32. ISO 1250 and 1/100 sec flasg at minus 2/3.
I won't say which one i like better until all have chimed in.
I tried to make the same corrections on both....would have removed many of the specs(pollen) on this one..but left for comparison.

[Sid Overbey]

Roman, nice comparison of the two. I personally prefer the first, it has more artistic feel to it. The second has a more scientific plant identification look.

Thanks.
Sid

[Robert O'Toole]

Cool subject, my vote is for the first post. Nice comp.

Robert

[Jared Gricoskie]

I would have to go with the 2nd, but I am a naturalist working on a wildflower field guide.

[Mike Moats]

Hey Roman, I'm either shooting at f/32 or f/3.5, not many image that I shoot in between, so for my taste I like both version.

[John Cooper]

Hi Roman - I've yet to dabble in wide open macro shots, but some of the images in this forum are really tempting me!!

In your F3.5 version I would like to have seen more stamens in focus with OOF petals. As it is, only the left tall stamen appears sharp. The second image would work best for me if the BG was softer (more OOF).

[Bob Reimer]

I like both. Would like the f/3.5 better if it were concentrated on the spiral. In the f/3.5 version, down a bit and too the left might make a stronger composition with focus on the spiral. As noted, having the sharp portion on a random stamen doesn't make for as strong an image as it might otherwise be.

[Julie Kenward]

I'm voting for the first one. Even though those front stamen are a bit blurry, it has such a nice feel to it. The second one looks a bit sterile to me - almost like something you'd see in a medical book.

Now if you took the second one and put a little gaussian blur or an ethereal glow on it...then you might just sway my vote. :D

[Mary Stamper]

They both work, though they quite different images. IMHO, the secret to working with shallow DOF is to make sure that what is in focus is visually logical. That is because the surrounding OOF areas will move the eye towards and away from the in focus area. Try doing some "focus bracketing" on these. Notice how the entire composition changes as the in-focus plane moves. Also, I find it much easier to do these things using manual focus.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Try doing some "focus bracketing" on these. Notice how the entire composition changes as the in-focus plane moves. Also, I find it much easier to do these things using manual focus.[/quote]
Hi Mary,
As I am not used to wide open macro......after I got home, I quickly learned the value of the focus bracketing when i viewed my images. It is very good advice for wide open macro.

On the second part.........I only manually focus macro..........If someone out there uses AF.........I'd like to know how you get away with it.