Need tips for macro shooting

[DoobieDuck]

Irie..hey..you've come a long way since we began this saga. I'm sorry...I meant PPI pixels per inch..I was refering to DPI dots per inch because I have a graphics program that uses that term. Looks good bro..keep shooting and you'll learn more as you experiment..yes that cropped dry bud is what I was talking you through, bud looks yummy by the way..I upload all my images to IC at no larger than 12"x12" and 72 PPI resolution...big smiles DD

 

[IrieLion]

Thanks for all the help guys, been wanting to take my photography a step forward for a while, bout time I do it, I got a serious camera back home, I hope my father will agree to trade for mine, he hardly use it anyway, I'll post some new pics when I get it(hopefully). Tried making the pics 12X12, can't seem to do it, when I change one the other change automatically to a much bigger value.

 

[IrieLion]

You guys have any tips also regarding taking photos of moving\running animals? I got two dogs that I always enjoy taking pics of.

 

[DoobieDuck]

Irie..shoot as fast as you can for moving subjects..bright days..fastest shutter speed the light will allow. When you are trying to change the image size, just change one side to 12" the program, I think, will adjust the other dimension automatically. Then change the PPI or resolution. DD

 

[IrieLion]

This is fun!

 

[jawnroot]

I beg to differ with DoobieDuck...you can get excellent macros with that camera, without purchasing any accessories. All you have to do is choose the "flower" setting, and take a picture as close as the camera will focus.

Then, in editing software, crop out the part you want to macro. At the full resolution (10.1 MP) you'll be getting incredible detail. Below is a digital macro done in this fashion with a 7 year old Pentax Optio S @ 3.2 MP:

In "real life," the stem is thinner than a match stick. If I'd done this shot with a 10.1 MP and a tripod, you'd practically be able to count the cells.

Another Optio S digital macro. This time, tiny Bubba Kush preflowers:

I should emphasize, with a 10.1 you'll be able to get exponentially more detail than what I'm showing you with these photos.

But yes, I'll concede digital macros aren't necessarily as desirable as a native macro shot with a dSLR. That said, a digital macro will accomplish everything 99.999% of us here are trying to convey, all with a measure of style and beauty. We must remember, forum posts are limited to a certain image size...so unless you plan to blow your macros up to poster size, print them, and hang them on your wall, most average point and shoots can deliver (and then some). You just need to know how to navigate the basic features of image editing software.

That aside, your e70 is clearly capable of taking excellent pictures, and the depth of field is great for a point and shoot. Fool with the settings, find a good image editing program for cheap or free, tool around with it a bit, and you'll be producing some nice shots in no time. Indeed, what you've already done eclipses cameras I've seen costing three times more than the e70.

Can't go wrong with a Pentax. As mentioned, been using the Optio S at 3.2 MP for seven years, and it's still taking great shots. Am gifting it to my young nephew (getting into photos) and picking up an H90 when they're released. Another one to look at is the I-10 -- really cool retro design.

 

[DoobieDuck]

Macro, Micro, and Extreme Close up?

Macro, Micro, and Extreme Close up?

I beg to differ with DoobieDuck...you can get excellent macros with that camera

Jawroot I think your conception of a macro image and mine are worlds apart and possibly that may be why you disagree with me? I consider these first two images extreme close ups, and the second two macros and then we get into micro and I won't even try to explain that. But it is all in the eye of the viewer, not really defined anywhere, and they are all great!.
These differing views of the term macro are quite common, I hear it a lot, fact is, I thought many of my images were macros at one time.. until I discovered they were not. That hurt, I was disappointed, at that time I started Googling and researching the internet for new techniques to make mine better. I put close ups in albums I call macro..I think it is to each his own. I like all of them by everyone!
IMO Irie is doing quite well getting close up images, possibly extreme close up, and you have some nice close up ones as well. DD

 

[jawnroot]

DoobieDuck, I think this is an issue of semantics. When someone on these forums says "macro," what they really mean is "extreme close up," as you've said. But still, with a point and shoot of the resolution the OP is dealing with, you can get pictures pretty darn close to the last two you posted.

As mentioned, set the camera to the macro/flower setting, and take a shot as close as it will focus (generally 2-3 inches away). Then use imaging software to digitally macro.

With the aforementioned 3.2, I can get shots like your first two, without using a tripod (ie: extreme close up). With a tripod, delayed shutter, good lighting, software, and something in the 10-12 MP range, I don't doubt one can approach the realm of the latter two images. When I get my new camera, I'll have to tool around with the concept a bit.