>>3460883>the technical side is slowing getting thereYeah, I jumped in with both feet, but to this day I still don't own a dedicated macro lens. Everything I have is either DIY, extension of some sort, reversed, or all the above (reposted pic).
>there's a long way between technically correct and -good- pictures.Yeah, that is very true. Getting past the tech hurdle often times drains all the creativity. Setting up studio stuff easy quite taxing sometimes, especially if you are making art with it instead of just documenting. Working with live subjects is pretty difficult of course. This
>>3460887 one is pretty good for some aesthetic reason, while this
>>3460885 one is okay for starting out with focus stacking. I have hardly any art macro pics studio or not.
>>3460892yeah, I keep doing that. I think I like, "mantids," better than, "mantises." I should probably just use, "Mantidae," family instead.
Are those 3D printed? If so, how large are they?
>>3460930I've not used Gimp, but I hear good things,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=271n4yFigfYPhotoshop really makes things easy and automated.
>>3460903Thanks.
>>3460932Magnification is the same across all crop factors. Crop factor doesn't really magnify in the first place. You are just seeing less of what could be there if you used a full frame. The entire crop factor thing isn't needed really. I mean there's medium and large formats too, but no one compares them with full frame in respect to, "crop factor."
