>>4505116
I hate these spiders with a passion. I grew up in Hong Kong and they were everywhere in the rural village I lived in. Sage, nothing personal

>>4505139

I didn't even know they existed before that day.
I was going through a park looking for a butterfly garden(didn't find it) and ran into a spider web

then as I continued walking I was about to run into a second one but noticed it and the spider so I took pictures of the spider instead

>>4505150
They are very easy to run into. One made a web across a wide sidewalk and a tree and the web wrapped around my head as I was on a bicycle. Luckily the spider was thrown free, didn't help the panic though.

Please next time use normal formats like RAW (NEF/NRW), NEFX, JPEG, TIFF (RGB), HEIF (HDR), and MPO (3D)

I can't open your fucking CR2 in my patrician Nikon Studios

File: IMG_0497.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

>>4505116

File: IMG_0461.jpg (981.1 KB)

981.1 KB JPG

>>4505116

File: IMG_0461.jpg (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB JPG

>>4505116
>I'm bothered with how noisy it is
That's what you get with a budget APS-C body and 1600 ISO. They're noisy even at 100 ISO when properly exposed and you're at least 6 stops under exposed with this. 4 under by going to ISO 1600, and ~2 stops dark after all that gain.

This is what I would do with this shot. Fighting noise is just copium at this point. It's not even sharp.

Consider using a flash or two next time. Lighting the subject goes a long way. Especially for spiders. Lighting can help make webs shine.

Ignore this troll >>4505163

File: IMG_2871.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

>>4505116
Try using higher iso. Slightly overexpose even. Gives better results than moderate iso and underexposing.

>>4505177
edited in snapseed on my phone in the bus going to uni…

>>4505116
B&W and say that you shot it on film.

>>4505163

I'm sorry, did you try double clicking the image to open it?

>>4505176
>That's what you get with a budget APS-C body and 1600 ISO.
Should my next upgrade just be a full frame? I pushed off on it and I'm upgrading my lenses cause I didn't think it would be that bad.

>>4505177
I thought underexposing > overexposing no?

>>4505180
Never owned a film camera but I'll give it a try lmao

>>4505202
>Should my next upgrade just be a full frame?
a flash
don't you have a built-in flash in your camera?

>>4505202
>Should my next upgrade just be a full frame?
If you have the money yes. Also >>4505229 is correct. A $100 speedlite and a $20 softbox will work wonders. Doubly so for macro shots like OP where you need like f/45 to get anything in focus and even broad daylight wont be enough. Your cheapest full frame camera will cost at least double that, and the speedlite will last you through many cameras worth of shots.
>I thought underexposing > overexposing no?
That's the advice for (negative) film because once you burn your highlights there's no saving it, versus shadow recovery being possible.
For digital it's Expose To The Right (ETTR) which means to meter for the right of middle grey and get more overall exposure. You still want to avoid clipping your highlights (complete white, no detail) or crushing your blacks (complete black, no detail), but some clipped irrelevant background is better if it means you get more light on your subject.

The reason being, if you take a midly overexposed photo and dial the gamma/exposure/brightness back to where it should be, it looks far cleaner than taking an underexposed photo and trying to raise it up to the brightness you wanted in the first place; light is detail and it's better to have more light than not.

>>4505229
Yeah but I didn't think to use it, I don't do a lot of macro photography.

>>4505233
Any specific models you recommend/any specific specs I should look out for?

And is there a general rule of thumb on when I should use the flash/softbox and when not to?

File: 1761955095373158.jpg (76.5 KB)

76.5 KB JPG

>>4505116
i saw these mfers in japan all the time and cos most japs are midgets i ended up walking into their webs since they build their webs above foliaged pathways

File: 55068825826_4b6c7f7e56_6k.jpg (4.2 MB)

4.2 MB JPG

>>4505116
Noise comes from a lack of exposure, if you want less noise, you need more exposure:
>decreasing shutter speed
More light, but more potential for subject motion blur like in your pic
>wider aperture
More light, but smaller depth of field, wont get the whole spider in focus
>add light
More light, don't have to worry about subject movement, and can use a narrower aperture to get everything in focus
Most macro is done both with flash and at apertures closer to f11 because of these reasons. With flash, you can be noise free, frozen motion, and fully in focus.

Going to FF will help in some ways and worth upgrading for, but it wont help macro nearly enough as the above. Not mine, but Picrel is R5 for example.
Consider that for equivalent DoF, the formats will perform very similarly in terms of noise anyways. If FF is showing less noise, that only happens if it's also showing a shallower depth of field too.

>>4505302
Picrel is also no flash, 1/60, f5.6, ISO 200
So they had enough natural light, subject was static enough, and enough depth