Could you please tell me which photo is better technically? and Why?

Hello, I have been doing lots of practice with my D7000 and 105mm 2.8D. I got some good advice from many users on this Macro Forum. Many thanks. I took two photos of a grasshopper. One manual, one automatic. I think both look alright but they are very different. Which one is better?

Manual
1/1000
f3.2
iso 125

Automatic
1/640
f6.3
iso 125

Many thanks!
Adam

Because they are both different, I like them both for different reasons!

Ultimately, I like the thinner DoF on the shot to the left.

I'm partial to the one on the right, just looks cleaner and more natural to me.

Thanks, I see what you mean about the DOF. I am surprised that the difference of the DOF is so little. I would have expected a 3.2 and 6.3 to be much larger.
I am still learning the basics of DOF.
Can depth of fild be measured in milimeters? e.g. 3.2's DOF is 15mm whereas 6.3 is 25mm etc,?
Thanjs for the replies,
Adam

Look pretty similar, just diff white balances, and a tad diff DOF

I like the second one much better
Better DOF and much better color.

Did you change the white balance between shots?

Don Kuykendall said:

I like the second one much better. Better DOF and much better color.

Click to expand...

I generally agree with Don, here...

Saturation on the second pic appears much better to me while the first shot appears possibly over exposed by a half stop at least.

That being said the second shot, viewed away from the first, seems possibly under-exposed by about the same amount.

I like the second shot, because the color seems to be much better.

The second one is sharper. The first one doesn't really have any part that is truly in focus.

I like the second one. There seems to be more "pop" to the colour...more definition to the whole shot. The first shot seems to be overexposed by about a half stop. Looks dull to me.

Hello and thanks. I didn't change the white balance myself.

Personally I prefer the color of the first although it does look slightly overexposed; however, I prefer the DOF of the 2nd.

To answer your question on whether DOF can be measured in millimeters...no. The closer you are to a subject, the less DOF you will have to work with even if you don't change your aperture. Take a step or so backwards, and your DOF changes slightly. So the DOF will change as you move closer and further away.

Many cameras made today still come with a depth of field preview button. This allows you to view your image as it would look with whatever aperture settings you have selected. Because it stops down the lens, the image through the viewfinder becomes darker. Your photo won't expose darker because you aren't factoring in any shutter speed when using the preview button--it just gives you an idea of how much DOF you will have with that aperture. Here's a video explaining more:

Both shots are nice but the second one is the best IMO,after saying that i feel the first could be improved by adjusting the levels and a re crop,the problem is we are getting into an area of this is how i prefer it,not necessarily how you should do it.

Many thanks to all. I didn't know about the DOF preview button!

Slightly off-subject but it isn't a grasshopper. It's a Katydid or a Bushcricket depending where you are in the world. I made the same mistake myself a few days ago.

OK. Thank you. How dio you know so much about critter? Do you photograph them often?

adamandbean said:

OK. Thank you. How dio you know so much about critter? Do you photograph them often?

Click to expand...

Start by going to Wikipedia and work out from there. Taking shots of insects has got me interested in who they are. To be able to look the creatures straight in the eyes is the most incredible experience you can have.

As for your example, Grasshoppers have short, thick antennae, whereas Bushcrickets have extremely long, thin antennae.

I hope your interest in macro makes you as excited about the animal kingdom as it has me.