|
Good tutorial - should give someone new to macro or wondering why things are difficult and can't work out how to get what they want some ideas on how to go about it without too much detail overload and pages of instructions . I thought it was about the right amount.
You don't mention use of close up lenses as an alternative to extension tubes and macro lenses - but I guess you don't use these.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Dave - where do you go shooting? Can I come with??! :-)
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@adrianalexalexander - thanks for the close up lenses suggestion! I completely forgot about these. I have a 2x close-up but, frankly, have never used it since I prefer the tubes (on the ground that they don't introduce any more glass between the subject and the sensor). I'll add a paragraph describing these, though, since they are definitely cheaper than tubes and probably easier to handle.
@BoldPuppy Most of my recent bug macros have been taken at the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center in Austin (see the geotags for more specific locations). If you're in the area, I would love to get together since, from your stream, it looks as if you could teach me a thing or two. Drop me a Flickrmail and let's see if we can arrange a shoot.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thanks Dave for the valuable tips. I have just recently purchased a 100 mm Macro lens but I think I will also need to spring for a set of extension tubes in the future. Great information for anyone pursuing macro work.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hi Dave - nice tutorial. Quite thorough. I think you're right about the zoom ring; I've noticed that at macro distances, the zoom ring changes focus and the focus ring changes zoom. I'm using a Canon macro lens mostly and it's new to me that there are lenses that go to f/51. That will get you some shots that would require a lot of work otherwise.
One thing I didn't see you mention is the other tradeoff in using smaller apertures - softness due to diffraction.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Dave - we can always learn more from each other. Shooting with other photogs is one of the ways that I improve! It's too easy to get stuck in that rut. I sent you a FM.
I have an interesting proposition about this diffraction bit...
I'm wondering if time is a component to diffraction, and that if your shot is lit by flash, does diffraction still rear its head? From the few experiments I've run, along with some amazing flash-based shots I've seen, this seems to be the case. I don't have any 'real' analysis to suggest otherwise, though.
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
BoldPuppy edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
if your shot is lit by flash, does diffraction still rear its head?
I am afraid it does...
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thanks for the reminder on diffraction problems at small apertures. I've definitely noticed this and seldom use the lens's mimimum aperture as a result - the softness can be pretty obvious if you stop right down (though you won't see it too badly in the banknote image in the article since this is highly downscaled from the original). I'll add a note about this to the article too.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
By f22 it is definitely noticable - I tend to shoot either f11 or f16 or the click inbetween. The lens does make a difference though, some show it more some do not...
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It's good, I like it.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Dave - I'd suggest to add something about constant lighting.... I've been playing with constant lighting and macro -- and, assuming you have enough room (and a long cord or big battery), it works very, very well. Plus, you can shoot in high speed mode AND you can still add a flash to it, if you want to stop down further.
This shot:
was taken with a big constant light and a reflector (tissue paper) for fill on the other side.
I shot this assasin bug in my product tent:
also using the constant lights.
I've also taken the lights outdoors, and shot at night with them... of course, I have to turn it off and leave it outside for a while, as it attracts large numbers of little flying critters that I don't want to bring inside. Amazing how they LOVE that light!
I got these guys with this setup:
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The 'con' of using constant lights, besides having to drag the light around is that it doesn't 'stop' motion, so when the bug moves, it blurs.
Flash can freeze the motion rather nicely.
It also will leave you with black backgrounds if there isn't sufficient ambient lighting.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I haven't tried this yet, but it should be possible to take a shot with flash and then take the same shot without flash when the subject is gone. Then merge the two in Photoshop. (Only with tripod of course)
Anyone have any experience with that?
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I've not done this for macro but I have in other situations and it can work very well. I must try this next time I'm out playing with macros.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
no, I haven't tried that - insect macro photography is tough to pull off on a tripod. I think it's a great idea, but have no idea how you would pull this off...
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
In the beginning of your tutorial, you state half life-size being 2:1. Don't you mean 1:2. I believe 2:1 is twice life-size.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
You are probably correct - I always had problems figuring out which number was numerator and which the denominator when expressing ratios :-) I'll fix this on the next edit.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
A few thoughts on the extension tube section:
* extension tubes rob you of infinity focus, and for all intents and purposes, also fixes your magnification.
* a rough estimate of magnification is length of tube(s) / lens focal length
- ie a 100mm lens with 50mm of tubes would get you 1:2 (50% magnification)
- 50mm lens with 50mm of tubes will get you 1:1 (100%)
* these numbers are irrelevant of sensor size, at least in the sense that the math works no mater if you shoot film, ff, 1.5x, 1.6x or 2x crop. What does change is the size of "what" is 100%...
- 35mm film/ ff cameras have a film size/sensor size that's 36mm in width (no, I don't know why this is so, but there have been just about every possible film size imaginable made into a product at one point or another in time). 1.6x crop cameras are 22.5mm across. A 1.5x crop camera is 23.7mm (http://dpanswers.com/tech_crop.html). Well - why would one care? 1:1 means that a 22.5mm object/bug/whatever will fill the frame on a 1.6x camera, and will be at 1.05x on a 1.5x crop camera. In the 'real' world, this really translates down to working distance.
So - this means that if you use a prime lens with tubes, you have a fixed working distance (within some ability to focus, and this goes away as you get into higher and higher magnifications)
The other effect of tubes is that minimum focal distance can be reduced quite drastically. A 50mm lens with 68mm of tubes (1.36x magnification) can have a focal range of around 2cm from the front of the lens... and that's about it. By 3cm, it's all blur again.
In order to gain a variable focal distance, you will need to use a zoom -- each focal length has a fixed focal distance, but by zooming, you're changing that focal length, effectively changing the focal distance. The catch is - it's possible for the focus plane could end up *inside* the front element! Oops.
There are slides that do the opposite of zooming - they change the distance the lens is from the body - something like this: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/241086-REG/Novoflex_BALUNI...
To gain even MORE magnification, you can reverse another lens on top of the first one, with an effective multiplier of (mounted lens length / reversed lens length) but IF you can keep the focal distance outside of the the front element (in this configuration, it would be the rear element of the reversed lens), the focal distance will be VERY very close. You can also skip the forwards lens... and go with the 'main' lens reversed to begin with: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/197010-REG/Novoflex_EOSRET...
Reversing rings are what you need to pull that off..
Inexpensive lenses can be used to pull this off with very nice results. This guy does very high magnification work with a relatively inexpensive setup: www.flickr.com/photos/opoterser/ amazing stuff...
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I liked your tutorial a lot. For the next version you could add something about manually focusing with the aid of the LCD screen. I agree with all you say about manual focusing on insects (I could sway for my country, I've had so much practice).
For stationery subjects using a tripod I love my Canon LiveView 10x multiplication to bits. Using a remote shutter release I just watch the screen untll everything stops vibrating (the slightest touch of the tripod causes the image to go berserk when viewed at 10x). I hang my rucksack on the tripod to dampen things down.
I also use a Novoflex focusing rail, which is miles more sensitive than the lens rings.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ok, Dave - how about adding in some sage words of advice:
* slow down and check the settings, particularly when using flash
* Bring knee pads for the gravel... and tweezers for the spines of the cactii.
For moving insects, a tripod is really impractical, though it can help for some of the more stationary critters...
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think one of the best pieces of advice was to let on to somebody just starting out that you get so many duds.
It's extremely disheartening when you first start out just how many duds you actually do get when you really did think it was sharp and I'm sure a great many people see the excellent pics on Flickr and throw their hands up in despair, not realising how many duds there were where the insect moved/flew off/there was some breeze/you yourself twitched etc.
I too use extension tubes and two different manual focus lenses. I'm glad you mentioned the zoom/focus interchange paradox as I wondered if it was just a quirk of the zoom lens I use.
An additional tip for using a hot shoe flash is to rig up some kind of diffuser. This can be as simple as arranging a piece of white card with tape (masking tape avoids leaving sticky residue) to bounce more of the light towards the close subject rather than being wasted upwards. It also softens the light somewhat.
Some sort of calming mantra would be a good idea also to combat the urge to scream in anguish as your carefully composed insect senses first pressure on your shutter release and flies off.
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
"Mike Foster" edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
LOL @ the mantra.. that's actually a great idea.
Yes, the hit ratio is low, but with practice and lots of patience, you can get higher ratios...
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
...as long as you don't screw up your flash settings. My hit ratio for yesterday was a pathetic 1 in 25 thanks to being a newby with on-camera daylight fill flash. That said, if you (BoldPuppy) post any more details of my ignominious afternoon, I'll tell everyone how often you backed into that cactus while shooting the Garden Spider :-)
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
... no less than 4-5 times... those needles are tough to get out, and they go EVERYWHERE.....
I've been going through that set, and I have lots of shots with double exposures... It may be from setting the camera on rapid fire too fast -- and the flash couldn't keep up. I do get the occasional outting where almost nothing works... and sometimes, I get lucky. I think I got fairly lucky this weekend, and am really psyched about the new macro lens Canon's coming out with... IS added to the mix will really help the bug chasing!
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Oh yeah... the cactus incident (cactii brushii accententilopius) was when I was trying to get this shot (hand held, using the cactus as a brace... yeah, that's smart, isn't it??):
...
the full body shot
was taken using the tripod set low... and the bolder puppy relatively safe from cactii spines...
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Oh yes - don't sell yourself short, Dave! You have quite the eye, and the talent to pull off shots I'm dreaming of having... we all have our off days, and the discussion of photography being a *process* is really important...
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
For me it is more convenient to fix the focus and slightly move the entire camera toward or from the photographed subject than to use autofocus or focus adjustment ring on the lens, that could slightly change the mapping scale of your subject and affect the composition. i also wrote a tutorial on macro photography, but my major subject are flowers - www.macro-photography.eu
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
In 1972, I purchased a new Nikon F2 and a new Nikkor 55-mm lens. Recently, I purchased a D90 and a Nikkor 105D, and am learning macro photography all over.
As an old school macro-photographer, I used to fix focus and move the film camera forward & back, but I now find that technique results in consistent back-focused images with my DSLR. I reluctantly reverted to A-F, and found a dramatic improvement in my capture rate!
I still hand-hold for all of my insect field-photography at ISO 400, 1/200-sec & f/32, using an inexpensive O-Flash 3/4-ringlight attachment on my Nikon SB-600 flash unit. See: www.flickr.com/photos/nikonian72/sets/72157623703013085
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
From a lady's point of view,, find the tutorial too wordy, would like to see it in a video format - but have to admire the man's perspective. Find it fascinating to note that photographers, even macro ones - tend to develop their own style and no two person's photographs ever appear the same, even if the photographs are of the same creatures.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Insect Macro Photography /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Insect Macro Photography discussion threads