Taken in Melbourne, Australia. Photo by Peter Kinowski
#4 - wow!!!
fantastic stuff. Truly inspiring to see great macro work!
As a complete amateur photographer I think these are stunning photographs, all of them. They would all win 1st prize in my book I wish I could get shots like this.
5, 7 & 8 are incredible.... others brilliant as well.
If you think those macros are good check out mine.
Super Macro Northern Pearly Eye Butterfly https://www.flickr.com/photos/princecody/9873421005/in/photolist-oopzev-g3tS5D-g2v3ei-gdtMAj-grbunh-fvbViL-g2vg2e-fAksKL-fvrMVM-fu5tC1
Blue Dasher Dragonflyhttps://www.flickr.com/photos/princecody/14725130460/
Northern Pearly Eye Butterfly https://www.flickr.com/photos/princecody/14693411179/
Swallowtail Butterfly Semi Macro https://www.flickr.com/photos/princecody/14751875029/
Sorry but the first image is centered and cropped. The second is passable but cropped. The third is centered and has a distracting foreground. Love the light in the last one, but it's cropped and centered. If you're going to boast that your photography is better than what's pictured in this set then you really need to bring your "A game" and IMHO you didn't...
John, all due respect to you as I am a wanna be high end amateur myself,...after taking a second look at the 10 original photos in this post, ummmmm.....I hate to break it to you but every one of them is centered just like princecody's. And with the exception of the cody's last butterfly shot, I like his just as much or more then the ten in this post.
John K your reply to my posts is laughable. You obviously must be an amateur to the 10th power. All your assessments were wrong about my images except one. The ONLY image cropped in the four posted was the Blue Dasher Dragonfly. I wanted to show the detail of the Olympus 60mm lens. In addition all my images were shot in natural light & no flash :) The last image of the Swallowtail is shot with the best lens ever created in my opinion the Nocticron. Secondly everything I ever shoot period is freehand. Lastly, silvrrubi592 is alot more accurate in his assessments. My images listed especially the last one has got world wide praise around the globe from Fluidr to Explore. On top of that all my images are never enhanced in anyway. I rely on the stellar & punchy contrast of the EM1. Another reason Im alot better than some of the top guys out their is they PS the hell out of their images & take multiple exposures & stack images. All my images like I stated before are all natural :)
Personally I think your photos are quite good. However, to say you overestimate your abilities would be the understatement of the Century. Why do you think John got 10 likes, and you got one?
John is one of the most influential macro photographers in the world. Maybe his presence has been a bit lower in recent years.http://annakirsten.deviantart.com/journal/Meet-dalantech-Macro-Photographer-214167523
Here's his Flickr Profile and testimonials (that reminds me I need to add one). I notice you have no testimonials.https://www.flickr.com/people/dalantech/
He has 835 people following him, you have 96. Why do you think that is?
He has written tutorials that have influenced lots of top macro photographers, have you?
You could have submitted your photos to Dpreview when they requested, but you didn't. Trying to claim you are a lot better than the top guys is, well I'll let others fill that in.
They are average at best.
Ste B Your taking my confidence for arrogance. Unlike the more we'll known macro artists as you mentioned I'm unique in the sense like I said before because all my images are all natural with no smoke & mirrors like John & Thomas Shahan. That's what sets me apart. Their images are filled with many preservatives aka photoshopped. As for tutorials are concerned you can't teach talent! I've got praise from the top camera reviewers in the world Gordon from cameralabs. I more or less use dpreview forums to express myself with my photostream on Flickr. Flickr.com/princecody.
It really isn't helpful if I respond after this. I don't think you appreciate how it comes across claiming you are much better than very influential and accomplished photographers.
John uses fairly minimal post-processing, and I had to encourage him to use a touch more sharpening. Thomas Shahan uses focus stacking, John doesn't and he's often critical of it. This isn't a criticism of Thomas Shahan's work - I don't make negative criticism of other photographer's work, and I suggest you learn about positive criticism.
I'm familiar with Gordon Laing's camera reviews, but this is an entirely different skill set than photography itself.
I've been taking macro photographs for over 30 years, and used to use Slide Film, including Kodachrome, where the only control you have is the exposure settings. I've been following macro photography for longer, and I can assure you there is nothing unique about your work. It's fine but in no way original.
Nice work but not nice showing off of it...
Ste B If you can't take criticism don't have a voice then. I understand your a fan of Johns work but don't get drunk on it. Everyone has their 2 cents I just have 2 more cents :) As a matter of fact I'm the Macro King of micro four thirds :)
This is really a bit offensive. I'm not simplistically a fan of John's work. It was an influence on me and I developed my own style based on it, which is different. You will notice my own photos get plenty of appreciation.https://flic.kr/p/nwfqtc
"Ste B Your taking my confidence for arrogance.""Unlike the more we'll known macro artists as you mentioned I'm unique in the sense"
"John K your reply to my posts is laughable. You obviously must be an amateur to the 10th power. All your assessments were wrong about my images except one."
"As for tutorials are concerned you can't teach talent! I've got praise from the top camera reviewers in the world"
Gee I wonder where you come in as arrogant, more like egotistical nutcase with nothing to back up his case.
SteB I currently have 120 followers & growing leaps & bounds daily :)
Sorry, but the original post came across as arrogant -if you're really all that and a bag of chips then why didn't you submit any photos when the call for submissions was made in the macro forum? If you are going to claim that you're better then you really need to bring your "A game" to back it up, and IMHO you didn't. You're not the only one who doesn't focus stack (I don't), and you're not the only one who uses minimal post processing (I spend all of two minutes on any one photo, and most of that time is removing dust spots). The color and saturation in my images is due more to the quality of the light that I use and not my post processing...
Congratz princecody but how many of those are family members? And 120 is NOTHING. Besides saying "I got this many followers" is just as pathetic as saying "I got 5000 friends on facebook" they aren't your friends, you know maybe 50 of them in real-life.
I can only say wow! Expecially number 1, if I wasn't so out of money now I'd instantly buy it on canvas!
Great macro shots. Well done!
Wow...some of the best macro shots I've ever seen, and I'm always on the 500px macro gallery
These are frickin' ridiculous. Well done to everyone who took these.
Hi Alacher, lots of great macro work is done without flashes, indeed I would argue you can't beat natural light. You will often need a low level tripod of course and a Plamp (Plant clamp )is very useful. Stacking software will let you use wider apertures and still get good DOF when required.On Flickr check out the work of John Hallmen.
Thanks alot Racket, i will check that out.Definitly i have to learn more about macro photo techniques, and i should start using more the tripod. The Plant clamp its also a great idea.
Yes I've known John over the internet for some time. He sometimes uses a variation of my flash diffuser design, and I sometimes use a variation of his flash diffuser design. However, he most definitely does use flash, and his "beauty dish" diffuser is a well known design.
It's simply impossible to take greater than life-size handheld shots without flash, especially if the subject is moving. I do use natural light when possible, but it is essential for certain types of macro photography.
Sorry, but if you restrict yourself to using natural light when shooting macro then you're going to be photographing "still life" -you can pretty much forget about shooting even semi-active targets...
On the other subject of getting enough DOF John. I learned about the magic angle from you. I had been shooting macros for a few decades, but mostly up to life size on 35mm film i.e. the same as FF. Whilst I did above life-size photography this was more just to illustrate tiny creatures. But when I got the Canon MP-E 65mm and tried to do the sort of macro portraiture you pioneered, DOF became a problem. I did start playing around with focus stacking around 2006, but it was no good for active subjects. So I had to learn the art of getting the magic angle.
But it's a difficult concept to get across. Often I have to take a lot of shots just to get that precise angle. If it's only a fraction out it doesn't work. I was looking for something to link to on it. So if you have a blog article or tutorial I've overlooked on it a link would help.
I agree with you there, John. Try photographing a Camponotus gigas running away from head decapitating Phorid flies.
Having said that, I do love natural light shots too! Anyone who's doing just one and not the other is missing a whole lot!
I can only reply to the original poster and not directly to you SteB, so hopefully you see this: http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com.es/2009/11/magic-angles.html <-- From 2009 ;)
Kurt: Agreed, I love low contrast, diffused, natural light -it looks great! But I just don't see it often, and when I do I'm looking for something stationary :)
That's right Kurt. It's not a case of natural light good, flash bad. It's horses for courses. I use natural light when possible, it's just that with anything that moves, and is very small, flash is the only way possible to photograph it.
Right, Stephen. Another plus point for flash is that you can shoot anytime you want. I do a lot of night macro and you can forget about natural light at night :D
I like alot the photos, its obvious the photographer its very talented and With a great tehnique.I have the nikkor 105, but having trouble getting the whole subjet's body in focus ( like in this pictures), besides that. I dont use flashes... Any recomendation or site about macro phot without flashes?
There are 2 different approaches to getting the whole subject in focus. The first is what I call the magic angle approach, in which you try to find an angle where the thin DOF covers as much as the subject as possible. This is essential for my style as I tend to shoot active creatures where focus stacking is impossible.
The other approach is to use focus stacking for extended DOF (Google it). Here shots are taken at different focus points and merged with software into a single image. But it requires the subject to be relative still throughout. Most experienced macro photographers tend to use both natural light and flash for different contexts. It's possible to modify flash light so it looks similar to daylight, and that's why I came up with the concave diffusion idea. Orionmystery's blog gives an idea of what is possible.http://orionmystery.blogspot.co.uk/
Thanks Steve, i will look for that blog. Interesting what you said about finding the right angle for a greater Dof. Its frustatin sometimes when i see that only small parts of the photo's subjet are in focus...
#4 is my favorite, the frogs are cool too.
you said you used a MP-E 65mm. Using reversed bellows with Rodagon 50mm f/2.8 is around $300, you can also achieve greater then 1:1 macro also. He also used focus stacking to get this:
Thanks Spectro. The flower droplet shot was a stack of 7 images which I needed to get all the droplets in focus. The droplets were on a single blade of grass which I had to clear with scissors to get it isolated, being careful not to touch it. The MP-E plus camera and flash were on a sliding rail and I was lying on a sheet of plastic on the grass on a freezing cold morning. Was worth the effort though.
Stunning images !
what's the name of the two species shown in 8? http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1636640219/readers-showcase-macro-photography?slide=8
Hi Ozyxy.The large ant is a bulldog ant or bullant as we call them. About 25mm long with a very painful bite. The smaller ant... not sure. It just wandered into the picture as I was taking it. Called the photo: "David and Golliath"
Wow that ant looks like a monster lol! It's a great picture!
Butterflies are commonplace, but the shot in this sequence was exceptional, and proof commonplace can be great if the photographer has the eye, and you don't need the exotic venus for fantastic shots!
Ladybug is super macro, but did the photographer pull it off? Extension tubes? This picture is extra special, by showing the eggs.
Thanks to all of the photographers for great shots ... would be ecstatic if ANY of them came from my camera.
Thanks. Unfortunately I don't know what happened to the EXIF data. The Ladybird/Ladybug was shot with a Canon MP-E 65mm f2.8 1x-5x macro lens, which goes up to 5x life-size without attachments. The Canon 40D I shot it on doesn't save the magnification in the EXIF data but I'm guessing it was about 2.5:1. I used a Canon MT24EX macro twin flash with my own end of lens concave diffuser, and carefully turned the leaf over for the shot.
Thanks again for the great shot, and info about the lens. Haven't seen any super macro lenses for the Nikons.
@SteB . Did you happen to shoot it handhold, or did you use a tripod? (I've read some ppl can handhold that lens xD)
I shot them handheld. The flash acts like a virtual high speed shutter, and freezes motion. In fact I've found it far easier to frame handheld, than with this lens on a tripod. Even with a geared head and 2 way focusing rail it can be very awkward framing at high magnification. With the camera on a tripod, it's actually easier to move the subject than the camera.
With this lens on a tripod you often find yourself having to nudge the tripod a lot. A feeding insect is constantly moving, and I think it'd be impossible on a tripod to get got framing quickly enough.
I use John K's left hand brace technique. If I hadn't learned that, it would be very difficult.http://dalantech.deviantart.com/art/Left-Hand-Brace-93226846
Nice, thanks for sharing :)
Hopefully no critters or vermin were harmed during the shooting of these great pics.
Ha ha, if the first one is not staged or photoshoped I am Cartier-Breson.
Pleased to meet you, Mr Cartier-Breson.
All of my macro work is non-destructive with respect to the subject, and the current push in the discipline is to do no harm.
The same with my macro photos. I never kill insects or anything else to photograph them.