Reading mode: Light Dark

Getting frustrated about (macro) photography :-(

Go to last post
Thanks!
cjed said:
The reflection of the flash in the eyes is something you'll have to
live with, you could try diffusing the flash to reduce the effect.
Click to expand...
Are there diffusers for the MT-24EX? If you use them, do you have to adjust metering or anything else (maybe flash exposure compensation)?
cjed said:
As to the exposure, the flash is affected by the relative
brightness of the subject and background. You'll have to use the
Flash compensation (either on camera or on the MT-24EX flash).

Sharpness is a combination of getting the focus plane exactly
correct and reducing movement of the camera (shake). With the very
small depth of field in macro work, you'll almost always throw away
50% of photos because the focus plane is wrong (and often a larger
percentage).
Click to expand...
OK, this makes me feel a little better! ;-)
cjed said:
I usually shoot at f16 (or sometimes f22) to reduce diffraction
effects of smaller apertures.
Click to expand...
Do you think that's better than having more DOF?
cjed said:
Post processing the images can improve things a great deal. I try
and keep it simple, for web presentation I'll crop, adjust
contrast/brightness and resize to 800 pixels or so on the longest
size. Then apply a little sharpening.
Click to expand...
I'll post some pp shots tonight!
cjed said:
Having said all that it looks like you're pretty much there anyway.
There's not a lot wrong with your examples.
Click to expand...
Thanks!!
cjed said:
--
You want macros? We got 'em! Check out:
http://www.pbase.com/cjed
Click to expand...
 
Dave Lewis said:
My experience with macro suggests with really small, really close,
3d objects, there is simply not sufficient depth of field with a
DSLR to get optimum results. There is no competition for the Nikon
swivel cameras. I started with the 950 and now have the 4500. Folks
suggest the 995 is the best of the bunch. They will autofocus on a
pin head and have sufficient depth of field to keep about a half an
inch in focus while taking a shot of something three fourths of an
inch across. The flash on the later ones throttles down really well
and the contrast and sharpness are spectacular. If you are serious
about macro with really small 3d objects, you will always be
disappointed with our DSLR's even with the best macro lenses. I
have a 50mm macro with a1x1 converter and it does quite well on
inch plus objects but quarter inch ones is doesn't much like at all
since you have to get really close to them and then only parts are
in focus.
--
Dave Lewis
Click to expand...
Thanks Dave, but how come they are so much better?? Did I make a bad investment on my Canon equiment?
 
Thanks!
BAK said:
1/ as you've been told, there's hardly any depth of field with very
close macro

2/ lots of those shots really are good.
Click to expand...
Thanks again! Makes me feel a little better ;-)
BAK said:
3/ light falls off very rapidly in closups (and gets really bright
when it is only a little closer) and that's probably why the wings
are too dark.

4/ back off quite a ways. Do not worry about filling the frame. By
getting farther back, you'll increase depth of field. You've got
nice big files and a really sharp[ lens, so after you take you
photo from farthr way, just crop the part you want.
Click to expand...
Maybe that would be the way to get the wings bright too! But if I crop too much I won't be able to get large prints anymore
BAK said:
5/ Move your liughts back, and fall off will be reduced.

6/ I don't believe you can hand hold macro photos, partly because
you'll move far enough (like a quarter of an inch) to mess up the
focus.

bAK
Click to expand...
 
Thanks!
D_Knife said:
Just adding some additional comments to bAK's tips

1 yes there is little DOF with the 100mm - try setting your camera
to 1/160th f22, I used to use f29 but found 22 to be just a little
sharper
Click to expand...
But how about DOF? You'll get less using f22
D_Knife said:
2 agreed most of them are good, and the others nothing that some
PP couldn't fix
Click to expand...
I think you're right there might be a lot of potential there but I'm not very good yet at using photoshop. I'll post some post processed pictures tonight when I get home from work. But you can't do much when your pictures are out of focus...
D_Knife said:
3 light fall-off - check your lighting units angles even from shot
to shot. Although that takes practice and disipline (something I'm
getting used to) stick with it

4 back off slightly don't worry about staying with 1:1 macro at
first. Very few of my shots and none of my "action" shots are 1:1
Click to expand...
I'm always a little afraid of cropping too much! I always think if one day I get the perfect shot I'd also like to be able to make a large print...
D_Knife said:
5 don't set your camera to AWB, set it to anything else! personally
I've set mine to Daylight and adjust my RAW shots to suit what
looks best to me
Click to expand...
I'll try that!
D_Knife said:
6 bAK's quote "I don't believe you can hand hold macro photos" is
wrong - of course you can hand hold macro. Just check your
breathing while you do it, do be off balanced or you end up shaking
slightly to compensate and be prepared to shot a couple of shots in
a row just to make sure.

7 Having said you CAN hand hold - try not to! Get a good tripod,
one with a head that YOU are comfortable with. Myself I use a ball
head for macro
Click to expand...
I do have a very good manfrotto tripod already, but there's not enough time for installing it when chasing butterflys
D_Knife said:
8 Shoot RAW - but you knew that didn't you :)
Click to expand...
Coming from the p&s world I never shot RAW so far but I will sure give it a try soon
D_Knife said:
Now for the clincher, this shots breaks a couple of the tips I
listed above and sticks to some others. This is two jumping spiders
umm... playing mummy and daddy - they split and ran off away from
each other after about 6 shots of this "action". I had run out of
buffer anyway.
info - 1/160th f22
Flash - MT24-EX with +2/3 FEC
White blanace - Daylight
File - Fine JPG, I forgot I had changed off RAW to test out write
speeds from a new CRF card the previous day doh!
I'm a fraction of an inch over 6ft tall and I was standing on tippy
toes holding the camera up to catch these two going at it!
I had the 24EX lights setup as A 10o'clock 0 dents in and B set at
1 o'clock and 2 dents in

Click to expand...
Nice shot, thanks!
 
alexeig said:
Now they look as if you have not processed them except resize, right?
Click to expand...
Correct
alexeig said:
You will NEVER be able to get a stellar quality without appropriate
postprocessing
Click to expand...
I wonder how people were able to get good macro shots back in analog times when no post processing was possible...

But thanks for this advice! This really seems to be the big point since everyone tells me to do so! I'll post some post processed pictures tonight!
alexeig said:
--
Regards

alexeig

http://www.pbase.com/alexeig
Click to expand...
 
Einstein333 said:
I wonder how people were able to get good macro shots back in
analog times when no post processing was possible...
Click to expand...
This is not true, it was very possible. In analog times your lab made a basic color and exposure correction for you. And, more serious shooters had their own darkrooms for this using different papers, filters, processes ...

Regards

alexeig

http://www.pbase.com/alexeig
 
Einstein333 said:
Dave Lewis said:
My experience with macro suggests with really small, really close,
3d objects, there is simply not sufficient depth of field with a
DSLR to get optimum results. There is no competition for the Nikon
swivel cameras. I started with the 950 and now have the 4500. Folks
suggest the 995 is the best of the bunch. They will autofocus on a
pin head and have sufficient depth of field to keep about a half an
inch in focus while taking a shot of something three fourths of an
inch across. The flash on the later ones throttles down really well
and the contrast and sharpness are spectacular. If you are serious
about macro with really small 3d objects, you will always be
disappointed with our DSLR's even with the best macro lenses. I
have a 50mm macro with a1x1 converter and it does quite well on
inch plus objects but quarter inch ones is doesn't much like at all
since you have to get really close to them and then only parts are
in focus.
--
Dave Lewis
Click to expand...
Thanks Dave, but how come they are so much better?? Did I make a
bad investment on my Canon equiment?
Click to expand...
In my mind, with macro imaging of 3d objects, depth of field is everything. The small sensors and lenses of consumer cameras, especially early ones like the Nikon swivel cameras that have even smaller sensors and lenses than more recent ones, provide almost endless depth of field. All that isn't really all that noticeable in normal photography where, for example the Rebel XT lens will have most everything in focus from a few feet out to infinity if you select 18mm and f11 for example. The trouble is when you bring objects to within a few inches of the lens, depth of field is decreased to sixteenths of an inch. The small sensor camera with its tiny lens expands that distance to the better part of an inch. Your Canon camera is just fine in macro for larger objects that will be a fair distance from the lens, but when you get in close an insect that you want to have completely in focus and pretty well fill the frame will have just parts in focus. There is really nothing you can do about that. Our DSLR's are just fine for flat macros, of things like coins, maybe watches, or jewelry that isn't bulky, but for a bumble bee that you want to have full frame, be prepared to just have his head and eyes in sharp focus while the rest of him will be a blur of yellow and black.

You haven't made a bad investment in a DSLR, but you should not overlook the superiority of those old Nikon cameras that do so well simply because of their design. DSLR's aren't the answer to everything.
--
Dave Lewis
 
Yes you get great depth of field but you will never get a really sharp shot.

Try f/16.

Also, my preferred technique is to manual focus and then move the lens slightly back and forth to get what you want in sharp focus instead of using the focus on the lens.

You have the right equipment to get good results.

http://www.pbase.com/ratphoto/image/32881634



--

Please respect my copyright and do not repost my images. This includes edits that show possible improvements. I appreciate your thoughts and ideas but I want to retain control of how and when my images are seen. Thanks!

It is easier to blame the firmware than the wetware.

For a gallery of my photographs, see:
http://www.pbase.com/ratphoto

See my profile for my equipment
 
There has always been "post processing". Only with film it was done in the darkroom.

I always tell people, "Do you think Ansel Adams got those beautiful pictures straight out of his camera? Or Ernst Haas?"

Having spent many hours in a darkroom and only scratching the surface to photograhic creativity I look back with envy at the resources availble today to digital photographers world wide.

This very forum being but one.

I wish I had had the access to the talent and the "tips & tricks" that I have for digital now back when I was doing film.

The best thing I had then was a Time/Life series on photography which I still look at for inspiration.

And one more thing E333, practice, practice, there is no subtiture for experience.

BTW, I like your shots. I am interested in getting the 100mm macro. Keep posting and show us your improvement.

-Mickey
alexeig said:
Einstein333 said:
I wonder how people were able to get good macro shots back in
analog times when no post processing was possible...
Click to expand...
This is not true, it was very possible. In analog times your lab
made a basic color and exposure correction for you. And, more
serious shooters had their own darkrooms for this using different
papers, filters, processes ...

Regards

alexeig

http://www.pbase.com/alexeig
Click to expand...
 
You used an MT24EX? Have you tried varing the left and right power ratio? A lot on even light can flatten a subject. Also physically how far back are the flash tubes from the subject?
--
Phil

Equipment list in profile, taste in neon below.

 
It looks like you've gotten a lot of good tips here, but I'll add to them and just re-assure on others. Don't worry about cropping. Even if you crop a third of the image, you can still print 11x14 without a problem. Also, I would start out practicing with just the macro lens. Why add extension tubes to the mix right from the start? I understand your premise of 2:1 magnification, but it also just adds an extra variable when you're still getting used to the DSLR for macro in the first place.

Stay under F22 is my experience, as you tend to lose sharpness. Also, your DOF with extension tubes gets very shallow and the slightest movement will put you out of focus. I'd like to see some of the same shots with just the 100 Macro. Crop them, you'll be impressed.

Handholding is possible, but it just gets harder when you add extension tubes to a macro lens.

Don't give up! As others have said, you'll throw out 50 percent of your macro shots anyhow just because of your focus being slightly off. Also, the reason the wings probably were not white in your posted photo was the light falloff at such high F numbers. You can only illuminate so much. In bad lighting, 1/160th of a second and F22 is a tough job!
--
Aaron
 
RATPhoto said:
Yes you get great depth of field but you will never get a really
sharp shot.

Try f/16.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I will do so in the future. Very nice picture of yours!
RATPhoto said:
Also, my preferred technique is to manual focus and then move the
lens slightly back and forth to get what you want in sharp focus
instead of using the focus on the lens.

You have the right equipment to get good results.

http://www.pbase.com/ratphoto/image/32881634



--
Please respect my copyright and do not repost my images. This
includes edits that show possible improvements. I appreciate your
thoughts and ideas but I want to retain control of how and when my
images are seen. Thanks!

It is easier to blame the firmware than the wetware.

For a gallery of my photographs, see:
http://www.pbase.com/ratphoto

See my profile for my equipment
Click to expand...
 
Aaron, thanks a lot for those tips and for encouraging me! Maybe I was a little too ambitious for a beginner
Aaron Fortin said:
It looks like you've gotten a lot of good tips here, but I'll add
to them and just re-assure on others. Don't worry about cropping.
Even if you crop a third of the image, you can still print 11x14
without a problem. Also, I would start out practicing with just the
macro lens. Why add extension tubes to the mix right from the
start? I understand your premise of 2:1 magnification, but it also
just adds an extra variable when you're still getting used to the
DSLR for macro in the first place.

Stay under F22 is my experience, as you tend to lose sharpness.
Also, your DOF with extension tubes gets very shallow and the
slightest movement will put you out of focus. I'd like to see some
of the same shots with just the 100 Macro. Crop them, you'll be
impressed.

Handholding is possible, but it just gets harder when you add
extension tubes to a macro lens.

Don't give up! As others have said, you'll throw out 50 percent of
your macro shots anyhow just because of your focus being slightly
off. Also, the reason the wings probably were not white in your
posted photo was the light falloff at such high F numbers. You can
only illuminate so much. In bad lighting, 1/160th of a second and
F22 is a tough job!
--
Aaron
Click to expand...
 
Very interesting shot!

Yes, I was much more satisfied with the shots I took with my p&s camera (Nikon Coolpix 5400). Here's an example:

 
Thanks for this information! I wasn't really aware of the importance of pp with film. I'll keep on posting my shots and hope to improve soon!
Reto
MPetrich said:
I always tell people, "Do you think Ansel Adams got those beautiful
pictures straight out of his camera? Or Ernst Haas?"

Having spent many hours in a darkroom and only scratching the
surface to photograhic creativity I look back with envy at the
resources availble today to digital photographers world wide.

This very forum being but one.

I wish I had had the access to the talent and the "tips & tricks"
that I have for digital now back when I was doing film.

The best thing I had then was a Time/Life series on photography
which I still look at for inspiration.

And one more thing E333, practice, practice, there is no subtiture
for experience.

BTW, I like your shots. I am interested in getting the 100mm macro.
Keep posting and show us your improvement.

-Mickey
alexeig said:
Einstein333 said:
I wonder how people were able to get good macro shots back in
analog times when no post processing was possible...
Click to expand...
This is not true, it was very possible. In analog times your lab
made a basic color and exposure correction for you. And, more
serious shooters had their own darkrooms for this using different
papers, filters, processes ...

Regards

alexeig

http://www.pbase.com/alexeig
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top