Failed macro attempts

[Bratan]

Please tell me what I'm doing wrong? I've tried same settings as many people on this forum who got great results, but mine sucks so bad...
Canon DRebel
Canon 100mm Macro USM lens
420EX flash with softobox (little plastic attachment)
Shot during the day in the shade
Manual Mode
Exposure 1/125Sec
ISO 200
F/13



I can't belive how dark it got, I was very close the flower, not using Hood.

 

[A.McCarthy]

I'm no expert, but would the ISO setting be a bit too low?

Please tell me what I'm doing wrong? I've tried same settings as
many people on this forum who got great results, but mine sucks so
bad...
Canon DRebel
Canon 100mm Macro USM lens
420EX flash with softobox (little plastic attachment)
Shot during the day in the shade
Manual Mode
Exposure 1/125Sec
ISO 200
F/13



I can't belive how dark it got, I was very close the flower, not
using Hood.

 

[CityLights]

I have yet to shoot a macro, but I would guess f13 is the problem. Most people shoot macro with very limited depth of field. They describe it as "Paper Thin" That means lens wide open let more light in.

Lets see if you catch the eye of one of the macro experts for more advice.

best of luck,

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorites
.

 

[matsf]

I don't have the 100mm Canon, I have the 105mm Sigma... but...

I would say that the flash mounted on the camera in combination with a very close subject makes the flash emit most of the light above the subject. It's too bad that the 420EX (I have that too) cannot be pointed down. Mounting the flash on a bracket on the side of the camera pointed directly at the subject would be better. I would even try the pop-up flash, wich I'm using myself often (since it's there) when shooting macros. I do not know if the 100mm Canon blocks the flash when shooting close subject. Even at 1:1 with the Sigma, the pop-up flash is not blocked. Can you try that? I.e. take a flat subject (table cloth maybe) as close as you can with the pop-up flash and see if the full frame is evenly lit?

You could also try installing the "russian-hack" and bump up the flash exposure compensation, maybe?

But, you're not wrong otherwise, F/13 and ISO 200 are both reasonable. And 1/125s is also not a bad choise, lower and shaking is a problem.

Mats

Please tell me what I'm doing wrong? I've tried same settings as
many people on this forum who got great results, but mine sucks so
bad...
Canon DRebel
Canon 100mm Macro USM lens
420EX flash with softobox (little plastic attachment)
Shot during the day in the shade
Manual Mode
Exposure 1/125Sec
ISO 200
F/13

http://podarok.gotdns.com:443/IMG_0938.JPG

I can't belive how dark it got, I was very close the flower, not
using Hood.

 

[Bratan]

Thanks, I'll experiment with built in flash.

I would say that the flash mounted on the camera in combination
with a very close subject makes the flash emit most of the light
above the subject. It's too bad that the 420EX (I have that too)
cannot be pointed down. Mounting the flash on a bracket on the side
of the camera pointed directly at the subject would be better. I
would even try the pop-up flash, wich I'm using myself often (since
it's there) when shooting macros. I do not know if the 100mm Canon
blocks the flash when shooting close subject. Even at 1:1 with the
Sigma, the pop-up flash is not blocked. Can you try that? I.e. take
a flat subject (table cloth maybe) as close as you can with the
pop-up flash and see if the full frame is evenly lit?

You could also try installing the "russian-hack" and bump up the
flash exposure compensation, maybe?

But, you're not wrong otherwise, F/13 and ISO 200 are both
reasonable. And 1/125s is also not a bad choise, lower and shaking
is a problem.

Mats

Please tell me what I'm doing wrong? I've tried same settings as
many people on this forum who got great results, but mine sucks so
bad...
Canon DRebel
Canon 100mm Macro USM lens
420EX flash with softobox (little plastic attachment)
Shot during the day in the shade
Manual Mode
Exposure 1/125Sec
ISO 200
F/13

http://podarok.gotdns.com:443/IMG_0938.JPG

I can't belive how dark it got, I was very close the flower, not
using Hood.

 

[Bratan]

I've tried higher, without noticable improvment. Plus noise on the dark images get's unbearable...

I'm no expert, but would the ISO setting be a bit too low?

 

[Eneref]

Did the flash actually point AT the subject? It looks like maybe the flash wasn't getting to the subject for some reason (perhaps not pointing down enough, or something in the way blocking it).

Try taking an index card or piece of white carboard and attaching it to the flash to 'bounce' light at the subject. You can hold it onto the flash with a bit of rubberband or some such....

--
N.

Post your files and links to http://www.rebelwithaclue.net
Personal Gallery: http://www.hplovecraft.net/gallery

 

[cjedurrant]

I'd agree with MatSF - looks like you're not getting enough light on the subject from the flash - if you're using the 420EX on the camera hot-shoe then it's probably pointing too high.

There's also the issue with the standard 300D not supporting flash compensation with the 420EX. I have used the 420EX off-camera (using Canon's connecting chord 2) but found the results too unpredictable (probably because of the FEC problem) Now I use an old manual Sunpak Auto26DX flash mounted off camera with a swivel & tilt attachment so it can be directed toward the subject. I've put a link to another post of mine that has a couple of pictures of my setup below. My normal settings are manual, ISO 100 at 1/200th and f16 or F22.

I havn't tried the built-in pop-up flash, but that might be worth a try first as it's a no-cost option. Otherwise, look at getting the 420EX off-camera on a bracket of some kind.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=9981894

 

[kharlow]

One other item -- if you're using the hood on the macro, take it off.

-Ken

Please tell me what I'm doing wrong? I've tried same settings as
many people on this forum who got great results, but mine sucks so
bad...
Canon DRebel
Canon 100mm Macro USM lens
420EX flash with softobox (little plastic attachment)
Shot during the day in the shade
Manual Mode
Exposure 1/125Sec
ISO 200
F/13



I can't belive how dark it got, I was very close the flower, not
using Hood.

 

[padawan]

If the 420ex gave you this kind of pic, don't think the build-in flash will work either. Also, the macro lens will be big enough to block the build-in flash at the close distance to the object.

You said you were shooting in the shade, right? Think iso 200, 1/125s, f/13 is just fine, actually I would go Manual f/13~22 for DOF and 1/200s to overcome my shaky hands. Then the camera will tell you that the pic will be under-exposed, now change the flash settings to use FEC (flash exposure compensation). For example, if the camera tells you the pic is going to be 2-stop under-exposed, you get the 2-stop back with FEC. Now comes the real problem in your case. Last time I checked, 300d doesn't support FEC, and 420ex doesn't either(at least not automatically). So you may have to figure out how much is 2-stop in flash terms manually. If you had 10d(FEC) + 420ex or 300d + 550ex(FEC), it could be simpler.

Just my 2c.

I would say that the flash mounted on the camera in combination
with a very close subject makes the flash emit most of the light
above the subject. It's too bad that the 420EX (I have that too)
cannot be pointed down. Mounting the flash on a bracket on the side
of the camera pointed directly at the subject would be better. I
would even try the pop-up flash, wich I'm using myself often (since
it's there) when shooting macros. I do not know if the 100mm Canon
blocks the flash when shooting close subject. Even at 1:1 with the
Sigma, the pop-up flash is not blocked. Can you try that? I.e. take
a flat subject (table cloth maybe) as close as you can with the
pop-up flash and see if the full frame is evenly lit?

You could also try installing the "russian-hack" and bump up the
flash exposure compensation, maybe?

But, you're not wrong otherwise, F/13 and ISO 200 are both
reasonable. And 1/125s is also not a bad choise, lower and shaking
is a problem.

Mats

Please tell me what I'm doing wrong? I've tried same settings as
many people on this forum who got great results, but mine sucks so
bad...
Canon DRebel
Canon 100mm Macro USM lens
420EX flash with softobox (little plastic attachment)
Shot during the day in the shade
Manual Mode
Exposure 1/125Sec
ISO 200
F/13

http://podarok.gotdns.com:443/IMG_0938.JPG

I can't belive how dark it got, I was very close the flower, not
using Hood.

 

[matsf]

If the 420ex gave you this kind of pic, don't think the build-in
flash will work either. Also, the macro lens will be big enough to
block the build-in flash at the close distance to the object.

Not necessarily true. The 420EX or similar sits quite higher than the pop-up and also has a "zoom" feature that could make it more narrow than the pop-up. Also, I assume that you have the 100mm macro when you say that it would block. With the Sigma 105mm EX macro (1:1) on a rebel, the pop-up is NOT blocking at 1:1... It is very useful and does not cost anything extra. I do not have the 100mm canon, so you could be right.

You said you were shooting in the shade, right? Think iso 200,
1/125s, f/13 is just fine, actually I would go Manual f/13~22 for
DOF and 1/200s to overcome my shaky hands. Then the camera will
tell you that the pic will be under-exposed, now change the flash
settings to use FEC (flash exposure compensation). For example, if
the camera tells you the pic is going to be 2-stop under-exposed,
you get the 2-stop back with FEC. Now comes the real problem in
your case. Last time I checked, 300d doesn't support FEC, and 420ex
doesn't either(at least not automatically). So you may have to
figure out how much is 2-stop in flash terms manually. If you had
10d(FEC) + 420ex or 300d + 550ex(FEC), it could be simpler.

With the "russian" hack or with some of the PC programs you can find, you can change the FEC for both pop-up and 420EX. Works just fine. But I guess that's if you're willing to do a firmware re-write.

Mats

Just my 2c.

I would say that the flash mounted on the camera in combination
with a very close subject makes the flash emit most of the light
above the subject. It's too bad that the 420EX (I have that too)
cannot be pointed down. Mounting the flash on a bracket on the side
of the camera pointed directly at the subject would be better. I
would even try the pop-up flash, wich I'm using myself often (since
it's there) when shooting macros. I do not know if the 100mm Canon
blocks the flash when shooting close subject. Even at 1:1 with the
Sigma, the pop-up flash is not blocked. Can you try that? I.e. take
a flat subject (table cloth maybe) as close as you can with the
pop-up flash and see if the full frame is evenly lit?

You could also try installing the "russian-hack" and bump up the
flash exposure compensation, maybe?

But, you're not wrong otherwise, F/13 and ISO 200 are both
reasonable. And 1/125s is also not a bad choise, lower and shaking
is a problem.

Mats

Please tell me what I'm doing wrong? I've tried same settings as
many people on this forum who got great results, but mine sucks so
bad...
Canon DRebel
Canon 100mm Macro USM lens
420EX flash with softobox (little plastic attachment)
Shot during the day in the shade
Manual Mode
Exposure 1/125Sec
ISO 200
F/13

http://podarok.gotdns.com:443/IMG_0938.JPG

I can't belive how dark it got, I was very close the flower, not
using Hood.

 

[Bratan]

-Ken

Please tell me what I'm doing wrong? I've tried same settings as
many people on this forum who got great results, but mine sucks so
bad...
Canon DRebel
Canon 100mm Macro USM lens
420EX flash with softobox (little plastic attachment)
Shot during the day in the shade
Manual Mode
Exposure 1/125Sec
ISO 200
F/13



I can't belive how dark it got, I was very close the flower, not
using Hood.

 

[pvrnet]

Hmmmm, Not sure what the problem is!!!

Questions:

When you say softbox as a small platic attachment what exactly do you mean. Are you in fact using a softbox? Here is a link to the softbox I am using:

http://www.lumiquest.com/lq925.htm

Also looking at your EXIF data of your photo, I noticed that the meter mode was set to average? Now, when I shot in manual mode the metering is always at Center Weighted Average?

My question is, Are you using a SINGLE FOCUS point? (in other words you do not have all of the focus point active when focusing a shot).

Here is the EXIF from your photo:

Exposure time 1/125 s
F-number f/13
ISO speed ratings 200
Shutter speed value 1/125 s
Aperture value 7.400879
Metering mode Average
Flash Flash fired [on]
Focal length 100 mm
Exposure mode Manual exposure
White balance Auto white balance

Here is a photo I took not too long ago using pretty much the same settings:



Exposure time 1/200 s
F-number f/13
Exposure program Manual
ISO speed ratings 100
Metering mode Center Weighted Average
Light source Unknown
Flash Flash fired
Focal length 105 mm
Colorspace sRGB
Focal length in 35mm film 168 mm

As you can see, your settings are pretty similar to mine, other then I used Center Weighted Average for the metering. I would try using a single focus point and see of this fixes it. If not I would check the batteries of the flash and try and see if your flash is working properly.

Please tell me what I'm doing wrong? I've tried same settings as
many people on this forum who got great results, but mine sucks so
bad...
Canon DRebel
Canon 100mm Macro USM lens
420EX flash with softobox (little plastic attachment)
Shot during the day in the shade
Manual Mode
Exposure 1/125Sec
ISO 200
F/13



I can't belive how dark it got, I was very close the flower, not
using Hood.

--
Rich
http://www.pbase.com/dickie/300d_favorites (Favorites)
http://www.pbase.com/dickie/macros (300D Macros)
http://www.pbase.com/dickie/photo_a_day_gallery (Photo a Day Gallery)

 

[Eric CAN]

Please read this , it might help you :

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=9807547

Cheers

--
Eric Cote

Galleries :

http://gallery.bytephoto.com/DRHangar

Birds : http://gallery.bytephoto.com/showgallery.php?cat=3149&ppuser=87&password=&page=1

Macros : http://gallery.bytephoto.com/showgallery.php?cat=3154&ppuser=87

Equipment list in profile

 

[Bratan]

You were right, flash does get blocked/misdirected! I've tried white cardboard on top and it worked! Also built in flash produced a lot brighter shots!

This one was taking with built-in flash, F20, 1/200sec, ISO 100



This one with external 420EX flash F32, 1/200Sec, ISO 100:



Here's same one with F22 and 1/250 sec:



And finally, one with cardboard reflector (F22, 1/200sec,ISO 100):

 

[padawan]

Thanks for the info about sigma macro and "russian" hack.

Yes, I have the canon 100mm macro which blocks the built-in flash. A friend of mine told me "you can never have enough light in photography" when I was shopping for a flash, so I got the 550ex.

If the 420ex gave you this kind of pic, don't think the build-in
flash will work either. Also, the macro lens will be big enough to
block the build-in flash at the close distance to the object.

Not necessarily true. The 420EX or similar sits quite higher than
the pop-up and also has a "zoom" feature that could make it more
narrow than the pop-up. Also, I assume that you have the 100mm
macro when you say that it would block. With the Sigma 105mm EX
macro (1:1) on a rebel, the pop-up is NOT blocking at 1:1... It is
very useful and does not cost anything extra. I do not have the
100mm canon, so you could be right.

You said you were shooting in the shade, right? Think iso 200,
1/125s, f/13 is just fine, actually I would go Manual f/13~22 for
DOF and 1/200s to overcome my shaky hands. Then the camera will
tell you that the pic will be under-exposed, now change the flash
settings to use FEC (flash exposure compensation). For example, if
the camera tells you the pic is going to be 2-stop under-exposed,
you get the 2-stop back with FEC. Now comes the real problem in
your case. Last time I checked, 300d doesn't support FEC, and 420ex
doesn't either(at least not automatically). So you may have to
figure out how much is 2-stop in flash terms manually. If you had
10d(FEC) + 420ex or 300d + 550ex(FEC), it could be simpler.

With the "russian" hack or with some of the PC programs you can
find, you can change the FEC for both pop-up and 420EX. Works just
fine. But I guess that's if you're willing to do a firmware
re-write.

Mats

Just my 2c.

I would say that the flash mounted on the camera in combination
with a very close subject makes the flash emit most of the light
above the subject. It's too bad that the 420EX (I have that too)
cannot be pointed down. Mounting the flash on a bracket on the side
of the camera pointed directly at the subject would be better. I
would even try the pop-up flash, wich I'm using myself often (since
it's there) when shooting macros. I do not know if the 100mm Canon
blocks the flash when shooting close subject. Even at 1:1 with the
Sigma, the pop-up flash is not blocked. Can you try that? I.e. take
a flat subject (table cloth maybe) as close as you can with the
pop-up flash and see if the full frame is evenly lit?

You could also try installing the "russian-hack" and bump up the
flash exposure compensation, maybe?

But, you're not wrong otherwise, F/13 and ISO 200 are both
reasonable. And 1/125s is also not a bad choise, lower and shaking
is a problem.

Mats

Please tell me what I'm doing wrong? I've tried same settings as
many people on this forum who got great results, but mine sucks so
bad...
Canon DRebel
Canon 100mm Macro USM lens
420EX flash with softobox (little plastic attachment)
Shot during the day in the shade
Manual Mode
Exposure 1/125Sec
ISO 200
F/13

http://podarok.gotdns.com:443/IMG_0938.JPG

I can't belive how dark it got, I was very close the flower, not
using Hood.

 

[MPetrich]

I have seen this light on the Canon web page



and was wondering if anyone uses it for macros.

-Mickey

Please tell me what I'm doing wrong? I've tried same settings as
many people on this forum who got great results, but mine sucks so
bad...
Canon DRebel
Canon 100mm Macro USM lens
420EX flash with softobox (little plastic attachment)
Shot during the day in the shade
Manual Mode
Exposure 1/125Sec
ISO 200
F/13



I can't belive how dark it got, I was very close the flower, not
using Hood.

 

[RATPhoto]

I think your problem is simply that the light of the flash is not getting to what you are shooting. When doing macro, the angle required for the light to get to the subject is much greater than normal because of parallax.

Bottom line is that you need to direct that light down at the subject somehow and your current diffuser isn't doing the job.

On the Sigma EF-500 DG Super, I had to use the built diffuser meant to be used for 17mm shots even though I was using the 100 f/2.8 Macro.

--

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.

If you are a new user chances are good your question is answered in the FAQ at:
http://www.marius.org/eos300dfaq.php

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

See my profile for my equipment

 

[Bratan]

and was wondering if anyone uses it for macros.

-Mickey

Please tell me what I'm doing wrong? I've tried same settings as
many people on this forum who got great results, but mine sucks so
bad...
Canon DRebel
Canon 100mm Macro USM lens
420EX flash with softobox (little plastic attachment)
Shot during the day in the shade
Manual Mode
Exposure 1/125Sec
ISO 200
F/13



I can't belive how dark it got, I was very close the flower, not
using Hood.

 

[MPetrich]

I don't have a macro lens but have enjoyed seeing all the examples posted and now I know why I haven't ever seen that flash mentioned.

-Mickey