A macro journey begins...

[ionian]

I recently picked up an old manual macro lens - a Vivitar 55mm f2.8 that I have adapted for my GX7, which turns it into a 110mm equivellant macro lens because of the crop factor in micro four thirds. It'll be a steep learning curve but as the sun is clearly not going to shine this summer I figured indoor photography was worth pursuing.

Here's a test shot of halogen lightbulb connectors at close to 1:1 for comments. I've done a fair bit of reading but will try to keep my early efforts in this thread to keep the forum clean. All comments will be most welcomed.

[Dave Humphries]

Very artistic for a first test shot Simon,

Are you having to manually open up (to focus), then stop down (to expose), with that lens and adapter combination?

[ionian]

I'm a pretentious sod Dave, can't do anything without making it a bit fancy!

The GX7 has live exposure so it will show how the image will look at current settings, no matter if the lens is electronically connected or not. So I don't need to open up for focusing, and with the in body stabilisation I should be able to use it handheld as well. Here's hoping...

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I'll be watching this thread closely. I haven't tried my macro lens on my new old camera yet. Maybe this thread will inspire me to do so. We do have lots of sunshine this summer though, maybe a little TOO much.

[xpatUSA]

I recently picked up an old manual macro lens - a Vivitar 55mm f2.8 that I have adapted for my GX7, which turns it into a 110mm equivellant macro lens because of the crop factor in micro four thirds. It'll be a steep learning curve but as the sun is clearly not going to shine this summer I figured indoor photography was worth pursuing.

Here's a test shot of halogen lightbulb connectors at close to 1:1 for comments. I've done a fair bit of reading but will try to keep my early efforts in this thread to keep the forum clean. All comments will be most welcomed.

Not bad for a beginner, Simon

Just a little more DOF perhaps? How close were you?

Some lighting diffusers would cut down the specular highlights a bit, if that's your bag. I find them invaluable for watch shots.

[ionian]

Hey Ted - thanks. There was around 5cm from the lens hood (it's fixed in place) to the subject. This was shot at f9 (ff DoF equiv. of f18); I wanted the back pin to be soft but I agree that I've possibly overdone it in hindsight, as the back of the front pin is oof. I shot this in a light box so the lighting is pretty flat (the bokeh specular highlights were, ahh, artistically added in post, shhh) but at this scale I think I need to get my light source closer to the subject. I'll be trying with a brolly on an articulating stand later this evening.

Alan - absolutely you should dust off that lens, it'll be good to have someone going through the same thing with me...

[DanK]

Good start. I hope you keep it up. The more macro photographers here, the better, IMHO.

You wrote:

Vivitar 55mm f2.8 that I have adapted for my GX7, which turns it into a 110mm equivellant macro lens because of the crop factor in micro four thirds.

yes and no. things get more complicated with macro. If you are not close to minimum working distance, and your issue is how far away you can be and still fill the frame, then this is correct; the smaller angle of view with MFT will give you a greater distance. However, closer than that, it's more complicated. the degree of magnification (the ratio of the size of image of the subject to subject size, NOT the ratio of the size of the image of the subject to the size of the frame) is independent of sensor size. For the same reason, the minimum focusing distance, which is what gets you to 1:1 with a true macro lens, is independent of sensor size. I shoot most bugs at minimum focusing distance with a 36mm tube. I end up at the same distance and with the same magnification with either a crop or a FF, but the image of the subject fills more of the frame with the crop.

Re f/stops: your effective f/stop is much smaller. If you haven't, read the tutorial "macro camera lenses" on this site, which explains that.

[ionian]

My dining table has become a little macro studio, which will be fine until I want breakfast tomorrow morning. Here's my makeshift set-up (phone photo, excuse the quality):




I've been photographing various things this evening but little that I want to show; here are a few that I'm posting mainly because I'm excited to be doing it, not because they're of much interest:

[JBW]

Hi Simon, Like you I am a beginner at macro, unlike you I have started out of doors. I'm looking forward to watching your journey as a way to help mine.

[ionian]

Brian - you are miles ahead of me! Plus you have giant exotic bugs (blue bees? That's pure witchcraft). It's you that has inspired me, I may not always comment but I enjoy looking at your images very much. I hope to spend some time outside too but opportunities may be limited here; plus I have plenty of basic studio gear from my portrait work, it's just a case of working out how to get the best from it with such small subjects.

[Dave Humphries]

~ I have plenty of basic studio gear from my portrait work, it's just a case of working out how to get the best from it with such small subjects.

As I'm sure you know, the lighting principles are the same, it is a case of scaling the relevant factors to the smaller subjects, so a 30 (odd) inch umbrella is going look (to a small subject), like an overcast sky if placed directly overhead and result in very flat lighting, so a smaller light area source is likely needed if you want more 'modelling' imparted by the light source.

However, if the big source is just moved further away (which will make it seem smaller), the inverse square law won't apply as much as we might desire, leading to little or no drop off between subject and background because compared to the ratios of other distances, they are virtually the same.

I believe all the distances and sizes need to be scaled relative to the subject size. I don't think I am explaining it very well, but hopefully just well enough for everyone to understand.

I used to use desk lamps to light small subjects if static, now, for my bee shots (yet to be shown) I used a small softbox on the flash, but possibly the bare flash head, or wrapped in a tissue (to attenuate it a bit), might still be large enough, relative to a true macro sized subject, to provide enough surface area for good modelling of non reflective subjects. When subjects are reflective, we need the light tent to ensure all reflections of the surroundings are controlled.

I'm waffling, sorry, Dave

[JBW]

Brian - you are miles ahead of me! Plus you have giant exotic bugs (blue bees? That's pure witchcraft). It's you that has inspired me, I may not always comment but I enjoy looking at your images very much. I hope to spend some time outside too but opportunities may be limited here; plus I have plenty of basic studio gear from my portrait work, it's just a case of working out how to get the best from it with such small subjects.

do give light painting a go, it can be a lot of fun and a great teacher

[ionian]

Not at all Dave - that's helpful to me, and I will be thinking about how to scale the directional lighting whilst using a diffused flash (or static light) as ambient fill.

This is going to be an image heavy thread! I have the day off today so out in the garden I have captured these two; the moth needed less DoF and the rosebud needed slightly more I think, but I'm still learning about how to hold still enough to shoot handheld, and it may just be that I wobbled at the crucial moment.







Digging in my camera box I found my macro ring flash which works well with the gx7. It's a very cheap Chinese thing, and the light has a distinct green cast, but I used it as fill on the rosebud and it seemed to work fine.

My laptop is officially kaput so I will need to save up to replace or repair it, so I'm still stuck with jpegs and iPad processing at present - mostly it's fine but no layers, no raw and no focus stacking on this system. I'm familiar with focus stacking from landscape work so I'm looking forward to trying that when the opportunity arises.

[JBW]

Simon, if you are in your garden take along a stool to sit on and a tripod that can be used as a tri, bi or mono. a little creative placement and you can be very well braced. Just add holding your half expelled breath as you click and good things often happen.

[xpatUSA]

As I'm sure you know, the lighting principles are the same, it is a case of scaling the relevant factors to the smaller subjects, so a 30 (odd) inch umbrella is going look (to a small subject), like an overcast sky if placed directly overhead and result in very flat lighting, so a smaller light area source is likely needed if you want more 'modelling' imparted by the light source.

Quite right, Dave.

However, if the big source is just moved further away (which will make it seem smaller), the inverse square law won't apply as much as we might desire, leading to little or no drop off between subject and background because compared to the ratios of other distances, they are virtually the same.

I believe all the distances and sizes need to be scaled relative to the subject size. I don't think I am explaining it very well, but hopefully just well enough for everyone to understand.

Yes, in technical terms, it has to do with the relative sizes of the light source and the object, and the distance between them.

See http://kronometric.org/phot/lighting...20handbook.pdf (page 25 et subs).

The book tells all about the inverse square law - including when it applies (for modeling) and when it does not.

Think of the sun. As Dave says, the ratio of distances comes into it. For sunlight here on the planet, the ratio of the distances is virtually one everywhere, even when shooting Mt. Everest from the foothills. However, get yourself a mile from the surface of the sun . . .

On the other hand, a one-LED flashlight held inches away from a house-fly might do it.

At the macro level, if one is using a diffuser sheet with a separate lamp behind it, an interesting variation in lighting can be used:

Consider an object (a watch for example) with a diffuser sheet at say 2ft distance. If the lamp (not halogen!) is right up against the sheet, the combination of lamp and sheet tends toward a point source (because of the cosine law), giving more 'modeling'. Move the lamp farther away and the sheet becomes a larger area uniform light source with much less modeling effect. So by varying the lamp distance we can go from 'too much' (blown highlights) to 'not enough' (too flat-looking).

[ionian]

One more for today; again, focus isn't quite right here but I'm getting there. This was shot at f11. I used the macro flash as a key light here:





And, just because it's more familiar territory, I'll document that this lens makes a pretty nice portrait length on the gx7 at the other end of the focusing scale (although manual focus + toddler requires divine intervention to get a sharp image).

[DanK]

great shot of the kid. nicely composed, and great lighting.

Re the rose: if what you want is for the whole flower to be in focus, you are probably going to have to focus stack. Roses are really deep, front to back. I end up stacking even shallower flowers most of the time because my preference is to have the entire flower in sharp focus.

There are a number of stacking options. Photoshop will do it, although it's slow and not very flexible. AFAIK, the two leading software packages are Zerene and Helicon. I have been using Zerene for years and like it a lot--good features, and excellent support (which has always come from the guy who writes the software). I've never used Helicon's stacking software, although I have--but almost never use--their software for controlling the focus difference between shots.

[JBW]

One of the new to me realities of shooting true macro is that if I get up close and personal with a rose, as i used to with the 18-55 then even at F/14 much is out of focus. If I move back to say 1.5 meters much more is in focus and I am still getting n amazing amount of detail.

[IzzieK]

Interesting journey...I was doing an online course on Fundamentals when the instructor mentioned "Focus Stacking"...so off I went distracted by my doing research. Since my studio is just across my den, I practice on my little people, little props (toys from my food photography stuff). Got a tip on live view techniques yesterday and applied that one too to my repertoire. Finished up with some good shots since. Need to practice some more on other little things, props and do more research. I came upon this 24 section tutorial:

.Introduction to Focus Stacking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rue...8O1DQykUrj-S2I

which includes Close-Ups, Macro and Focus Stacking all in one -- a lot more for beginners in Photography but I will sort it out more later now that we are back home for a while. I might learn something...Paul inspires me with his work and his home made gear.

[ionian]

I've just got to wait for the PC to be sorted before I can stack images, although I've found an app that may be able to do it, I'll have to have a play.

The rose bud was from a flora bunda bush, with very small flowers (the bud was less than half an inch in size). Looking at it again this morning I can see that I've actually missed focus - I've focused in front of the main body of the rose, which is why the petal in the extreme left is sharp but the main bud is not. Tripod is the answer here - I can hand hold down to around 1:2 but after that it just gets too thin, even stopped right down, for my current skill set.

I am pleased with that portrait, taken with natural light at ISO 1000. It reminds me that I can take a decent picture, even if a lot of these images make it look like I'm starting photography again!

Brian - good point about using the right tool for the job. I could have used the zoom lens for the rose bud, 300mm equivellant at f5.6 from 1 meter (and with autofocus) would have probably done a better job.