Giving Macro a try

[JemC]

As per the title, i am going to have a try at some macro photography,

I have just picked up a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro Lens, So i am going to have a go at getting some images of insects/flowers, etc.

I will be using this lens on my Canon 650d

any recommendations as to type of flash that would be best to use would be appreciated, should i go with ring flash or standard flash on some kind of bracket/extension with diffuser?

if anyone has any pics of their set-up that would be great,

Regards

James

[billtils]

As per the title, i am going to have a try at some macro photography,

I have just picked up a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro Lens, So i am going to have a go at getting some images of insects/flowers, etc.

James, you'll have a great time with the lens. You can see some of my efforts and those of Brian (JBW) with it here on CIC and there is a lens user group on flick. One thing to be mindful of is that the lens loses definition at apertures smaller than about f18, and you should avoid the temptation to increase your DoF by stopping down too much.

As far as flash goes, it seems that this is one of those areas where some say "Yes" and some say "No". I've never used it with this lens but I've been going on a wildlife macro workshop at Caerlaverock the last couple of years and even the the two instructors are divided on the use of flash. I don't know if the venue is within travelling distance for you, but if it is and you have the time, it would be a great first step for you.

[JohnRostron]

I am currently lusting over one of these Tamron lenses, so I will be interested to see how you go.

I have used both ringflash and ringlights for close up. For static objects on the ground (such as fungi) the ringlights are perfectly adequate. In a dark wood, I have also used a couple of banks of LEDs (around 20 by 5cm each), one either side, with satisfactory results. For flowers that are waving in the wind, then the ringflash is probably better.

John

[Saorsa]

My views on it are in my blog at https://birdsnbugs.com/2011/01/03/us...-closeup-work/

My favorite configuration is


The use of the flexible cord saves a lot of fiddling with adjustable brackets and I have more flexibility in placement. If you already have a flash, it's inexpensive to add a cord.

[rpcrowe]

There are several ways to light a macro shot...

1. Available light - this is not always the best

2. Ring light - this can (but doesn't always) result in very flat shadowless imagery. A ring flash that can be controlled so that the entire ring doesn't light with the same intensity will often be best. My new Yongnuo YN14EX ring light can be adjusted so that one half of the ring puts out a different amount of light from the other half. That way I can get some shadow effect if I so desire. The Yougnuo ring light (as are most other Yongnuo flash units) is quite a decent rig at a very reasonable cost.

3. I have been shooting with this type of setup for years. It gives good results but, it is a bit difficult to travel with because I must pack the bracket,

4. An inexpensive but decent lighting setup can be rigged from a tiny flash like the Canon 270EX II or this very inexpensive flash the Viltrox HY610C
http://www.ebay.com/itm/381673628960...%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
Modified with this little "shower cap" diffuser...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/252476530511...%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
I will shoot with the flash head turned upwards wearing the diffuser with the front of the diffuser pointing towards the subject. The problem with this setup is that if your lens gets too close to the subject, it will shade the subject from the flash.

5. I have this diffuser which will fold up into a small package...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/16-Universal...4AAOSwepJXVVC9
Having the standard size hotshoe flash mounted on the hotshoe and the flash head pointed at an 45 degree angle towards your subject, you can get very nice lighting from above. Of course, you need a hotshoe flash but, IMO, that should be part of every photographers kit. This flash diffuser can be also used for "normal" or non-macro shooting. As with ALL lighting, the larger the light source, the softer the light. This disc converts the standard hotshoe flash into a very large light source that is quite close to the subject. You could, if desired use a small flash like the 270EX II or the Viltrox as a slave fill light. Either hand holding it or mounting it on a bracket of some type.

The major problem with lighting a macro shot is that, when using a shorter focal length macro lens, the distance between the front of the lens and the subject is too short for effective lighting and will often frighten the little creatures I may be shooting. The lens will shade the subject. I don't like 50mm or 60mm macro lenses. I like a macro lens of 90-100mm which gives me a decent distance between lens barrel and subject whether I am shooting full-frame or crop sensor formats.

BTW: There is no lens to subject distance difference between using a full-frame camera or using a crop sensor camera when shooting at the same subject to image ratio. If I were shooting at a 1:1 ratio with a crop camera and switched to a full-frame camera, I would be shooting from the same distance. The only difference is that I will cover a greater area with the full-frame than with the crop sensor... HOWEVER... There is a different in distance between the end of the lens barrel and the subject when using a lens like the 90mm f/3.8 Tamron or the original, non-USM, Canon 100mm macro lenses. The front elements of these lenses are recessed deeply into the lens barrel...

Longer focal lengths than 90-100mm are even nicer because of the extra lens to subject distance afforded. I don't have a longer focal length true macro lens but, I occasionally use my 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens with extension tube or tubes for close-up or macro work. I love the longer distance between lens and subject (this makes lighting easier and doesn't scare little "creepie-crawlies" I am shooting). I also love the ability to zoom and the excellent IS of that lens (my 100mm Canon Macro doesn't have IS). However that lens + camera is a bit of a heavy package for macro or closeup work.

[marlunn]

As a macro photographer I would disagree with one statement in Richards mail - 1. Available light - this is not always the best insomuch as I would say available light is always the best - but not always feasable , must admit to only resorting to any non natural light in extremis, I have pushed the iso to 1000 - 1600 and so long as you expose correctly and fill the frame so no cropping is required I have got good images with no real issue on noise. I fall into the no flash camp if at all possible. I would say a Tripd is always the best - but clearly that is dictated by the subject. Fungi are great as apart from Slime Molds they dont move about - even in the wind so a 5 second exposure is no problem!

[rpcrowe]

Available light is not always the best, regarding quantity, quality and direction. Using a flash to fill in where the available light is lacking in quantity, quality or direction is, IMO, the way to go in macro/close-up photography. The trick in using flash fill is not to have the image scream "I WAS SHOT WITH FLASH" This is true in virtually every use of flash.

Of course, when shooting non-moving or inanimate subjects like fungi, you can move around (sometimes) to select the best vantage point and/or add fill using reflectors. However, again IMO, using a reflector fill takes this out of the category of available light.

Using flash will allow decent imagery during those awful directional hours of 10AM to 2PM or 9AM to 3PM or so in the summertime.

I agree that using a tripod (when possible) is the best way to get exceptionally sharp shots. But, when working with live subjects, the use of a tripod is often not possible. A monopod can be a good substitute for a tripod in that case but, often hand-holding the camera/lens is the best or only way to capture a moving little creature.

I have not really mentioned that often the additional light from your flash will allow a faster shutter speed or smaller f/stop to capture those fleeting "creepie-crawlies"'

[DanK]

Some good advice here, despite the disagreements, but there the thread missed the starting point. You wrote:

images of insects/flowers, etc.

the advice you've received seems focused on bugs, but the lighting choices for flowers are very different. So I will add my two cents/pence:

First, in almost all macro photography that I do--lots of bugs and flowers, but not much else--a key regardless of the choice of lighting is that it should be diffused. One of the reasons why natural light is often (in my opinion) inferior is that when it is bright, it is often harsh, and this really matters in macro work. And in the case some bugs, managing reflections is very difficult, and the better the diffusion, the better the result. For that reason, regardless of what options you pursue, I would advise you to spend to trying out different types of diffusers. For example, in doing bugs, I use multiple layers of diffusing material, and I usually include some sort of paper, as the fibers help. I currently use two sheets of baking parchment paper as my final layers, but I (and many others) have used layers of paper toweling to good effect. Find something shiny and take a bunch of pictures with different diffusing options to see what works best.

For bugs: for the reason Richard described, I never use a ring light. I use a single flash with a homemade diffuser held close to the end of the lens. One of my is a do-it-yourself rig that I constructed out a $7 straight bracket and two miniballs:



I also sometimes use a Wimberly bracket, which is much more secure, but it is heavy and expensive:



The diffuser itself is constructed from an old soda can, lots of gaffer's tape, and in its current incarnation, the two sheets of baking parchment I mentioned. (Google "coke can diffuser macro" without the quotation marks.) One disadvantage is that if you add or remove an extension tube, you have to redo the whole rig to get the right length. Another is that sometimes I want the lighting on the other side. This rig is heavy and poorly balanced, so I prop it up with a monopod that has a tilt head. This is much faster to use than a tripod. I use this both in sunlight and in shade. I'll post a few images here to show the quality of lighting. In open sunlight:



In deep shade:



For flowers in the studio: one choice is strobes or continuous lighting. I prefer the latter because I can see approximately what effects it has as a move the lighting around. However, it requires long exposures. Usually, I use two halogens in hair lights, often one bounced into an umbrella and the other direct, but with diffusing material in the front. For example:



Here are a few examples of shots taken that way, starting with one that I think was the subject above:





Finally, for flowers outdoors: consider carrying a small collapsible diffuser.

[rpcrowe]

Dan,

Your two flower closeups are beautiful!

I agree with everything you stated...

Regarding: "one choice is strobes or continuous lighting. I prefer the latter because I can see approximately what effects it has as a move the lighting around. However, it requires long exposures."

IMO, using a diffused studio "type" strobe will give you the best of two worlds. The modeling light will show you approximately what the flash is going to look like and the high intensity of the flash will take care of the long exposure problem. I can easily light a subject to give me an f/11 or f/16 exposure without any regard to shutter speed...

The nice thing about close-up and macro lighting with a studio "type" strobe is that you will have the light close to the subject so, you don't need a very powerful (therefore expensive) strobe even when heavily diffused. You can also change the power of this type strobe without markedly changing the color balance of the light...

These "El-Cheapo" studio "type" strobes have modeling lights and also accept accessories like shoot-thru umbrellas, etc. at around $40 each in the USA, they are quite inexpensive.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2PCS-180W-Ph...3D131068007365

You have a choice of multiple power settings from 1/16 to full power...

You can find this type of strobe which will fit ready-made accessories such as diffusers or snoots or you can easily fabricate your own accessories.

I also often use a pair of these lights with appropriate modifiers for background lights and for hair lights in portraits...

BTW: I like the way you have light bounced from an umbrella from above with a kicker from near the camera position. I often use this basic concept in shooting little dogs...

[Stagecoach]

Jem,

As a keen long time macro shooter my experience is that there is no straightforward answer to the type of flash system you should go for. There does seem to be a tendency for people to put down the ring flash, historically due to the flat lighting, but these can now be adjusted to vary the power on each side.

Personally my advice would be to use a flash and diffuser as in Brian's post No 4 which can be camera mounted or moved off camera as a start.

Depending upon how adventurous you are with your subjects and more importantly the access and time available to take a shot will very much determine what flash rig and setup you can use for on each occasion.

[DanK]

Richard, Thanks both for the comment and the suggestion. At some point, I may try studio strobes. You're right: a modeling light, if it is sufficiently accurate, would serve the same purpose as the continuous lighting I now use. the main drawback of long exposures is that it is very easy to get the flower to move when you don't want it to.

James, I should have added one much more general point: don't get discouraged. Macro is difficult. For example, achieving focus is tough, depth of field is ridiculously narrow, and the slightest motion of the flower or bug can set you back to square 1. In addition, it is technically the most complex genre of photography I do. However, if you stick with it, it can be a great deal of fun and very rewarding.

Dan

[rpcrowe]

Here's a slight problem with macro work, at least here in Southern California. The mid-day light from the sun straight overhead will not usually give you the very best image. However, earlier in the morning and especially in the afternoon the breeze tends to come up and tries to move whatever flower you are shooting or whatever you are shooting is riding on (in the case of creepy crawlies).

A way to remedy this can be the same strategy as shooting portraits at mid-day. Use a large diffuser or a scrim to prevent the harsh light of the sun falling on your subject and then use your own light source (flash or reflector) to give some directionality to your image. A 5-way reflector can be had very inexpensively.

Shooting a macro or closeup shot with this system is far easier that shooting a portrait because of the smaller area involved which equals a smaller scrim or diffuser to handle...

BTW: for someone who is just dabbling into macro/closeup work along with just dabbling in long telephoto photography, a cheap and rather easy way to achieve both is to use a bridge camera. My Canon SX50 HS will allow macro shooting as well as a tremendously long telephoto at a rather low price. I got mine from the Canon Store refurbished, on sale, for less than $150 U.S. Dollars.

[JemC]

Thank you all
i really appreciate the advice/tips/info given, you have given me a some good ideas,

i do have one of the old Cobra 700af flash for Canon, so might try and utilise this,
i have just ordered a ball head flash bracket thing, and a diffuser for the flash which should give me a set up something similar to the one that Dank posted above,

managed to have a little play around with the lens today for the 1st time, there is definitely more to this macro than you think

managed to get my first couple of macro images today, not going to be brilliant but it's a start,
will post them in a new thread,

Regards

[russellsnr]

Some good advice here, despite the disagreements, but there the thread missed the starting point. You wrote:



the advice you've received seems focused on bugs, but the lighting choices for flowers are very different. So I will add my two cents/pence:

First, in almost all macro photography that I do--lots of bugs and flowers, but not much else--a key regardless of the choice of lighting is that it should be diffused. One of the reasons why natural light is often (in my opinion) inferior is that when it is bright, it is often harsh, and this really matters in macro work. And in the case some bugs, managing reflections is very difficult, and the better the diffusion, the better the result. For that reason, regardless of what options you pursue, I would advise you to spend to trying out different types of diffusers. For example, in doing bugs, I use multiple layers of diffusing material, and I usually include some sort of paper, as the fibers help. I currently use two sheets of baking parchment paper as my final layers, but I (and many others) have used layers of paper toweling to good effect. Find something shiny and take a bunch of pictures with different diffusing options to see what works best.

For bugs: for the reason Richard described, I never use a ring light. I use a single flash with a homemade diffuser held close to the end of the lens. One of my is a do-it-yourself rig that I constructed out a $7 straight bracket and two miniballs:



I also sometimes use a Wimberly bracket, which is much more secure, but it is heavy and expensive:



The diffuser itself is constructed from an old soda can, lots of gaffer's tape, and in its current incarnation, the two sheets of baking parchment I mentioned. (Google "coke can diffuser macro" without the quotation marks.) One disadvantage is that if you add or remove an extension tube, you have to redo the whole rig to get the right length. Another is that sometimes I want the lighting on the other side. This rig is heavy and poorly balanced, so I prop it up with a monopod that has a tilt head. This is much faster to use than a tripod. I use this both in sunlight and in shade. I'll post a few images here to show the quality of lighting. In open sunlight:



In deep shade:



For flowers in the studio: one choice is strobes or continuous lighting. I prefer the latter because I can see approximately what effects it has as a move the lighting around. However, it requires long exposures. Usually, I use two halogens in hair lights, often one bounced into an umbrella and the other direct, but with diffusing material in the front. For example:



Here are a few examples of shots taken that way, starting with one that I think was the subject above:





Finally, for flowers outdoors: consider carrying a small collapsible diffuser.

Hi, Just out of curiosity how do you meter for your indoor flower images? Thanks. Russ

[DanK]

Hi, Just out of curiosity how do you meter for your indoor flower images? Thanks. Russ

Because the camera will handle up to 30 second exposures, there is no special trick. I set the camera to manual mode, set the aperture I want, and generally set the metering to evaluative. I then change the shutter speed to get a first estimate of exposure, take a test shot, and then adjust based on the histogram. I use separate R, G, B histograms.

[deanimator]

As per the title, i am going to have a try at some macro photography,

I have just picked up a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro Lens, So i am going to have a go at getting some images of insects/flowers, etc.

I will be using this lens on my Canon 650d

any recommendations as to type of flash that would be best to use would be appreciated, should i go with ring flash or standard flash on some kind of bracket/extension with diffuser?

if anyone has any pics of their set-up that would be great,

Regards

James

1. What do you plan to photograph?
2. Where do you plan to photograph it?

80% of my photography is indoor macro of inanimate (or dead) subjects.

For this, I use two 300w equivalent and one 250(?)w equivalent CFLs on articulated arm lamps clamped to the top of my macro table (a 2'x4' piece of particle board on top of two metal filing cabinets with drawer liner sandwiched between to reduce movement and vibration). The lamps have home made reflectors made of Home Depot plastic flower pots lined with silver duct tape.

I find this arrangement works well for all but the tiniest subjects.

When my finances improve, I plan to build a more substantial macro table out of a 2'x4' sheet of MDF and metal pipe. I will replace the arm lamps with actual photo lamps. These will be attached to long cylindrical drawer pulls using magic type clamps and arms. For very small subjects and focus stacking, I will substitute a couple of Flashpoint manual flashes triggered remotely.

For outdoor macro, I use a Sigma EF500 DG Super flash with a Neewer 8"x12" diffuser, either on the hot shoe or on a flash arm or bracket. The flash and camera are set on manual, with the flash set to low power. I find this works very well so far. I haven't gotten to use it that much lately due to a dearth of interesting insects in my immediate area.

[JemC]

[QUOTE=deanimator;677052]

1. What do you plan to photograph?
2. Where do you plan to photograph it?

80% of my photography is indoor macro of inanimate (or dead) subjects.

my plan is to photograph insects/flowers

where i plan to photograph, Initially in my backyard while i get a little experience with the set up then hopefully out in the field,
not really thought about doing dead insects (that's not to say i won't)
the set up you have looks quite neat, that may be something that i will look into a little later,

it's all new to me so just trying to get to grips with it all

Regards

[deanimator]

my plan is to photograph insects/flowers

Your best bet is a decent speedlight and a diffuser. I first tried to make my own diffusers but the 8"x12" Neewer I bought was infinitely better. Look at off camera flash brackets and arms. There's no need to spend $300 on a bracket unless you just want to.

where i plan to photograph, Initially in my backyard while i get a little experience with the set up then hopefully out in the field,
not really thought about doing dead insects (that's not to say i won't)

I had an infestation of tiny flies a couple of months ago. Enough of them worked their way into the gaskets of my freezer that I have a lifetime supply of subjects. They're so small (1/8" at most) that they're a VERY challenging subject.

the set up you have looks quite neat, that may be something that i will look into a little later,

it's all new to me so just trying to get to grips with it all

Regards

A studio rig gives you the opportunity to develop your technique in a controlled environment.

Mine is actually quite basic. Very serious macrophotographers use automated stacking rails, bellows and microscope objectives. I use an Android tablet and DSLR Controller to focus stack by changing the focus rather than moving the camera. I hope to get a StackShot and a microscope objective (along with a couple of wireless manual flashes), but that will have to wait until my finances improve.