Bad Macro Lighting

[Stagecoach]

There are many discussions on here regarding lighting for macro/close-up work and I'm sure most of us understand the necessity of trying to achieve good lighting and the advantages it will give, and how to do it.

I produced the below two images today during some test shots to compare a camera mounted SB-600 in TTL flash exposure at minimum focus distance 1:1 with the auto exposure results chosen by the camera without flash at the same aperture/ISO.

Disregarding the results/conclusion from my tests what I thought was that these two make an excellent example of how lighting can affect your subject.

No 1 - Standard SB-600 flash in TTL camera mounted pointing forward no diffuser. f/8, 1/60, ISO200. Note, the lighting is coming from above the subject.



No 2 - No flash, f/8, 1/15, ISO200 an Aperture Mode. Note, diffused lighting coming from large window area to the right.



Grahame

[george013]

There are many discussions on here regarding lighting for macro/close-up work and I'm sure most of us understand the necessity of trying to achieve good lighting and the advantages it will give, and how to do it.

I produced the below two images today during some test shots to compare a camera mounted SB-600 in TTL flash exposure at minimum focus distance 1:1 with the auto exposure results chosen by the camera without flash at the same aperture/ISO.

Disregarding the results/conclusion from my tests what I thought was that these two make an excellent example of how lighting can affect your subject.

No 1 - Standard SB-600 flash in TTL camera mounted pointing forward no diffuser. f/8, 1/60, ISO200. Note, the lighting is coming from above the subject.



No 2 - No flash, f/8, 1/15, ISO200 an Aperture Mode. Note, diffused lighting coming from large window area to the right.



Grahame

Doesn't it surpise you that the image with flash is darker?
When I remember the camera has a minimal exposure limit of 1/60 in certain metering modes. With flash it goes to 1/60. You can change that.
Secund look at the exif. It says "Flash {0x9209} = n/a (15)". As far as I know this means flash fired but no return flash was detected. https://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil...XIF.html#Flash. I think but am not sure, the flash will shoot at full power when no return pre-flash is detected.
And so it looks. No light has been added.
Finish yor drawing.

To add more info. If you used the 105mm with a m=1. then the focus distance was about 310mm, subject to sensor.

George

[Manfred M]

Grahame - if nothing else this demonstrates how the direction of the light and the quality of the light affect the image, over and above the flash demo.

In your flash shot the direction of the light smoothed out the texture of your subject and in the ambient light shot, the angle and colour temperature produced a more contrasty image.

[Stagecoach]

Grahame - if nothing else this demonstrates how the direction of the light and the quality of the light affect the image

Exactly Manfred,

That's all these two examples were demonstrating, that light positioning/direction can make such a significant difference to what we see on the subject.

[Stagecoach]

Although not pertinent to this thread George ........................................

Doesn't it surpise you that the image with flash is darker?

It depends on how you determine that it's 'darker'. If these were 'meant', which they are not, as a comparison of image brightness as they used two different light sources from different directions what would you use to determine that one was 'darker'?

I suspect Ted may have a more technical method of determining which image is 'darker'.

For me, if I am to make a comparison of overall image 'brightness' I would say they were pretty close and both within an acceptable exposure that can be tweaked either way in post with minimal adjustment.

When I remember the camera has a minimal exposure limit of 1/60 in certain metering modes. With flash it goes to 1/60. You can change that.

I don't understand the relevance of this to anything. Of course I can change my flash sync speed what difference would it make to taking these images?

Secund look at the exif. It says "Flash {0x9209} = n/a (15)". As far as I know this means flash fired but no return flash was detected. https://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil...XIF.html#Flash.

I have not looked at the Exif. But I have now in Jeffrey Friedl's Exif viewer ...

I think but am not sure, the flash will shoot at full power when no return pre-flash is detected.
And so it looks. No light has been added.

If the flash had shot at full power it would have blown this image right out. I have already covered in the other thread that at this positioning 314mm (1:1) sensor to subject and flash on camera if I put the flash in manual I can easily blow it out at f/16, ISO200.

Finish yor drawing.
George

It has no relevance to this, I know from the practical results that I am getting unrestricted light to the subject, although not at an ideal angle for the model

[xpatUSA]

Although not pertinent to this thread George ........................................



It depends on how you determine that it's 'darker'. If these were 'meant', which they are not, as a comparison of image brightness as they used two different light sources from different directions what would you use to determine that one was 'darker'?

I suspect Ted may have a more technical method of determining which image is 'darker'.

For me, if I am to make a comparison of overall image 'brightness' I would say they were pretty close and both within an acceptable exposure that can be tweaked either way in post with minimal adjustment.

Yes, I selected an area below the circle while opened in ImageJ and then looked at it's histogram.

The flash pic is lighter, the mean being 151/255. The contrast is low, a tall, narrow result.

The non-flash pic is darker, a mean of 143/255 but the contrast is much higher - the histogram being about 4X as wide; in other words, darker darks and lighter lights.

[Manfred M]

Exactly Manfred,

That's all these two examples were demonstrating, that light positioning/direction can make such a significant difference to what we see on the subject.

Which also demonstrates why the classic ring flash macro shots tend to be uninteresting, as that technique produces flat, even lighting that suppresses shadows and textures.

[Stagecoach]

Yes, I selected an area below the circle while opened in ImageJ and then looked at it's histogram.

The flash pic is lighter, the mean being 151/255. The contrast is low, a tall, narrow result.

I agree with that method for that sample, and we could do that for the whole image.

[xpatUSA]

I agree with that method for that sample, and we could do that for the whole image.

Thanks, Grahame.

[xpatUSA]

I agree with that method for that sample, and we could do that for the whole image.

Indeed we could! Here we are:

[Stagecoach]

Indeed we could! Here we are:

Thank you Ted for the evidence

I can only assume that George's comment ................

Doesn't it surpise you that the image with flash is darker?
George

was biased towards supporting his other theories

[DanK]

Very interesting, and helpful. The histograms are pretty much what I expected. The much larger standard deviation for the daylight picture is expected, not because of daylight per se, of course, but because the angle of the light created more contrast. Re the mean and mode: I don't understand Nikon's metering, but assuming that the metering is anything other than uniformly weighting the metered areas, wouldn't you expect somewhat different means and modes? In the case of Canons, I believe TTL always uses evaluative metering, which weights nonuniformly and I think does other stuff with the distribution of luminance to figure out a setting.

[Stagecoach]

Very interesting, and helpful. The histograms are pretty much what I expected. The much larger standard deviation for the daylight picture is expected, not because of daylight per se, of course, but because the angle of the light created more contrast. Re the mean and mode: I don't understand Nikon's metering, but assuming that the metering is anything other than uniformly weighting the metered areas, wouldn't you expect somewhat different means and modes? In the case of Canons, I believe TTL always uses evaluative metering, which weights nonuniformly and I think does other stuff with the distribution of luminance to figure out a setting.

Dan, I believe Nikon uses the viewfinder RGB meter in 'Matrix' metering to 'measure' the pre-flash return but this may vary with TTL and iTTL modes.

I also believe there have been changes over the years that can be specific to flash model.

Next time I'm set up out of interest I'll see what results if anything the different metering modes give. But personally, my camera always sits in Matrix metering and when achieving such as the above result I would not change it.

Edit,

Looking through a couple of articles, for modern Nikons it appears that the pre-flash return is measured by centre weighted metering in iTTL (TTL) mode hence the need/option for FV lock use if your subject is well off centre after recomposing. But I have never done that in macro work.

One article also mentioned that the pre-flash return metering uses the same metering mode (centre weighted) whichever mode you have got selected on camera for ambient light metering. I did a quick test on the above subject, there was no variation in exposure with either of the three modes selected.

[rudi]

I have been using flash for only a few years, I read quit a bit abt flash, looked at many portraits (amongst others..) and try to adopt some principles in my macro ( with varying degrees of succes ). Concerned lighting, I consider myself still at level 1.
It would be very helpfull to me (and perhaps to others too) that you can explain exactly what you mean by 'good vs bad' macro lighting.

[Stagecoach]

I have been using flash for only a few years, I read quit a bit abt flash, looked at many portraits (amongst others..) and try to adopt some principles in my macro ( with varying degrees of succes ). Concerned lighting, I consider myself still at level 1.

I would also consider myself at level 1 as well Rudi with respect to lighting macro. Whilst I have done lots of macro with flash, this is generally of critters and it has been rare to get an occasion where you have the time to try different methods with the same subject. Most of my concentration and effort seems to go into getting the framing and angles I want then next an acceptably focused shot.

It would be very helpfull to me (and perhaps to others too) that you can explain exactly what you mean by 'good vs bad' macro lighting.

My terminology and meaning of "Bad" in the title was only with respect to a comparison of the two example pics I posted which were achieved whilst testing exposure light level comparisons.

If it had of been my intention to produce a 'good' picture of that subject/framing (yes it's boring) I would have classed the flash one as 'bad' as it did not represent what I saw or would want to show. The surface is stone and a rough texture, the direct flash light has flattened it.

To produce what I would consider a 'good' picture of it I think there were two options;

a) Using ambient light as in No 2 and taking its direction into account I would have used a reflector on the left to counter the shadow.

b) Using flash I would have placed one roughly from the same direction as the ambient light and another from the left more face on to reduce the shadow. I would have offset the intensity of them, having the left at a lower power so as not to 'flatten' the surface.

As for more normal subjects like critters my objective would be where possible to light the area/plane that is in focus and most prominent like the eye from a direction that reveals the most detail/texture. This sounds straight forward but then when we consider many critters consist of round/circular/curved sections it gets pretty difficult

I do not think there is one solution for lighting that fits all subjects and whilst it's easy moving lights around in a studio to take the standard model shot, these critters never listen when you tell them to wait where they are

So for me, 'good' lighting in macro is one that emphasises the surface and detail where prominently in focus (unlike what we would want for a models face) and shows no harsh shadows.

[Manfred M]

I do not think there is one solution for lighting that fits all subjects and whilst it's easy moving lights around in a studio to take the standard model shot, these critters never listen when you tell them to wait where they are

That is no different that photography in the non-macro world. When I shoot in the studio, the subject can be shot in a controlled environment, especially when it comes to lighting. Shooting at an event, for instance a sporting event, then the control of light is usually not something that the photographer has any control over, just like the moving insects.

"Good lighting" is just that, and while the scale of the image will impact the technical aspects of how we light, it doesn't change the laws of physics or how light behaves.

[Dave Humphries]

"Good lighting" is just that, and while the scale of the image will impact the technical aspects of how we light, it doesn't change the laws of physics or how light behaves.

I agree entirely, when I shoot, whether it be say, my granddaughter in the home 'studio', products for eBay (at work) or insects at macro dimensions, the need is there to consider the subject's surfaces, their shape, texture and brightness, then not only light them, but also ensure that what they reflect towards the camera (often revealing the subject's shape) is appropriately light or dark, be that within the shot (e.g. background) or just out of shot (where there may well be white or dark card or cloth acting as reflectors/absorbers).

The sizes of the lights, reflectors and subject all (ideally) maintain as similar 'size ratio' relative to each other as should the distances between them all - e.g. the soft box for insects being much smaller than for portraits, but still placed no more than say, twice the diameter/diagonal from the subject.

Then there's the direction of illumination and its hard/soft-ness to consider - and colour temperature.

I recently took some time to try to discover the best way to 'show off' (i.e. sell) some glass paperweights - in the hand, one can move them about and appreciate their '3 dimensionalness', in a still image of 2 dimensions, less easy. I had considered short video clips of them being held & moved, but I'm not sure that's possible on eBay. So I have to resort to other techniques to hopefully show the sizes and depth of bubbles and coloured elements within the glass, not to mention the external shape and also how to reveal for reading the engraving or etching on the bottom. Bear in mind I need to achieve these results in minutes, not hours, so the results merely have to be 'good enough' rather than perfection. Perhaps I'll show some of these if there's interest.

Cheers,
Dave

[Stagecoach]

That is no different that photography in the non-macro world.

"Good lighting" is just that, and while the scale of the image will impact the technical aspects of how we light, it doesn't change the laws of physics or how light behaves.

Exactly.

[rudi]

I would also consider myself at level 1 as well Rudi with respect to lighting macro. Whilst I have done lots of macro with flash, this is generally of critters and it has been rare to get an occasion where you have the time to try different methods with the same subject. Most of my concentration and effort seems to go into getting the framing and angles I want then next an acceptably focused shot.



My terminology and meaning of "Bad" in the title was only with respect to a comparison of the two example pics I posted which were achieved whilst testing exposure light level comparisons.

If it had of been my intention to produce a 'good' picture of that subject/framing (yes it's boring) I would have classed the flash one as 'bad' as it did not represent what I saw or would want to show. The surface is stone and a rough texture, the direct flash light has flattened it.

To produce what I would consider a 'good' picture of it I think there were two options;

a) Using ambient light as in No 2 and taking its direction into account I would have used a reflector on the left to counter the shadow.

b) Using flash I would have placed one roughly from the same direction as the ambient light and another from the left more face on to reduce the shadow. I would have offset the intensity of them, having the left at a lower power so as not to 'flatten' the surface.

As for more normal subjects like critters my objective would be where possible to light the area/plane that is in focus and most prominent like the eye from a direction that reveals the most detail/texture. This sounds straight forward but then when we consider many critters consist of round/circular/curved sections it gets pretty difficult

I do not think there is one solution for lighting that fits all subjects and whilst it's easy moving lights around in a studio to take the standard model shot, these critters never listen when you tell them to wait where they are

So for me, 'good' lighting in macro is one that emphasises the surface and detail where prominently in focus (unlike what we would want for a models face) and shows no harsh shadows.

Thanks for the helpfull, clear, well written explication Grahame. I do agree totally.