Autofocus and macro photography

[Manfred M]

I was at a presentation on Nature and Wildlife photography yesterday evening by a well known local commercial wildlife photographer, who also happens to be a Nikon Ambassador, Tony Beck.

https://en.nikon.ca/learn-and-explor...tony-beck.html

I don't do a lot of this type of photography, but do try to do this, when I get the chance, so I thought it would be worthwhile sitting through his presentation. I picked up a lot of pointers, but the one that really struck me, given some of the discussions on this forum dealt with macro photography and the use of manual focus. He showed us some of his work and I was surprised to learn that he uses autofocus in 100% of his work, including macro photography.

His technique is to use a single focus point and camera's the focus point controls to move the focus point to where his subject is sitting.. He does not do a lot of focus stacking, but rather tries to frame and shoot his subjects so that they are as close to parallel to the camera's sensor as possible. He primarily shoots the Nikon D850 for macro work and is planning to test the camera's focus stacking functionality as soon as the insects reappear in this part of the world in the spring.

Just as an aside, he also shoots the Nikon D500 and uses nothing other than the Nikkor f/5.6 200-500mm lens for birds and other wildlife. I don't know which lens(es) he uses for macro work.

[pschlute]

Some beautiful images on the link you posted Manfred.

The wonderful thing about photography for me, is that when looking at others work, it shows me there is always something to strive for in my own.

[DanK]

My principle for such things is "if it works for you, great." It certainly doesn't for me. I looked on his site for his macro work, but it's a confusing site and I didn't find it.

I've occasionally use AF for macro, but usually not. The reasons are different things that move (bugs) and things that don't (flowers indoors).

In the case of flowers, one can focus more accurately by picking the precise point one wants--smaller than an AF point--magnifying live view on that point, and focusing manually.

In the case of live bugs, he must be much more coordinated than I am. Generally, bugs don't give me enough time that I can compose, move an AF point to the eyes, and use AF. And focus-and-recompose doesn't work in that case, as the DOF is very narrow and the slightest movement parallel to the lens will ruin the shot. That's why I and many other macro photographers attain focus by rocking the camera slightly.

I generally do do as he does in one respect: when it doesn't matter for the composition, I try to make the subject as close to parallel to the sensor as I can.

Re stacking: it all depends on what you want. Although I don't do work like this, I have seen beautiful macros that have intentionally narrow DOF. However, if you want something like what I'll post below and want to avoid severe diffraction, you have stack.

However, to each her or his own. Whatever technique works for a person is what they should use.

[Stagecoach]

+1 to what Dan has said.

Take for example a bug with an eye that is round, imagine spherical.

With that within the area of the AF point, as indicated in the viewfinder where is the focus plane going to be placed by the camera? It may not be put where you want it.

AF in macro can be used for some subjects but there are many where it will not give the critical accuracy wanted.

[Manfred M]

Dan / Grahame - I understand your point, but yesterday I saw a dozen or so excellent macros shots in the field by a photographer who claims he gets better, more consistent results using the technique I described in #1. He's been shooting this way commercially for decades, so who am I to argue. Whatever works...

From the manual side of things, he shoots virtually 100% on manual (i.e. manual ISO, manual shutter speed and manual aperture). I found his arguments less persuasive on that front and suspect that he continues to use the techniques from his film days. He did say, he started off trying to focus manually too, but found his results were far better when he went autofocus. That being said, he uses single point focus or a very small cluster of central focus points for all of his wildlife work.

I did find a link to some of his macro work and I see a number of the shots he showed yesterday on this site:

https://tony-beck.pixels.com/collections/beautiful+bugs

[DanK]

I shoot bugs entirely in manual mode.

I don't focus manually in the traditional sense of rotating the lens barrel, and I wouldn't be surprised if that were unsuccessful, you would be inadvertently moving the camera enough to make it very difficult to zero in. My "manual" focusing for bugs involves slight movements of the camera.

I'm not terribly impressed by some of those macros. A number of the dragonfly shots have some or even most of the eye out of focus. Maybe that's what he wanted, but it's not what I strive for. I can't see the exif, so I don't know whether this is from a wide aperture or missed focus. E.g., this one: https://tony-beck.pixels.com/feature...tony-beck.html, which has both the eyes and about half of the front part of the face out of focus.

[Manfred M]

Dan - the main difference in the quality of work when one looks at the products that a commercial photographer produces and an advanced amateur like you (and me?) produces is that a commercial photographer creates images that are "good enough". A lot of amateurs work to a higher standard.

[billtils]

This is probably another of those subjects where personal experience and (subconscious) preferences come very much into play, but to expand on Manfred's "... a commercial photographer creates images that are "good enough"..." don't we all?

With that in mind, to add another personal choice to the discussion (and not in any way a recommendation) after 3 or 4 years of birding and a little over 1 year of macro, I use manual, single point or minimal cluster focus for both. The only difference in technique between the two is that I frequently get to the end point in macro by "foot focus", that is, moving back and forth until what I want is as sharp as my camera and eyes will allow. (Probably should add that here "macro" is used for in-the-field flower and insect shots; indoor studio ones are different in that there is of course no "foot focus" and recently I have been trying out shooting tethered).

[DanK]

Dan - the main difference in the quality of work when one looks at the products that a commercial photographer produces and an advanced amateur like you (and me?) produces is that a commercial photographer creates images that are "good enough". A lot of amateurs work to a higher standard.

Good point. But doesn't that also suggest that those of us who try (admittedly, in my case, with limited success) to do better than "good enough" should not emulate the techniques of people are satisfied with that approach? The image of his that I linked to is one that I would have simply discarded in my initial pass through my images. I wouldn't want to practice a technique that produces results like that.

When I first started doing macro, I followed the postings of several superb macro photographers, including the well-known "Lord V" (Brian Valentine). If you want to see what I mean by superb, here is a random posting of Brian's--I literally went to one of the sites he posts on and picked his most recent: https://dgrin.com/discussion/263285/...verfly-visitor. Those are the people I want to emulate, even though I know I will never approach the quality of their work. I try, in my own not very competent way, to do what they do.

[Manfred M]

Dan - as I am not a macro photographer, let me give you the views on this subject from two different commercial photographers I know.

The first is an international award winning wedding / portrait photographer. He told me that after shooting, the average time he spends on an image is in the order of 20 or 30 seconds.

The second is the former Director of Photography for a specialty tool company. He told me that some of his product shots took two or three days to do. This would be for the cover shot and this is just for the getting shot, not the PP work. The vast majority of the work would obviously not take nearly this long.

The definition of "good enough" for post-processing some high end fashion advertising material can run even longer is something I was told by a high-end retoucher.

The nature and wildlife photographer, Tony Beck, that I started this thread on makes most of his money running photography tours, with his images largely being both his advertising material for that part of the business, although he does make some of his income from image sales. So again, a different market and a different level of "quality". Again, his work is "good enough" for Nikon to use him as a Brand Ambassador.

He did mention that this shot has been his biggest money maker and he has sold hundreds of prints of this shot:

https://tony-beck.pixels.com/feature...tony-beck.html



Conclusion: The definition of "good enough" varies by the client and intended end audience.

For us amateurs, the photographer is usually the "client" and we tend to be hard on ourselves...

[DanK]

I think I would use autofocus--and as quickly as possible--if facing a timber wolf

My point is much simpler. Folks often turn to this forum to learn how to do things that are new to them. I certainly do. I think we should point them to techniques that help them master whatever it is. A newbie might think, 'this guy Tony is an established pro, and he just uses AF, so I'll try that approach for macro', without bothering to check and see that some of Tony's macros are not very good. That's not to say that a newbie shouldn't try AF for macro; at least on person on this forum has made this work for him. However, most macro photographers I follow don't rely on it, and a newbie should understand why.

[JBW]

I think I would use autofocus--and as quickly as possible--if facing a timber wolf

My point is much simpler. Folks often turn to this forum to learn how to do things that are new to them. I certainly do. I think we should point them to techniques that help them master whatever it is. A newbie might think, 'this guy Tony is an established pro, and he just uses AF, so I'll try that approach for macro', without bothering to check and see that some of Tony's macros are not very good. That's not to say that a newbie shouldn't try AF for macro; at least on person on this forum has made this work for him. However, most macro photographers I follow don't rely on it, and a newbie should understand why.

small aside: wolves are not the villains pulp fiction makes them out to be.

[JBW]

Dan / Grahame - I understand your point, but yesterday I saw a dozen or so excellent macros shots in the field by a photographer who claims he gets better, more consistent results using the technique I described in #1. He's been shooting this way commercially for decades, so who am I to argue. Whatever works...

From the manual side of things, he shoots virtually 100% on manual (i.e. manual ISO, manual shutter speed and manual aperture). I found his arguments less persuasive on that front and suspect that he continues to use the techniques from his film days. He did say, he started off trying to focus manually too, but found his results were far better when he went autofocus. That being said, he uses single point focus or a very small cluster of central focus points for all of his wildlife work.

I did find a link to some of his macro work and I see a number of the shots he showed yesterday on this site:

https://tony-beck.pixels.com/collections/beautiful+bugs

I have been told that I am a very competent bug shooter. If that's true it's because i have taken the offered advice and tried to make it work for me. Tony Becks advice sounds strange but I'll give it a try. Thanks for the heads up.

[James G]

Interesting Thread. I shoot quite a bit of insect macro in the season..

I don't really know if I do it right! This is mostly because I shoot 'in the wild' and it very much depends on conditions of light, wind, and location and how 'co-operative' the beastie is.

However, my standard approach is to preset my ISO and use aperture control. I usually have a ttl macro twin flash attached but often try initial captures without it since I have a pet theory that a fair few subjects react to metering illumination if it comes on. I also find that they can react to autofocus engaging, presumably due to ultrasonics. So I also start a capture using manual focus. Like Bill, I tend to move/sway the camera and monopod, to get focus, rather than 'fiddlle' with the lens. I also find that holding the rig a bit away from my eye and using a limited view o the field enables me to get sharper focus more easily. I do set single (centre) point focus.

As regards focus stacking... I've never fouind it particularly useful since the beasties,even in cold conditions, are always moving (and that assumes no breeze). I have experimented on occasion with burst shooting and moving the camera simultaneously, but have come to conclusion that I am too old to manage all the physical co-ordination involved. I do use stacking for fungi and mosss/lichens etc, I can keep up with them....

But, it very much comes down to the shooting conditions as to exactly what I will choose to do.

One final point.. sometimes I have the 'l;eisure' to consider an 'artistic' framing, maybe 5% of the time, otherwise it is 'catch as catch can'.

I took a look at Tony Beck's images and though some are excellent, I tend to agree with previous comments regarding his choice of focus. I also found his colours somewhat over saturated on some images,. But, I am in the UK and we certainly do not see the more exotic and brilliant species in other countries. And.... we get a lot of cloudy days.
I would love to have taken the shot of his Timber Wolf, but if that's macro I'm giving up! .... and running fast.....

[DanK]

I agree about stacking bugs. I have never managed to do it successfully. I am not convinced I could have done it when younger. Some of the best, however, do, including the fellow Brian Valentine I mentioned above. What is more amazing yet is that he does it with an MP-E 50 at magnifications well above 1:1, which makes it even harder. BTW, the MP-E 50 isn't an AF lens; he focuses by moving the camera on a makeshift monopod.

I too often don't have a chance to frame carefully, unless it's cold out or the bug is moribund. I have a very high discard rate as a result; between the movement of the bugs, the movement of the plants they are on, and my own lack of coordination, most shots are either out of focus or not well enough framed--most often the former. If I were still shooting film, the cost would be prohibitive.

I haven't done much during the past two summers, but I am hoping to get back into it soon.

One other technique that may be useful: I always keep a protective filter on my lens when shooting bugs. One reason is that I am very close to things that I don't wan't touching the lens. The other is that I sometimes steady the camera on whatever surface the bug is on--say, a wooden railing--and achieve focus by sliding the camera on it. The point of contact is the filter frame, and over time, it gets worn. I'd rather wear out the metal of a filter than the filter ring on the lens.

[James G]

+1 regarding use of a protective filter, I have one fitted to all my lenses.

[Artshot]

As an old person I'm not being cynical when saying Nikon wants to sell Autofocus lenses.

As a newbe I get to enjoy the freedom of making uninformed reckless equipment purchase decisions. I find autofocus overly complex, and it never works when you need it most. I spent all my money on old quality made lenses that are simply a pleasure to use. I love clicking an aperture ring to change exposure, and enjoy the smooth focus of a fabulously crafted mechanical marvel.
The autofocus lens that I would truly love to own costs around $10,000 more than the version I have. I'm always going to have a lot of blurry flying bird photos.
Experience and education always change things, but for now I'm enjoying my manual focus world.