What's your biggest challenge specific to macro photography?

[GLSonn]

Almost a year ago, someone here asked the more general question: What is your biggest challenge?

I suspect that that person had been reading some Ryan Levesque. I've learned about him too.

In any case, as the subject line says, I'm sincerely interested in knowing...

What's your biggest challenge specific to macro photography?

Unlike the other poster, I will be back to read your replies.

[DanK]

Gary,

It really depends on the type of macro photography you want to do. The challenges in shooting live bugs, for example, are very different from shooting flowers, and shooting flowers indoors has different challenges than shooting indoors. And it varies depending on the degree of magnification you want.

If you can clarify more what you would like to do, I may be able to offer some suggestions, as I do several types of macro photography.

Dan

[GLSonn]

Gary,

It really depends on the type of macro photography you want to do. The challenges in shooting live bugs, for example, are very different from shooting flowers, and shooting flowers indoors has different challenges than shooting indoors. And it varies depending on the degree of magnification you want.

If you can clarify more what you would like to do, I may be able to offer some suggestions, as I do several types of macro photography.

Dan

Hey Dan,

That's true. So let me amend the question this way...

What's your biggest challenge specific to the type(s) of macro photography you do?

I'm sure some folks specialize in just one type, others in two or more. This should allow everyone to answer accordingly.

If you do lots of types, don't feel like you have to respond for each and every one. Maybe pick a favorite or three.

[xpatUSA]

A bit tongue-in-cheek but my biggest challenge at my age is getting all the stuff together and remembering how I used it.

[Geoff F]

Over exposure hot spots from shiny surfaces on insects are my chief problem. This can also occur with some flowers particularly in sunshine when over saturation can add to the problems. In fact any shiny surface can be difficult.

So far, I haven't found any magic solution. Avoiding direct sunlight is a help but some surfaces will still produce lighter spots even in shade. Flash used with great care can actually produce some benefits by lightening the shadows and allowing some light equalisation on the hot spots. My only answer has been careful editing work. Polarisers don't help because the light variation issues are beyond their range.

And, of course, when photographing non static scenes fly/run away subjects or wind rock are frequently troublesome particularly when shooting for focus stacking.

ps. And in addition to Ted's comment; standing up afterwards is becoming more of a challenge each year. That is where a tripod is particularly handy!

[GLSonn]

A bit tongue-in-cheek but my biggest challenge at my age is getting all the stuff together and remembering how I used it.

Absolutely valid. I'm right there with you!

[GLSonn]

Over exposure hot spots from shiny surfaces on insects are my chief problem. This can also occur with some flowers particularly in sunshine when over saturation can add to the problems. In fact any shiny surface can be difficult.

So far, I haven't found any magic solution. Avoiding direct sunlight is a help but some surfaces will still produce lighter spots even in shade. Flash used with great care can actually produce some benefits by lightening the shadows and allowing some light equalisation on the hot spots. My only answer has been careful editing work. Polarisers don't help because the light variation issues are beyond their range.

And, of course, when photographing non static scenes fly/run away subjects or wind rock are frequently troublesome particularly when shooting for focus stacking.

Thanks for all that, Geoff.

Grrr...wind rock. That's one of mine.

[GLSonn]

ps. And in addition to Ted's comment; standing up afterwards is becoming more of a challenge each year. That is where a tripod is particularly handy!

I'm missed your PS earlier. Assuming you have a tripod, which one do you use?

[billtils]

Depth of field in live nature shots . Focus stacking is the answer for static subjects but not much help for bees, bugs, flies and other beasties that move.

Some cameras incorporate focus stacking in their shooting software, for example the Nikon D850 - but I'm not going to spend the money ditching my D810 just for that.

Which leads to this question: has anyone used the new Helicon FB Tube? (https://www.heliconsoft.com/helicons...licon-fb-tube/).

[GLSonn]

Depth of field in live nature shots . Focus stacking is the answer for static subjects but not much help for bees, bugs, flies and other beasties that move.

Some cameras incorporate focus stacking in their shooting software, for example the Nikon D850 - but I'm not going to spend the money ditching my D810 just for that.

Which leads to this question: has anyone used the new Helicon FB Tube? (https://www.heliconsoft.com/helicons...licon-fb-tube/).

Yeah, depth of field problems are inherent with macros.

Sorry, I can't say anything about the Helicon Tube. Hopefully someone else can.

[DanK]

Not to repeat myself, but could you say what sort(s) of macro you are interested in? The answers to your questions are going to be random if you don't. For example, since you ask about tripods, the support I use in studio macros would be entirely useless in chasing bugs. Another example: Geoff pointed out that a CPL doesn't necessarily help much with shiny bug carapaces, but it can be very helpful in studio macros of plants. Not much reason to write out an explanation that is not on topic.

[GLSonn]

Not to repeat myself, but could you say what sort(s) of macro you are interested in? The answers to your questions are going to be random if you don't. For example, since you ask about tripods, the support I use in studio macros would be entirely useless in chasing bugs. Another example: Geoff pointed out that a CPL doesn't necessarily help much with shiny bug carapaces, but it can be very helpful in studio macros of plants. Not much reason to write out an explanation that is not on topic.

Personally, I'm interested in virtually all types of macros. But that's not the point of my question.

I'm wondering what you (plural) find to be a challenge, no matter which type you are interested in. Thus, the more open-ended question.

The various, somewhat "random" (to use your term), responses I've seen so far are all excellent. They're the kind I was hoping to see, so keep 'em coming.

[William W]

. . . the point of my question >>> I'm wondering what you (plural) find to be a challenge, no matter which type you are interested in. Thus, the more open-ended question. . .

For me the most difficult challenge is "getting into it."

I studied Photography, formally, i.e. as (two) courses of study. Within those, was macro and micro photography: neither held a great interest for me, but I had to pass the exams, which I did, excellently.

The same (lack of) interest of my personal involvement in Landscape Photography applies.

I liken this to the fact that I can appreciate, understand and to some extent critique Champagne, but I don't like drinking it, as it simply doesn't float my boat.

There are times (actually like right now) when I am applying extreme self discipline to make some really "OK" macro images - and that is because I cannot get out and do as much street or portrait work.

I am in awe of folk such as (for only one example) Dan (here at CiC), who has the self discipline to turn out amazing Macro-photography - and (for only one other example) Donald in his pursuit of B&W Landscape work.

... so returning to your question: my biggest hurdle is to actually get out my macro gear and use it, properly.

WW

[Donald]

I am in awe of folk such as (for only one example) Dan (here at CiC), who has the self discipline to turn out amazing Macro-photography - and (for only one other example) Donald in his pursuit of B&W Landscape work.

Thank you for the compliment, Bill.

For me macro work is a spin off for getting a 90mm TS-E lens. I already had a 24mm tilt & shift and was so taken with what I could do with it, I pushed the boat out and got a 90mm to go with it. I also got a 2x teleconverter at the same time, so I have, in effect, 4 tilt and shifts - 24mm, 48mm, 90mm, 180mm.

But, returning to macro, the 90mm is a macro lens. As a 90mm it has a 2:1 ratio, which is okay. But, put on the telecoverter and it becomes a 1:1 macro. And that is tremendous.

It has opened a whole new world of photography of the landscape. But it is one of the hardest challenges I've faced. It's a whole new ball game so far as focusing and depth of field is concerned. Expert macro photographers could have told me that, but even then you don't appreciate just how challenging it is until you try it. And I am still learning. A month ago I saw a piece of seaweed washed up on a harbour wall. Of a dozen frames I shot, only one is anything like acceptable. I have still to figure out how to get acceptable (for me) depth of field into the photograph.

Am now studying focus stacking tutorials and finding out what it is and how to do it. With photography everyday is a learning day, if you open yourself to the opportunity. The first lesson for the photographer planning to do focus stacking with out of doors images is - Make sure there is no wind.

[billtils]

... Am now studying focus stacking tutorials and finding out what it is and how to do it. With photography everyday is a learning day, if you open yourself to the opportunity.... The first lesson for the photographer planning to do focus stacking with out of doors images is - Make sure there is no wind.

Donald

You could do a lot worse than review Dan's threads here!

As far as indoor/studio work goes, you can do what you like. The perceived wisdom is that perfect front to back focus is a must, and it certainly is important in the kind of work that Dan does, but there are times when not having everything in focus will give a more creative shot. For example, this is one of my favourite macros but I'd never dream of entering it in a competition!



Outdoors is something else though. I don't know what Canon body/bodies you have but some probably include an automated stacking option, akin to what is in the Nikon D850 and that should take care of some of the outdoor issues. If the concern is about beasties flying away a longish lens +/- a TC is handy - some of my favourite close-ups were taken with a 300mm prime either on its own or with a 1.4TC for example in these CIC threads Dragon fly, no macro and A 'nother 'nolia and a visiting bee

[DanK]

Thanks, Bill and WW.

Re the original question: the two types of macro that I have done a lot (as Bill has pointed out, one of them clearly veers into "close-up") are studio shots of flowers and field images of live bugs. They are entirely different types of photography. Over coffee this morning, I jotted down this list:



The magnification values are guesses.

This is only for the way I do this work. Some people, e.g., the macro photographer Brian Valentine, stack bug shots most of the time. I'm simply not coordinated or fast enough to do that. That in turn points to another major difference that is not in the table: most of the time, shooting bugs requires fast, accurate motion in an attempt to achieve focus before the critter decides to move or leave. I have always had a high failure rate for that reason, but I have to admit that it has become harder with age. Ditto, the contortions sometimes needed to get quickly into position.

Donald, I haven't used Helicon, which is the primary competitor to Zerene. However, I strongly recommend that you download a free trial of Zerene if you haven't. It has important functions that Photoshop lacks. It's quite quick and easy to use. There are good tutorials on the Zerene website, and in my experience, the program's author is very responsive. On more than one occasion, he has quickly answered a question that, it turns out, was clearly answered in his documentation. In macro work, the most difficult stacking problem is halos created by parallax. Zerene has good methods for addressing this. However, that may be less of an issue when stacking landscapes.

I've mentioned this in another post, but if you use Lightroom, Zerene is even easier to use. Zerene provides a plugin that converts the images you select into the file format you want, executes Zerene, and loads them all. I set this to use 16 bit prophoto TIFs and stored the modification. So with just a few mouse clicks, the photos are loaded and ready to stack. And when you close Zerene, it asks you want to do, and one option is to get rid of all of the temporary files that were created, including the TIF files. I've found this a big time-saver. However, I think you need to buy the "prosumer" version for that and some other features.

No, I don't have any vested interest in Zerene...

[GLSonn]

Nothing new to add from me. I'm still too new.

Just want to thank William, Donald, Bill, and Dan for recent contributions. All the info each of you provided is very helpful, no matter what angle (if a pun, intended) you come at it from.

[Manfred M]

Every year or so, I take a look at aspects of photography I have not gotten into. About three years ago, I started into portraiture work and have enjoyed that very much. I looked at it as a way of improving my street photography, but frankly it took on a life of its own and I think I know the direction I want to take as I explore it in more depth.

This winter I had a hard look at still life work, closeup photography and macro work (I borrowed a macro lens from a friend for several months).

I've had some success with still life work (and to some extent enjoyed it). The same comment goes for closeup photography but macro work, I'm on the same side as Bill, I can enjoy someone else's efforts and have done enough myself now to understand the challenges a lot more, but I doubt I will ever consider getting into it seriously (I can to the same conclusion when it comes to bird and sports photography).

[Geoff F]

You mentioned tripods, Gary.

I have the Manfrotto 055 carbon fibre but I wouldn't recommend it. The earlier models were good but the newer one which I purchased as an 'improvement' isn't nearly as good. They have improved the look of the tripod but that came at the expense of practicality. Lots of things which aren't good for the wildlife photographer such as the previously round edged leg locks have been replaced with larger flashy looking square edged locks which catch in every bit of foliage. So I had to saw off those square corners to make them usable.

Carbon fibre is a good idea if you are tramping a long way over rough ground with a heavy back pack of other stuff where every pound of saved weight really makes a difference. I would recommend the use of a ball head for your camera attachment. A quick release/grip pistol handle type is good, particularly for those quick insect shots. No fiddling about with two little twist levers which have to be adjusted so carefully. I have the Manfrotto 'fluid head' which has a large easy turn wheel that gives a totally secure lock. But if you aren't careful, that head will 'bite your fingers'.

When working in dense undergrowth I set the leg length fairly short and gain most of my height using the centre column. This makes moving around a lot easier and quick height adjustments can be made but it does tend to make the whole rig rather unstable so I never take both hands off my camera/tripod.

[GLSonn]

This winter I had a hard look at still life work, closeup photography and macro work (I borrowed a macro lens from a friend for several months).

That's how I got started too - borrowed a lens from my daughter-in-law.