Getting creative with a MACRO lens at wedding

<p>Anyone being creative with a macro lens at wedding? I don't mean shooting flowers and cake but PEOPLE.</p>

<p>You can get extreme close-ups of people with a macro lens which make for very expressive pictures. I'd like to see some examples please.</p>

<p>Also, how do you handle getting close enough to people without bothering them (1m or less).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you do real macro -- that is, 1:1 or greater -- you will not fail to bother people by being too close.</p>

<p>1/1 macro is never used for people shots. 50 to 100cm is more like it.<br>

Wide angle also asks for a short working distance.</p>

 

<p>If you mean close-up, it is wrong to say "macro". The 50-100 cm range is well covered by most non-macto lenses. Ask yourself if you won't be bothered if someone holds a camera 18 inches from your face.</p>

<p>In addition, why would you want to use a wide angle, close up on people's faces unless you were after a particular effect?</p>

<p>Unless you've already been shooting close in on a subject, or that subject is really, really, used to you buzzing around (granted, some people have this skill), I can't imagine someone not noticing a camera in their face. Plus, in many instances, the subject will have to hold still so you can get accurate focus. This is probably why I've not seen the kind of macro shots you mention.</p>

<p>I don’t know why a MACRO lens is needed. My Sigma 17-50mm<br />F2.8 gets me very close if needed. But people are moving fast. IMHO it would<br />probably take too long to set up a shot like the wedding canopy in the<br />reflection of the eye glasses of a spectator … and they would think you are<br />crazy.</p>

<p>The bride may have some issues later with a 1:1 shot of that little booger in her nose that she thinks no one notices, as well as the 4 foot trail of toilet paper stuck to her shoe. And Aunt Edna's wedgie.</p>

<p>my 70-200 2.8 gets close too, but I don't typically shoot that close...not very flattering :)</p>

<p>I've used my 105mm macro lens as a telephoto portrait lens, to allow myself greater control over focus, but never at a "macro" distance from the subject. I'm usually 10 feet away from the subject with that lens just to get the head framed. The lens makes for a good portrait lens, IMO. But I wouldn't want my bride to see her pores up-close and personal. </p>

<p>You guys are missing the point. A macro lens can be used at more comfortable distance and still produce a shot that a regular tele cannot.</p>

<p>If sharpness is a concern then you haven't discovered the clarity slider.</p>

<p>Although I use a regular tele for portraits, my best shots are often made with a macro lens, whether shooting products or people. I was wondering if others have discovered the broader benefits of a macro tele but apparently most limit themselves to shooting flowers and insects. </p>

<p>Hocus--why not post a sample of your discovery? I am curious.</p>

<p>Hocus, you know, you did say "extreme close-ups" in your original post. Not to be rude, but maybe we all thought you meant exactly that. But if you don't mean "extreme close-up", then what do you mean? I'm curious too. Some examples would be great. </p>

<p>My 105mm Macro is the longest lens I own. I use it for anything that I need to bring closer, and I love the fine focus ability I have with it. It takes great portraits and even wildlife photos sometimes - I mean elephants, not insects. But I am not really sure, other than focus control, what it brings me that a regular 105 mm would not, at least from a distance. Can you elaborate?</p>

<p>By extreme close up I mean a tight head shot where you cut the hair and chin.</p>

<p>Because I respect my clients' privacy, I will withhold from posting personal pictures. Take this example I picked up from the net.</p>

<p>I dial in f/8 and get within 50 - 100 cm to get a similar effect. If your clients pose, it's not a problem to get this close. For candids it's of course a nuisance. I love these shots, if used properly.</p>

<p><strong>Moderator Note:</strong> Hocus, unfortunately, it is against guidelines to post any image not taken by yourself, so I must remove them. You may post a link to an image, though. Sorry.</p>

<p>Hi Hocus - Thanks for posting these examples. They are pretty cool. I must say that I have not tried that tight a head shot with my clients, but maybe now I will. With the macro lens to give it the tightly controlled focus, and an interesting veil texture, it could be excellent.<br>

I've done a lot of side-view portraits that are a little further out, with 3/4 of the head and the full face showing. Usually taken while the subject is off in his/her own world, thinking, and doesn't notice the photographer. Here's one where the client didn't mind my using it...<br>

<img src="http://www.jspencerphotography.com/misc/elephant-1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Here are the links to the removed images. I cannot make such shots with my regular tele. Perhaps with 50mm but I haven't tried it.</p>

<p>http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1566/200804/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1566-419379.jpg</p>

<p>http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/5479/5479,1213387081,376/stock-photo-extreme-closeup-portrait-of-young-businessman-isolated-in-white-background-13722106.jpg</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You can get extreme close-ups of people with a macro lens which make for very expressive pictures. . . You guys are missing the point. <strong><em>A macro lens can be used at more comfortable distance and still produce a shot that a regular tele cannot. . . .</em></strong> Although I use a regular tele for portraits, my best shots are often made with a macro lens, whether shooting products or people. I was wondering if others have discovered the broader benefits of a macro tele but apparently most limit themselves to shooting flowers and insects. <strong><em>By extreme close up I mean a tight head shot where you cut the hair and chin.</em></strong> . . .Take this example I picked up from the net. I dial in f/8 and get within 50 - 100 cm to get a similar effect.<strong><em> If your clients pose, it's not a problem to get this close. For candids it's of course a nuisance.</em></strong> I love these shots, if used properly. <strong><em>I cannot make such shots with my regular tele. Perhaps with 50mm but I haven't tried it.</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not sure that the two sample images to which you linked, were taken with a macro lens in a macro mode.</p>

<p>I suspect the woman was taken with somewhere between 70mm to 200mm and the other shot was a slightly shorter FL (relative to 135 format). My other guess is the picture of the woman was cropped very tightly in PP from the Full Frame image. But maybe I am wrong? Do you have the tech specs?</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>The minimum focussing distance for the 85/1.8 is just under 3ft and for the 135/2 is dead on 3ft. Both those lenses at their Minimum FD, give a tight head shot just about as you describe.</p>

<p>This is a Full Frame crop of the 135/2 at a working SD of about 6ft:<br /><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/13431494-md.jpg" alt="" /><br />Obviously, if I went closer, the shot would be tighter.</p>

<p>In fact, as I collect shooting trivia for my later reference and use in the field - I know that at the closest FD on the 135/2 gives a Very Tight Head Shot, with about 6” Vertical FoV.<br>

Also I note that 6”, is about the distance from the middle of the Forehead to the Jaw Line of an Adult.<br />So the 135/2 can do this, if required:<br /><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/13431713-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>***</p>

<p>More Shooting Trivia:<br />The 50/1.4 used at around SD = 2ft -3ft, gives you that Tight Head Shot.<br />At 2ft it just frames the head (Horizontal Camera Orientation) and at 3ft provides some neck and air in the shot.<br />This is a full frame crop at about SD = 2’4”:<br /><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/13431493-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="700" /> <br />Obviously, there are enough Pixies in the "FF" sensor to crop this a bit tighter, from forehead to jaw line, if that is what you require and still have reasonable Image Quality.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>If I wanted “<em>a more comfortable shooting distance</em>”, I would grab for my rings - NOT a macro lens.,<br>

Never leave home without the set of three extension tubes: light weight, inexpensive and oh so versatile.<br>

With a 12mm tube on a 200mm lens, we get that Very Tight Head Shot, you require – (about 6” FoV Vertical) at a “comfortable” shooting distance of about 8ft.</p>

<p>This Bride and Groom were having an hissy fit and I didn’t want to get too close to their fight.<br />This is full frame crop and these folk are about 8 inches tall, including tentacles.<br>

<br />I was shooting at about 7ft from them using FL = 160mm, with a 12mm extension tube on the EF70 - 200/2.8. <br /><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/13431712-md.jpg" alt="" /><br>

(Well . . . it was the first sample shot I found where I was using the 12mm tube on the 70 to 200/2.8 and they kind of resemble a Married Couple) <br>

***</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, how do you handle getting close enough to people without bothering them (1m or less).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By me previously having created: Rapport.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>PS - Yes: I do use a Macro Lens for Candid Portraiture. <br>

But my 100/2.8M is used by Accident or Necessity rather than by design or purposeful selection, as the commentary explains under this picture: <a href="../photo/10738709&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10738709&size=lg</a></p>

<p>Thanks for the elaborate post. Theory and practice are quite different. You CAN get a tight head shot by getting within 3 feet, by using rings and by cropping extensively BUT practice has shown that:</p>

<p>a) the slightest movement of the model takes you closer than the minimum focus distance and many shots will be out of focus. Still, shots taken with my macro lens at 2 feet are stronger than shots from 135/2 at 3 feet.</p>

<p>b) macro rings are very restrictive, I tried them and they were no fun. I'd rather screw on a macro lens and get a really good shot than mess with rings and produce a decent picture at best.</p>

<p>c) while a small crop is OK, cropping extensively doesn't yield good quality prints. It's also less fun than playing around with a special lens. By the same logic, you could use a wide angle lens for portrait and crop.</p>

<p>It's a pity you use your macro lens <em>by accident </em>rather than deliberately. To each his own.</p>

<p> Well I am not sure of your intent: -<br>

Do you want to shoot the breeze; argue the toss; . . . <br>

or was your OP and subsequent posts on this thread requesting to see some practical examples (not just theory) of very tight head shots and with them the explanations as to how they were derived?</p>

<p><strong><em>a) the slightest movement of the model . . . etc</em></strong><strong><em></em></strong><br>

Using a Macro lens at very small DoF, if the Subject moves the eye will be OoF, too.<br>

<strong><em> </em></strong><br>

<strong><em>b) macro rings are very restrictive . . . I'd rather screw on a macro lens and get a really good shot than mess with rings and produce a decent picture at best.</em></strong><br>

Fine: no issue if you don't like using rings. But a 12mm ring on a telephoto lens can make good shots . . .</p>

<p><strong><em> </em></strong><br>

<strong><em>c) By the same logic, you could use a wide angle lens for portrait and crop.</em></strong><br>

Well, if we want to be silly, we can stretch all examples to extremes – I made no mention of cropping <em><strong>extensively.</strong></em></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>"It's a pity you use your macro lens <em>by accident </em>rather than deliberately. To each his own."</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>- - - or do you just want to selectively quote bits and twist the meaning, perhaps with the intent to raise ire?</p>

<p>Like I asked previously, in another thread - when you write to your clients and prospects, is your general conversation as seemingly aggressive and provocative?</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There's no aggression or provocation in my posts. I thanked you a couple of times for your input, no need to get upset. You are a friendly source of information, not a client.</p>

<p>Examples of tight head shots with explanation would be nice indeed.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>OK: I must have misunderstood the meaning of and need to include the last two sentences.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Examples of tight head shots with explanation would be nice indeed"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Umm - I don't understand. I thought we just did that?<br />There are three above: one using a 135mm, one using a 50mm and one (simulated) using a 70 to 200 and a 12mm extension ring.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>OK--just happened to shoot the below at my niece's wedding on Saturday. But these are not wide angle. The focal length was 68mm, with my Tamron 28-75mm lens, which has a limited macro mode. I am not a fan of 'just the eyelashes in focus', and this only works OK since my niece is very slim, with a slim face.</p><div></div>

<p>I am still learning with my macro rings. So far, I find that my D200's meter does not seem to "see" the light change with these rings and I have to remember to "overexpose" (at least as far as the camera meter thinks) if I am going to end up with the correct exposure. When shooting at an event, I'd maybe forget to do that compensation with everything else going on. I could reset the exposure compensation but I might forget to turn it off. So I'll keep my rings to lower-pressure shooting scenarios for now. Maybe when paid events get to be old hat, I'll try it - because it had not occurred to me to use them for events. </p>

<p>I think the shooting angle becomes more and more important the tighter in you are framing the subject. Would you agree with that, WW? I like your angle on the 50mm portrait, above. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think the <strong><em>shooting angle</em></strong> becomes more and more important <strong><em>the tighter in you are framing the subject.</em></strong> Would you agree with that . . .?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I agree.<br>

But there are other considerations and I believe we need to look beyond <strong><em>Shooting Angle</em></strong> and the <strong><em>Tight Framing</em></strong>. </p>

<p>Recognising these following examples of “framing tightly” <strong><em>are slightly looser framing</em></strong> than the OP’s definition <em>“</em><em>a tight head shot where you cut the hair and chin”</em> , let me explain what I mean (relative to 135 or “Full Frame” cameras).<br>

If we <strong><em>Frame</em></strong> a Subject <strong><em>Tightly </em></strong>with a 50mm lens and a 135mm lens and contrast and compare the results. And if the <strong><em>Shooting Angle</em></strong> is the same for both shots, the Subject will appear quite similar, provided the <strong><em>Shooting Angle</em></strong> is not too severe apropos as to how the <strong><em>Compression</em></strong> (of the face) will be seen.</p>

<p>E.g.: in Nadine’s two shots above, if the same framed shots were taken with a 135mm lens at the SAME <strong><em>Shooting Angle</em></strong> - the Length of the Face from Forehead to Chin would appear slightly more compressed. (And likely Nadine would have been standing on a ladder, to take the shots).</p>

<p>OTOH, if we made the same comparison between my B&W shot using the 50mm lens and had I taken a similar shot with the same framing using a 135mm lens - the Compression of the Face would be NOT as noticeable in the final print.</p>

<p>So in these two samples, even though the Shooting Angle might remain the same – the different Focal Lengths of the lenses used to achieve the Same Framing, would also play a role in what we see as the final Portrait.<br>

So, from this point of view, we might conclude that: provided we keep our Shooting Angle about perpendicular to the Eye Level of the Subject, (as per my first two examples), then we can generally disregard the FL of the Lens important, <em>in the context of your (Jennifer's) question.</em></p>

<p>But let’s look at when we get a wider FL and also Frame Tightly:<br>

My feeling is that there is a “cut off point” at around FL = 35mm whereat the FL becomes a more dominate player; also a more dominate player is the POSITION of the Major Subject Element within the (tight) Frame.</p>

<p>This is Full Frame crop of the 16 to 35/2.8 on a 5D used at FL = 35mm:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/13440513-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="500" /><br>

Disregarding the PERSPECTIVE created by the close camera viewpoint and even though the Camera Angle is still close to perpendicular to the Subject, I see the Positioning of the Subject within the Frame beginning to play a more dominate role in the OVERALL Portrait.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>This is a Full Frame Crop using the 24/1.4 on a 5D:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/13440515-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="500" /><br>

Here I see the <strong><em>Positioning of the Subject within the Frame</em></strong> even more important for the emphasis of the key element (The Glasses) and also I see the <strong><em>Angle of the Subject</em></strong> (to the camera axis) playing more of a role, also, even though her angle to the camera is less, than the Man's in the image above.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>However, compare and contrast this Full Frame Crop of a 50mm lens used on an APS-C:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/13440514-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="500" /><br>

Where here I see that the off centre composition is “nice”; and also it helps to emphasise the Shallow DoF; and emphasises the Lighting’s Direction; and gives the Subject somewhere to look . . . but the “lead in” and “lead out” provided by the off centred composition and the similar Angle of the Subject to the camera, is not as powerful as in the “Sunglasses” shot or the shot of the “Man at a Bar”</p>

<p>So yes, I agree that the Shooting Angle is important as we get to Very Tight Portrait Shots -</p>

<p>Also Shooting Angle is an important <em>consideration</em> in regard to the Camera's Viewpoint (position): for example we could keep the same Camera Angle for Nadine's shots and use a 200mm lens and Nadine would definitely require a ladder or a balcony, from which to frame those same shots.</p>

<p>Also, it is important to remember that as the Shooting Distance gets closer, the Shooting Angle changes more rapidly, with LESS linear movement of the camera - i.e. six inches up or down movement when we are in tight, will have more impact, than moving the camera six inches for an half shot . . . This is one of the predominate advantages of using shorter lenses (like 35 to 85 rather than 70 to 200) for "candid" work at Weddings - less linear movement of the camera = more effective coverage and avoidance of the clutter. </p>

<p>(Thank you for the compliment on the B&W; 5D + 50/1.4: F/5 @ 1/50s @ ISO100; she is in deep shade laying under a tree – sunlight from camera right and a large white beach towel hanging in front of me, for illumination.)</p>

<p>***</p>

<p><strong>Returning to the original questions asked,</strong> specifically, the Very Tight Framing definition i.e. <em>“</em><em>a tight head shot where you cut the hair and chin” </em>and this comment<br>

“the slightest movement of the model takes you closer than the minimum focus distance and many shots will be out of focus. Still, shots taken with my macro lens at 2 feet are stronger than shots from 135/2 at 3 feet.”</p>

<p>I’ve been messing around with my 100/2.8M and my 135/2 and ET.<br>

I made these to try to get a better understanding of the OP’s points and the whole concept of this thread in general.<br>

The distance from ET’s eyes to the top of the glass is a little under 12inches – so my framing constitutes a Tight Head Shot as defined by this thread.<br>

The Camera Angle is about 20° down, to somewhat mimic the sample image of the woman in the link provided.<br>

This first image is the 135/2 and the SD is 4ft:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/13440773-lg.jpg" alt="" /> </p>

<p>Now here is the most similar shot with the 100/2.8M, but the Shooting Distance required for the similar framing is about 2’6”:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/13440772-lg.jpg" alt="" /> <br>

Therefore -<br>

As the thread is about:</p>

<ul>

<li>tight head shots and using macros lenses for close portraiture; </li>

<li>AND additionally questions emphasising how to effectively work close to Subjects; </li>

<li>and also the difficulties in shooing candid portraits by this method. </li>

</ul>

<p>I remain unclear on the following two points:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>What does <strong>“stronger”</strong> mean: “<em>shots taken with my macro lens at 2 feet are <strong>stronger</strong> than shots from 135/2 at 3 feet</em>”. Perhaps an example?</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>If we can agree that there is very little difference between the two ET shots – and even if we cannot agree, but we can assume for the sake of this question, that there is no difference: </li>

</ul>

<p>Why would we choose to use a 100/2.8M (1 stop slower; AF slower; AF likely to hover; ) at a close 2’6” “in your face” shooting distance?<br>

When we could use the 135/2 (1 stop faster; Lightning Fast AF; snapping AF) at a more leisurely Shooting Distance of 4ft?</p>

<p>WW<br>

</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>