Equipment tips for new mushroom photographer?

[pgwerner]

Well, I tried asking this on the Macrophotography.org forum, but that forum appears to be

abandoned....

 

I'm a graduate student in mycology and have recently decided to get into mushroom

photography pretty seriously as a way of making archival pictures of the species I'm

working on and, of course, as an enjoyable creative outlet.

 

I'm taking an introductory B&W photo class right now, basically 50mm B&W photography

with darkroom processing and printing, and am thoroughly enjoying it. I'm also shopping

for the equipment I'll need for color macro photography. I'm looking for tips and

recommendations in this area from those with some experience in macro photography.

 

Until digital SLRs become a lot more affordable, I've decided to stick with a film SLR and

simply do slide-to-digital transfers. The equipment I'm thinking of picking up is largely

based on a web page by a mushroom photographer with a similar camera to mine:

 

http://pkaminski.homestead.com/photographingmushrooms.html

 

My camera is a Canon Elan IIE. Here's what I'm thinking of picking up for macro

photography:

 

Lens: Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro 1:1

 

Flash: Canon Speedlite 420EX

 

Tripod: Benbo Trekker or Mini-Trekker

 

Tripod Head: Ball? Pan? Benbo or non-Benbo? Advice needed......

 

Film: Fuji Velvia Professional (slide film)

 

(Film Scanner: They have good ones at school - don't know the model offhand, but I won't

need to buy one for a while.)

 

Is this a good setup for mushroom photography or would you recommend something else?

I'm particularly wondering about the flash setup. I want to be able to do fill flash, though

under the low-light conditions in which one often finds mushrooms, that may be a lot of

"fill" - I still want to be able to pull this off without a harsh "flash" look, if possible. Can I

do this with a single 420EX or will I need something more elaborate, like a bracket setup, a

multi-flash unit, or possibly a ring flash? Flash is the area of photography I probably have

the least understanding of at this point in my photo education, so any advice would be

most valued. Note that the above equipment already entails a great deal of expense for

me, so I really want to avoid going too crazy with the flash setup, which could easily

surpass the combined cost of the rest of my system if it gets too elaborate. (I got serious

sticker shock when I saw the price of the Canon MT-24EX macro flash unit, nice though it

may be.)

 

Thanks,

Peter

[arnabdas]

"Lens: Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro 1:1"

 

This is a fine macro lens and I can personally attest to it's capabilities. I think a close-focusing wide angle lens would be very helpful, too -- for taking photos of mushrooms in their habitat.

 

"Tripod: Benbo Trekker or Mini-Trekker "

 

Check out the Gitzo Explorer 2220 (Aluminium or CF) tripods too -- they are said to be almost as flexible as the Benbos with more stability.

[johnb]

As far as flash goes, you can do most of your macro/mushroom photos with the built in flash on the Elan IIe.

 

As far as lens goes, if you can wait/afford it you should go for the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 lens (I own one and its outstanding).

 

As far as tripod, any tripod will do (even the cheap ones) but tougher top dollar ones are better.

 

 

Good Luck<div></div>

[jim_gifford]

Some people go to extreme lengths to keep fungus away from their optics, but you want to let fungus penetrate your optical path all the way to the film plane, repetitively, on purpose?

 

<scratching bald head, walking away muttering>

 

Be well,

[stuart_whatling]

The Tamron is a fine lens but I'd second the suggestion for a close focussing wide-angle as well - something like a 24mm will allow you to get the all-important contextual details of the fungus' natural environment. Sigma used to do some good ones which focus pretty close and are widely available cheap second hand.

 

As for flash, a lot depends on how damp the growing conditions are. Slime-covered fungi in wet beech forests will give you horrible reflections with a built-in flash or a ring flash. Better to have a flash bracket and ideally a small collapsable soft-box. Even something like a clip-on Omnibounce will help reduce the specular reflections.

[awahlster]

I do quite a bit of mushroom and fungus photography.

 

Your choice of lens is very good you won't need more then 2-1 magnification very often and the tamron is sharp as a tack. Save the money for film the Canon 100mm is a great lens but not worth the cost differance for what you are doing.

 

Film good choice you might also try cheap old Kodak Elitechrome 100 a little less saturated but you might like the more realistic colors and save a couple of dollars a roll.

 

FLASH this is the big one. the onboard will be worthless at the close distances you will be shooting the angle is all wrong. I strongly suggest you get The Book beyond Basics by George Lepp and read up on his use of cross polarized lighing. It will double you flash expenses but you can work into it slowly. To start I would plan of getting a flash mounted soft box and a couple of reflectors.

 

As to the tripod Don't spend the money for Carbon fiber the expense to return is way to high for you right now. If you were combining this with backpacking then maybe the couple pound lost would be worth it.

Look for any good pod that will allow low level and as many different ways to get low as possible. I use a Berlebach wooden tripod that is huge but with a short coluumn gets down to 6 inches. I also have a angled plate I made to allow the ball head to clamp to the bottom of a leg and get about 4 inches off the ground. VERY VERY stable that way.

 

Start out with a less expensive ball head as you are going to have much weight on it Velbon makes some good ones. I use a Velbon branded Canon that I really like. You can find these on ebay for under $50.00

 

Anyway some thoughts.

[bert_krages1]

Regarding the tripod, I recommend that you consider getting a Bogen Super Clamp with the brass fitting that allows you to fasten the ball head and move it and down a tripod leg. This will enable you to get low enough to photograph the undersides of fungus at ground level. Some people recommend tripods where you mount the ball head on the bottom end of the column but this method can be a royal pain. I have used the super clamp successfully on a Bogen 3011 although my standard tripod for this application is 3033 (most people think I am nuts carrying the eleven pounds or so up a mountain but I don't find it to be such a big deal). To make things easier, I keep two heads on the tripod; one on the column and one on the super clamp. I use either the Bogen 108 (inexpensive on eBay) or the 3262QR. Both have quick release plates which make switching the camera from column to super clamp quite convenient.

[sheldonnalos]

I think that in general the gear you have selected will do great for macro photography. I think the most complicated portion of the photography will be getting the lighting right. I would add a off shoe camera cord to the 420EX, so you can control the lighting angle a little more. I'd also add a couple collapseable reflectors to your kit, you'll get much better lighting effects if you use them to fill in the darker shadows or bounce the flash off the reflector. A mini soft box for the flash head might not be bad either.

 

Personally, I'd vote for the ball head over the pan/tilt head. They're smaller and easier to use, but I guess it boils down to personal preference.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Sheldon

[dan_fromm1]

Golly, gee, folks, I must be a great idiot and take horrible closeup photos. You all agree that a tripod is necessary when shooting closeup.

 

In the last 30+ years I've taken tens of thousands of hand-held closeup shots with my little Nikon SLRs, MicroNikkors attached as Nikon recommends, and always with flash illumination. I've never had a problem shooting closeup that a tripod would solve.

 

When I use a little press camera (in context, effectively a field camera) closeup then I have to use a tripod. But handheld SLRs with flash at magnfications not much above 1:1 have worked well for me.

 

When I work much above 1:1 with my Nikons, then I use a tripod. At higher magnifications I use a reversed MicroNikkor, Luminars, a reversed Cine Ektar, ...

 

What am I doing wrong? What are you doing right? Why do you need tripods under your SLRs for simple little shots of nothing at all while I don't?

 

Peter, fill flash in the dark, i.e., under trees, is a bad idea. Better to get all of your illumination from flash.

 

The "harsh" flash look occurs when the flash acts as a point source, i.e., is small relative to the subject. The tiny little flashes I use sit close to the subject, are effectively large relative to it, and I don't have that problem. Or perhaps I don't recognize harshness when I see it.

 

Since you're a beginner and don't understand flash, you'd do well to buy a copy of A. A. Blaker's book Field Photography. Look in used bookstores. abebooks.com, addall.com, and amazon.com should all find copies for you. Blaker explains all you need to know about the photography you want to do.

 

I use two classes of flash rigs. The first hangs two tiny flashes off the front of the lens, the second stands two tiny flashes on a bracket attached to the camera's tripod socket. I've calibrated all of my brackets so I know which aperture to use given magnfication and film speed. Doing this took less than a roll of film and since I did it I haven't got a bad exposure. Now that we're restricted to ISO 50 and faster color emulsions, even the tiniest flashes available are too powerful; put ND filters (the magic word is ROSCOE) on the flashes.

 

I'm surprised no one has told you to get Shaw's book Closeups In Nature yet. I have one, its thinner than Field Photography; what's in it is in Field Photography, the reverse is not the case. Blaker is a better teacher. People who recommend Closeups In Nature and are unacquainted with Field Photography aren't qualified to rate either more highly.

 

Another thing I don't understand in the advice given so far is the recommendation to use a wide angle lens to get more in the frame. Moving back works as well and requires carrying less.

 

If you want accurate color rendition, Velvia isn't the film for you. Nothing from Fuji is. You want EPN from Kodak.

 

Since budget is a problem, if you must get a new macro lens the Phoenix/Vivitar 100/3.5 is the one. If you can find a good grade of 100 mm +/- macro lens used that will meter on your camera and that costs less, grab it.

 

As I said, you don't need a tripod. So much for ball head fantasies.

 

Given that you're going to be shooting ISO 100 film, little flashes like Minolta Auto 14s (run 'em on manual) will do just fine. In fact, they're probably a stop too powerful, will require ND filters. Get the Roscoe swatchbook from, say, B&H and cut what's needed from it.

 

Good luck, educate yourself a lot more before spending any money,

 

Dan

[nick_albano]

I have some slides of various fungi that I am fond of. I would -- personally -- skip the flash and go for the tripod. I would take a pan head over a ball head and I would look for a tripod that got me right on the ground (the Slik 700DX (I think) with a short column and the legs spread really gets you down there).

 

I would consider an angle finder (a device that lets you look through the cameras eyepiece without having to lay on the wet ground to focus).

 

Conventional wisdom is that 35mm is wonderful for macro work -- but medium format will give you more detail, a larger negative, and often comes with a waist level finder -- if you use a square format or a revolving back camera, the waist level finder avoids the rolling on the wet ground effect.

 

YMMV

 

Happy shooting,

 

Nick

[stemked]

With all due respests you NEED a good tripod.

 

1) Unless you are going to use a dual flash setup a single flash will produce harsh shadows. You will obtain much more pleasing photos using small reflectors, natural light, and long exposures with small aperatures maybe some fillin flash. With Velvia you may have some LONG exposures.

 

2) Unless you use polarizing film on your flash you are going to often have hotspots on your fungi-especially if they are wet. Polarizing film is very expensive.

 

3)You WILL have much sharper photos when using a tripod-100% sure. It's been that way with ALL of my students (yes I grade hand held and tripod taken shots from my nature students to help make that very point-they never believe me either until they see the results). Even the master John Shaw (a guy who knows something about photography) demonstrated clearly in his books the sharpness advantage of using a tripod.

 

4) A tripod will help you compose your shots better. You will slow down and you will get better angles.

 

The only thing I would question is the use of the Benbo. It is a great low down tripod, it just isn't a particularly good hiking tripod-I find it too cumbersome anyway. Recommendations I would have for you are dependant on your budget as much as anything else.

[arnabdas]

I agree flash is a quite useful piece of equipment in many types of macrophotography situations, at times essential. But somehow I have never been able to master flash in a manner that it provides the same quality of lighting as I get in the early mornings or late afternoons. So in most cases it is "available darkness" (as Dan Fromm would put it) with a tripod all the way for me.

 

As for the wide angle lens, backing off with your short tele may show more of the surrounding, but it will never be equivalent to the dramatic perspective/angle-of-view that you'd get with a close-focusing wide-angle. Just my 2 cents.

 

BTW, a crumpled aluminium foil reflector is a useful accessory for available light macrophotography.

[steve_thompson]

I feel it is important not to fall into a rut when doing photography. That is to say try to avoid always using the same equipment and techniques when making photos of a particular subject. Push your self and try new methods.

 

I find working with mushrooms very rewarding and challenging. One trick I often use is not using flash but looking for diffused natural light. If it is not there naturally it is a very easy matter to alter the light in a small area for a mushroom shot. I have good luck with the Photoflex light discs, there are other manufactures making diffusion material that does the same job. Even some light weight white fabric will work. This technique pretty well gets rid of the shadow problem on your shots.

 

I prefer to use the longest macro/micro lens I can. Look at the sigma 180 or the Canon 180 macros too. This really helps narrow a distracting background.

 

For tripods don't forget to get a quality head that works for you. This makes it easy and enjoyable to work and sharper pictures. I like the large ball heads et al Kirk, Foba, Arca.

[pgwerner]

Thanks for the responses and information so far. Its been very informative and valuable in

guiding me toward what I want to purchase for macro work.

 

Some responses and questions about specific items:

 

Lens: I've read good things about the Canon, Tamron, and Vivitar macros, and about the

Sigma macro as well. Vivitar is tempting, given the low price and generally positive reviews

of its performance, though there's a lot of criticism of the plasticky construction, but then

I've heard the same thing about the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens that I have, and that seems to

be holding up pretty well. The more obvious disadvantage is that with the Vivitar, your

maximum aperture is 3/4 stop narrower than with the Tamron (f/3.5 vs f/2.8), plus you

need an extension tube to get 1:1 shots, which you wouldn't need with the Tamron. Can

anybody point me to a side-by-side comparison of the the Vivitar and the Tamron or

Canon macros - that's the kind of comparison I'd really like to see.

 

Photo.net does have such a comparison for Tamron vs Canon - that and comparison of

eBay prices for Canon and Canon-compatible Tamron macros have sold me on the Tamron

as having the best price/performance ratio of the two. I've read some rec.photo posts on

Sigma vs Tamron macros - those are similar in price and Tamron sounds like its the

slightly better model. The Tamron 100mm f/2.8 has just been redesigned in a new "Di"

model ("Digitally Integrated" - I have yet to hear how this improves actual performance)

which should hopefully having the effect of creating some bargains on used pre-Di lenses.

 

As for the wide-angle lens, I might consider that over the long term, but my priority is to

take macro shots. For something useful to others who actually want to identify the

mushroom, it really needs to be a close-up shot, even if that does sacrifice some

environmental context. As an example, check out this digital snapshot that was sent to me

of an unidentified Psilocybe species I'm studying:

 

http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~pgwerner/psilocybe_sf_2003.jpg

 

There's plenty of environmental context here, but without seeing the mushroom close up,

there's no way I can tell whether its the same species as the unusual Psilocybe I found at

another location. Close-up shots would have been really nice, and given the choice

between a close-up unaccompanied by a long shot and a long shot unaccompanied by

close-up, I'd clearly choose the former. Also, what's wrong with a 50mm lens for

photographing the larger environmental context?

 

Angle Finder: What a good idea! Any word about the performance of the two possible

setups for Canon EOS: Canon Angle Finder B + Adaptor vs Canon Angle Finder C? The

price for the former is under $50 while the latter starts at $175! I'm hoping B performs

well, because C just adds way to much to the overall cost of my macro setup. On a related

subject, is there anything I can add on to my regular viewfinder to make the view larger.

The one thing I really don't like about Canon is that their viewfinders are freaking tiny! I

normally wear glasses, so this is especially annoying. On a related issue, I'm still playing

around with the eye-controlled autofocus feature, but I'm on the verge of giving up on it,

since it only seems to judge my eyepoint accurately if I'm looking dead in the middle.

 

Tripod: I should have noted in my earlier post - I already have a general-use tripod, an old

Husky IV that I'm pretty happy with. Hence, I'm looking for something specifically for

macro work, mostly at ground and near-ground level. I'm leaning toward the Benbo

Trekker based on my budgetary constraints. A Bogen/Gitzo Explorer would be nice, but

those start at $200, without the head! Uni-Locs are even more. Somebody stated that the

Benbo is still fairly cumbersome - wouldn't that be true of any tripod, then? The Benbo

Trekker is about 5 pounds, so is the Gitzo Explorer; I don't know of any tripods under 5

pounds. Perhaps a monopod, but I'm not even going there.

 

As for Dan Fromm's advice on not using a tripod - the rule of thumb I go with is the

"inverse focal length" rule, which means that for a 100mm lens, shots slower than 1/100

(or 1/90 maybe) second should be on a tripod, and a tripod could help eliminate shake

that might happen even at faster speeds. I've also heard that some experienced

photographers are exceptionally steady and have heard tell that there are rare individuals

who can take a 1-second exposure hand-held without visible camera shake. Perhaps Dan

is one of them? I can tell you right now I'm not. Plus, I know if I'm shooting with ISO 50 or

100 film in dark conditions, I'm in for some long exposures, even with a wide aperture.

 

Flash: OK, I'm slightly less confused about flash, but only slightly. The setup I'm thinking

of is a Speedlite 420EX mounted off-camera on a movable bracket, plus some kind of

inexpensive soft-box and reflector setup. BTW, could somebody explain how an aluminum

foil/cardboard reflector is actually mounted or held? Is it mounted somehow behind the

flash unit or do you hand-hold/manipulate it with the hand that isn't holding the cable

release?

 

What about a two-flash setup rather than single flash? The alternate setup I could go with

would involve a dual-macro bracket with a flash unit on each side. If that was the case, I'd

probably go with two units that are smaller/cheaper than the 420EX. Any thoughts on this?

 

When I'm first taking macros shots, I'll probably take one set of exposures with entirely

natural light and another with fill flash. After seeing the results of a few rolls, I should

develop a sense of when I need fill flash and when natural light and longer exposures are

perfectly adequate.

 

Film: I'll probably try out several before settling on something. A lot of people who do

mushroom photography and other kinds of macro nature photography really seem to like

Velvia, so I'm leaning toward that. It certainly has a nice look to it, but I can understand

the criticism that the brightness is somewhat artificial and may not be appropriate if I'm

trying to accurately document the color of the organisms I'm monographing. I'm kind of

confused about the huge range of Ektachromes that Kodak makes - how do they differ?

And in the Kodak realm, how about Kodakchrome? I'm seriously considering it - color

reproduction is supposed to be very faithful and the slides will practically last forever

without fade if archived properly. It was certainly the standard in the natural sciences for a

long time. Unfortunately, there are only four labs in the world (and only one in North

America) that still process this film, so that may drive the price of development up.

Anybody here have experience using Kodachrome?

 

Also, what are your experiences with bracketing slide film? I've heard that since you don't

have a negative to manipulate and are producing a positive directly, getting optimal

exposure on a slide is a challenge and might call for more than the typical +/- 0.5 stop

bracket that one uses when shooting B&W negatives. What do you recommend?

 

Finally, for some really good examples of what can be done with mushroom photography,

check out Taylor Lockwood's site at www.fungiphoto.com , especially his stock mushroom

photos. Great stuff and certainly raises my aspirations!

 

Peter

[pgwerner]

One other subject I forgot about: Books -

 

Thanks for the suggestions, especially Lepp's "Beyond the Basics" and Blaker's "Field

Photography" both are either in my school library or at other nearby universities who can

loan it, so I'll definitely be having a look at both titles.

 

I have heard of John Shaw's "Closeups in Nature" and it seems to be the bestselling and

highest rated book on the topic on Amazon. I also see good reviews of "Complete Guide to

Close-Up & Macro Photography" by Paul Harcourt Davies and "Close-up Photography"

by Alan R. Constant. However, a recent title I've really heard people raving about is Ronan

Loaec's "Macrophotography: Learning from a Master" - that's not in local libraries, so I'll

probably end up buying a copy of that. Any opinions on any of these books and notes on

which ones may cover particular strongly and which don't?

 

Peter

[sean de merchant httpw]

Forget the tripod as most are useless or incovenient that close to the ground. An angle viewfinder would help a lot. I use a digicam with LCD serving the same perpose. And I repeat:<p>

 

<b>There is no need for a tripod for fungi macros unless you are keeping your flash on it rather than a lightstand.</b> Instead, get a radio slave or PC cord and use the flash off camera with a diffuser on the flash. Shooting with flash for macros you can easily get enough light to handhold at you cameras flash sync speed (1/200 for the Elan II if I remember right). <p>

 

Take a look <a href="http://www.tearnet.com/sean/SPA_Photos.asp?cat=29&;">here</a> to see some examples shot using a PC cord and diffuser with the flash off the side somewhere or with the flash on camera and pointed into a reflector off to the side (depended on if I wished to much with the PC cord). You might want a reflector to generate some fill light below the forest canopy as natural exposures tend to be around 2 to 4 seconds in such low light. <p>

 

That said, a tripod would be useful for environmental shots showing the context the fungi grows in, but a flash is more useful for macros of fungi. And in the field a tripod can serve double duty as a light stand and as a camera support. One can handhold the off camera flash for exposures with the camera on the tripod. <p>

 

Or to save money, but a flash with a swivel and bounce head and aim it to the side at a reflector to generate diffuse light on the subject right in front of the lens.<p>

 

Personally, I use a flash with a small shoot through umbrella and radio slave in the field to create diffuse light. Using a flash with a guide number of 120 (in feet) it generate plenty of light for macros and provides a huge diffuse light source 50-100 times the diameter of the subject. This is a new setup and I have yet to try it with fungi, but you can see an <a href="http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1336766">arachnid example here</a>. <p>

 

In short, off camera flash is more useful than a tripod as handholding 2 cm above the ground is easier than settng up the tripod. And one should remember that lots of light and nice weather tend to be the antithesis of fruiting fungi.<p>

 

my $0.02, <p>

 

Sean (who is eagerly awaiting the fungi the Autumn rains will bring)

[stemked]

Peter,

 

One piece of equipment you might look for to go along with your tripod is a Bogan Super Clamp and a stud to attach your ball head. I used this setup with a Bogan 3001 tripod for years. It is a solid setup, reasonably priced, and incredibly flexable. You can position the camera as low to the ground as you wish. I used it for many years to do just want you are planning to do. It works wonderfully provided we are not talking about a very long lens.

[dan_fromm2]

Peter, I doubt I can hold a camera steadier than the average person my age. What you missed is that with my tiny flashes (two, I used the plural for a reason) providing all of the photographically useful light, my exposure times are very short. That's why I can take pictures at 1:1 and f/22 that are consistently sharp. Short exposures stop motion. Flash exposures are short exposures.

 

Photomacrography with available light requires support, e.g., a tripod, even in broad daylight. We all agree on that. End of discussion.

 

Film. I still use KM in my Nikons. That's the discontinued Kodachrome 25 and nothing touches it. There's no more to be had. When I've used up the stock in my freezer I'll have to use another film.

 

I use EPP, not Kodak's sharpest or most accurate ISO 100 E-6 emulsion, with my Graphics. I said that EPN is the most accurate color reversal film on the market. I say it again. If you're aiming for scientific publication and don't want to have to correct the false colors that other emulsions produce, EPN is your only choice.

 

I've contemplated switching to KR (Kodachrome 64) when I run out of KM. I expect that instead I'll use EPP or EPN. My life will be simpler if I use the same emulsions in all the formats I shoot. For b/w I've standardized on TMX. I have some 135 Delta 100 and TP in the freezer and use them, but neither is my standard.

 

Amazon ratings are an argument against allowing ignorant people to vote.

 

There is no reason to use autofocus closeup. Autofocus moves the plane of best focus by changing magnification. What you want to do is move the plane of best focus by moving the camera. Teeter back and forth. This will preserve the magnification you selected. Remember that mushrooms are immobile, you can take your time when shooting.

 

There's no need to bracket flash exposures. I calibrated my little flash rigs once, and since then as long as I've followed the calibration charts (at this magnification, that aperture) I've got good exposure. Read about the arguments for metering incident instead of reflected ambient light. By pre-calibrating, I'm in effect metering incident flash. It works. Its all very mechanical, and completely eliminates thinking about exposure.

 

When shooting closeup, I almost always use two flashes on brackets that are completely unadjustable. This guarantees consistent flash-subject-film geometry and distances. Guaranteed distances is what makes my calibration tables safe to use. Every once in a while I use a single hand-held flash with a Graphic. When I do that, I use a tape measure to set flash-to-subject distance to get correct exposure, and when I make an arithmetic error I get bad exposure. Guide number arithmetic works, after the flash(s) has/have been tested to find its/their actual GN; rated GNs are usually at least one stop high. The standard exposure adjustments for magnfication work too, although one has to take account of the lens' pupillary magnification. Its better to shoot for calibration and avoid thinking, memorization, and mental arithmetic.

 

Another trick I use to reduce the need to think when shooting is to use flash brackets whose geometry guarantees correct exposure at the same aperture over a range of magnifications. The idea isn't mine, I lifted it from an article about Spiratone's MacroDapter that appeared in Modern Photography sometime in the late 1970s, if I recall correctly. I have two MacroDapters, also a couple of Jones of Hollywood flash brackets that give the same effect and are easier to use with short, e.g., 50 mm, lenses. With my rigs, there's no need for TTL autoflash.

 

If you must use available darkness, you may find another trick promoted by MP useful. To get shots of a mushroom out of its natural context, pick it and impale it on a pin attached to a bar attached to your camera's tripod socket. With a little thought, you should be able to devise an easy way to move the pin forwards and backwards to allow your lens to focus on the mushroom at the magnification that's best for it. This setup eliminates relative motion between subject and film; it allows the use of long exposures. Since you're working closeup the background will be a blur anyway.

 

About 90 degree finders. I have one for my little Nikons. I rarely use it, the image is too small and its too easy to defocus. If I had a serious need to look down, I'd have to buy a camera (Nikon, given what I already had but there are equivalent Canons and manual focus Minoltas and Exaktas and Mirandas and ... ) with a removable prism and put a chimney finder on it. You'll probably have to do what I do, lie face down in the dirt. I travel with a sleeping pad, to lie on when the dirt is in fact pointed rocks. Photography at ground level isn't always comfortable.

 

Good luck,

 

Dan

[robert_potts1]

For accurate, scientific, archival type photos, use the flash and the ektachrome. For beatiful, creative, evocative photos, use a tripod, mirror lock-up, a collapsible fotoflex reflector, and a rich film like Astia 100F.

[soeren_michael_nielsen]

I second Roberts oppinion about Flash vs Tripod. The Fuji Astia is a nice film with a neutral redention. for more color I use Elitechrome 100 EC which I like better than Velvia for it's blue and red redention. as said before also get a closefocusing videangle.

You may want to take a look at http://www.naturfotografi.dk/sgalandet.htm

Sorry it's in danish but a picture say more than a thousand words.

[joe_zammarelli]

I agree with much of what has been posted above, but...I took this pic with a crappy little Canon A60 digicam, in Macro mode, with its built in lens and built in flash. This is right out of the camera, just resized. It ain't great, but it ain't much worse than shots I have taken with my SLR, flashes, reflectors, and such. And it's not meant to be a terrific example, just an idea of what you can do with the simplest equipment.

 

I spend a couple of hours every day out in the woods and I shoot a lot of shrooms. I've taken my film SLR many, many times, but I like the convenience of the digicam. And I like the results. If you're using flash, you don't need a tripod. Though I do use a little table-top model often. And I use a reflector most days.

 

The most important piece of equipment I have in my kit is a plastic garbage bag. I kneel, sit, or lay on it.

 

Bottom line: less is more.

 

bon chance<div></div>

[joe_zammarelli]

I meant, of course, that I lie on the plastic bag, after laying it down. ;)

 

bon chance

[joe_zammarelli]

And another taken this a.m.<div></div>

[ole_tjugen]

If you haven't already, check out "Photographing Fungi in the Field" by George McCarthy, ISBN 1 86108 236 3. Lots of good advice.

[dotbob]

tripod? cant get really low. those little bean bag things are good to rest the camera on the ground (+ some rocks). flash? a question of style. for long exposure the self timer shutter release gives less camera shake than a cable release. i wish more of the responders here actually posted mushroom pics.<div></div>