New to macro photography

[andrewgillis]

Hi all, I'm relatively new to macro photography, and welcome any feedback (composition, post-processing, etc). I have been focusing largely on insects and plants so far. This was shot with a Nikon Z7, FTZ adapter, Tamron 60mm f/2.

 

Thanks!

[dcstep]

Nice subject, but not enough DOF. The eyes and "hair" are in focus, but the antenna are not. You need to get the leading parts of your subject in focus, which means shooting at f/8 to f/16. It's okay that the back-right leg is OOF, but all the stuff right up front needs to be in focus. I'd crop this square, since I don't think that the curve of the leaf adds little. The "feet" gripping the leaf edge are nice and I love the unusual face, so I'd make that the emphasis.

 

Isn't it amazing how many varieties of bumble bees there are? Love this guy.

[DavidTriplett]

+1 to all of Dave's points, above. I note from the EXIF data that this was shot at f/8. DOF in macro is the big issue, and it's essential to shoot at the smallest practical aperture in order to maximize DOF. That often means pushing up the ISO and/or adding artificial light. I've added a ring light to my macro kit for this very reason. Focus stacking for static subjects is also an effective technique, but impractical for anything that moves at all. I also agree that this would benefit from a heavy crop. Good start. Keep working it and we'll love to see some more of your work.

[samstevens]

Nice photo. To me, it's an unusual setup in the way it utilizes the leaf itself, its curves and edges. Unlike my two fellow critics, I think a crop would detract from the meandering curves of the leaf and its role in the photo. The leaf is the stage of this photo. It feels like the bee is greeting us, with great presence, from the proscenium. He's staring so intently and his being so centered can be seen to emphasize that or perhaps adds some static to an otherwise dynamic composition. The format itself? It feels almost panoramic. Maybe it's a product of something technical I'm not aware of. I don't mind the format because I think it highlights the staginess, but I do think it adds to the strong effect of the bee's centering. Cool (literally and figuratively) color palette as well.

[mikemorrell]

Hi Andrew,

 

I haven't done any macro photography in a very long time and I have no 'specialist' opinion. It just seems to me that - if I zoom in on your subject - it's sharp and clear.. So I wonder why you include so much background (which makes your subject smaller and less distinct). Maybe this is important to you but tighter cropping would - for me - bring out more detail in your subject.

Mike

[dcstep]

Hi Andrew,

 

I haven't done any macro photography in a very long time and I have no 'specialist' opinion. It just seems to me that - if I zoom in on your subject - it's sharp and clear.. So I wonder why you include so much background (which makes your subject smaller and less distinct). Maybe this is important to you but tighter cropping would - for me - bring out more detail in your subject.

Mike

 

When I zoomed, the antenna were partially OOF. Without that focus, I think that zooming might detract. I suspect there's probably a point, between this crop and tighter, where the OOF bits will not be a bother.

[Ricochetrider]

I like it. The long curving edge of the leaf adds a lot of visual interest to the image but I like the primary subject a whole lot. I wonder about the odd crop of a very wide and not very tall ratio, but who am I to be nit picking because I also sometimes do odd ball crops. Nice early effort, keep on shooting!

[andrewgillis]

Thanks, all, for this helpful feedback! I really appreciate it. I opted for the unusual crop largely for the reason touched on by samstevens. To me, this image almost looks like an intrusion on the bee as it is going about its business, with the bee coming up to the edge of its "stage" and asking "Can I help you?". But I might have overdone it with the extreme crop (as dcstep pointed, there is probably a cropping sweet spot that would help to minimise distraction from the bits that are OOF), and the general point about increasing DOF is well-taken. I am really loving this Tamron lens, and am looking forward to learning how to get the most out of it (probably, in part, by adding a ring-light to my kit). Thanks again, everyone.

[samstevens]

Andrew, if you’re concerned about the format you cropped to, instead of more cropping, what did you crop out above and below that you might leave in the frame? Did you find it too distracting? I don’t think adding back some environment, depending of course on what it looks like, would necessarily lessen the impact and presence of your main subject. As a matter of fact, sometimes a subject standing out from an even larger background can have more impact. I just think I would miss any of the curves and edges of the leaf that you might crop out at this point.

[paddler4]

First, it's a wasp, not a bee. That's an important distinction for a macro photographer because most species of bees in the US are quite benign and aren't likely to sting you even if you get very close, as long as you are not threatening a nest. Many species of wasp are not so gentle.I do take photos of wasps, but I approach them more carefully and try to make sure that I am nowhere near a nest. I've been stung just walking 3 feet from a nest.

 

I agree with several of the others: you need a smaller aperture. My standard for bugs is f/13 (nominal). For that, you usually need a flash. There is considerable controversy in the macro world about what kind of flash. Many macro photographers don't use ring lights because they provide very flat lighting and are hard to diffuse. They are great for showing detail but don't always give a nice appearance. Instead, they rig a regular flash to have a lot of diffusion and to be held right by the front of the lens. This is my version, using a "coke can diffuser" (google it):

 

 

Here's an example of the effect of that flash arrangement. (The photo was taken at about minimum working distance with a 36 mm extension attached to a 100 mm macro, so roughly 1.5:1 magnification, which is more than you can get with your lens alone. However, the point here is the lighting, not the magnification.)

 

[DavidTriplett]

Many macro photographers don't use ring lights because they provide very flat lighting and are hard to diffuse.

 

One additional thought on my use of the ring light. The model I bought can have one side of the ring or the other deactivated, hence overcoming the "flat" light effect of the full ring. It also comes with various filters and attachments to further customize the lighting effects.

 

Another issue to be aware of is the net effect when using extension tubes on macro lenses. Macro lenses already have a very close minimum focus distance, and the addition of an extension tube can bring the front of the lens so close to the subject as to interfere with lighting (or piss off the subject to the photographer's detriment). I much prefer my Micro Nikkor 105mm/2.8 to my 55mm/2.8 for this reason. The 55mm is great for certain things, but the 105mm is a much better lens for living fauna, as it allows me to stand off a bit more and still fill the frame. I've been told that the gold standard in macro lenses is the Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4 AF-D.

 

By the way: Very nice image by Paddler.

[samstevens]

Though both of these photos might be considered “macro,” such classification obviously still allows for many varieties of approaches and results. Now, perhaps a juried show or contest might have specific requirements that must be fulfilled but, that aside, I like seeing the differences in Andrew’s and Paddler’s photos. The details are not only clearer and stronger in Paddler’s photo, they are also more central and seem to me more the point of the photo. In Andrew’s, the story and the environment have a much more active and key role. That’s not to diminish the importance of good detail that might add quite a bit to Andrew’s photo, but those details seem to have a relational rather than individual place in the photo. That’s why I’d improve the detail in Andrew’s photo so that the insect could better perform in the photo and environment as is but not bring more attention to those details by cropping in closer.

[paddler4]

David,

 

thanks.

 

you wrote:

 

The model I bought can have one side of the ring or the other deactivated, hence overcoming the "flat" light effect of the full ring. It also comes with various filters and attachments to further customize the lighting effects.

 

Being able to turn off one side should take care of the flat lighting a full ring creates. it would also offer the option of switching sides when the situation calls for it, which I can't do well with my rig (although I can move it somewhat). However, I tried using flash-head-sized diffusers, which is what I assume you need with a ring light, and I didn't find that they worked as well as the wide-mouth coke-can diffuser. I got more specular highlights with the smaller diffuser. Another consideration is balance--the rig will be better balanced with a ring light than with my arrangement. So, I think there are tradeoffs.

 

Another issue to be aware of is the net effect when using extension tubes on macro lenses. Macro lenses already have a very close minimum focus distance, and the addition of an extension tube can bring the front of the lens so close to the subject as to interfere with lighting (or piss off the subject to the photographer's detriment).

 

Yes, even with a 36 mm tube on a 100mm lens, one has to get VERY close for maximum magnification. Some bug chasers use 150mm lenses to get more distance, but I have never gone over 100 myself. Positioning the flash head--or, to be more precise, the end of the diffuser--near the front end of the lens takes care of the problem of blocking light. I'd guess that over half of my bug shots over the past 3 years have been with a 36mm tube, and I haven't had any problems with shadows. However, I shoot bugs with no hood.

[dcstep]

Another approach to "macro photography":

 

Another Honey Bee by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

Telephoto lenses with close minimum focus distance are particularly good with moving subjects, such as bees and butterflies. This shot was taken with a high megapixel Sony a7RIII (the IV has even higher pixel density), with my close focusing 100-400mm lens, added 1.4x teleconverter, 25mm extension tube, at f/16, in bright sun, handheld at 560mm. I was trying for flying bees; hence, the 1/3200-sec., but the stacking of elements, f/16 and high SS demanded ISO 6400 in bright sun, The a7RIII has excellent dynamic range, so noise is only a minor problem, with DxO's PRIME noise reduction cleaned up nicely. Oh, the crop in post is around 40%.

 

High megapixel bodies, like the Sony a7RIV give you more leeway to crop, but there can be a trade off in dynamic range. Crop-sensor bodies are also a good option.

[dcstep]

...

 

Another issue to be aware of is the net effect when using extension tubes on macro lenses. Macro lenses already have a very close minimum focus distance, and the addition of an extension tube can bring the front of the lens so close to the subject as to interfere with lighting (or piss off the subject to the photographer's detriment). ..

.

 

About Extension Tubes, I think of them as a way to make a non-macro lens, into a macro lenses. Candidates are certain lenses, like many 70-200mm and 100-400mm which already have a relatively short minimum focus distance, but then make that distance even shorter. For certain subjects, like flying bees, fast AF and good working distances, make converted tele-zooms very attractive. Combine with a 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverter, crop judiciously and voila, you've got "macro."

[paddler4]

A superb shot of a honey bee.

 

I agree about using close-focusing telephotos for some macros. Also about the virtue of a high pixel density for this work, to allow more cropping. I don't have a high-density FF, so I do bugs with an old 7D, which has a much higher density than my 5D III.

 

About Extension Tubes, I think of them as a way to make a non-macro lens, into a macro lenses.

 

They are a way to get more magnification out of any lens. I don't often use them with any other lenses, but I use them frequently with macro lenses to get better than 1:1. Because the effective FL of internally focusing macro lenses decreases as you focus closer, the magnification is more than the nominal focal length would suggest. A 36 mm extension increases magnification with my 100mm macro at MWD by roughly 50%. On rare occasions, I have gone much higher. For example, I did the image below years ago by adding a full set of Kenko tubes (68 mm) to a 60 mm macro lens. I don't know the effective FL of that lens at MWD, but the combination had to be well over 2:1. However, you need to find a cooperative bug to work with that combination. That's why my fingernail was there: to stop the spider momentarily.

 

[dcstep]

A superb shot of a honey bee.

 

...I don't have a high-density FF, so I do bugs with an old 7D, which has a much higher density than my 5D III.

 

 

They are a way to get more magnification out of any lens. I don't often use them with any other lenses, but I use them frequently with macro lenses to get better than 1:1. Because the effective FL of internally focusing macro lenses decreases as you focus closer, the magnification is more than the nominal focal length would suggest. A 36 mm extension increases magnification with my 100mm macro at MWD by roughly 50%. On rare occasions, I have gone much higher. For example, I did the image below years ago by adding a full set of Kenko tubes (68 mm) to a 60 mm macro lens. I don't know the effective FL of that lens at MWD, but the combination had to be well over 2:1. However, you need to find a cooperative bug to work with that combination. That's why my fingernail was there: to stop the spider momentarily.

 

...QUOTE]/QUOTE]

 

Things are changing fast in the macro world, as demonstrated by paddler4's post. The old 7D has high pixel-density, but notoriously ugly, pasty noise. Even in broad daylight, my bee shot at ISO 6400, even with the very best noise reduction, would have been ugly and useless if taken with a 7D. Today's high pixel-density bodies, full-frame and crop, have much better high-ISO performance. Where you absolutely needed a light with a 7D, it's an annoying obstruction today, with a a7RIII, unless you're at extremely close distances, which is often the case with macro. That issue is one reason that I lean toward a telephoto with relatively short minimum focus distance, or a longer focal length macro lens.

 

BTW, nice spider.

[DavidTriplett]

Combine with a 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverter,

My experience with TC's is that the lesser IQ imposed by the TC optics frequently offsets the larger projected image of the subject. I find uncropped images taken with my best TC and telephoto are very nearly identical to the cropped images taken without the TC. I only use a TC when it's the only way to get the picture. I've experimented extensively using a TC1.4x + 200-500mm/5.6 on my 36MP D810, versus the same lens without TC on my 24MP D7100. The results are very nearly indistinguishable, and any differences are most likely due to impacts on the AF system by the TC (it makes my f/5.6 lens an f/8, operating at the very outer limits of the AF system). The 2x TC is even worse, and completely defeats the autofocus systems on both camera bodies. I may take Dave's advice, though, and experiment with various combinations for macro-specific applications. It sounds very interesting.

 

On another note, I originally began experimenting with extension tubes on various telephoto and fixed FL lenses a while back, when my only macro lens was the Micro-Nikkor 55mm/2.8, and wanted more working distance. What I found was that my 16MP D5100 worked pretty well with any average or better glass. However, the D7100, with its high resolution and pixel density, quickly revealed the deficiencies in all but the very best lenses, and particularly with the addition of a TC. This seems to be exacerbated by the addition of an extension tube, giving more lens-to-sensor distance for dispersion. I'm finding my best results are almost exclusively a dedicated, high-quality macro lens, sometimes with extension tube, at its native focal length on a high-resolution sensor like the D7100 or D810. Still, experiments are fun...!

[samstevens]

a cooperative bug

Indeed. This made me think of this old saw by Mark Knopfler ... :)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGQsMNJZapg

 

Well it's a strange old game - you learn it slow

One step forward and it's back to go

You're standing on the throttle

You're standing on the brakes

In the groove 'til you make a mistake

 

Sometimes you're the windshield

Sometimes you're the bug

Sometimes it all comes together baby

Sometimes you're a fool in love

Sometimes you're the louisville slugger

Sometimes you're the ball

Sometimes it all comes together baby

Sometimes you're going lose it all

 

You gotta know happy - you gotta know glad

Because you're gonna know lonely

And you're gonna know bad

When you're rippin' and a ridin' and you're coming on strong

You start slippin' and a slidin' and it all goes wrong, because

 

Sometimes you're the windshield

Sometimes you're the bug

Sometimes it all comes together baby

Sometimes you're a fool in love

Sometimes you're the louisville slugger baby

Sometimes you're the ball

Sometimes it all comes together baby

Sometimes you're going lose it all

 

One day you got the glory

One day you got none

One day you're a diamond

And then you're a stone

 

Everything can change

In the blink of an eye

So let the good times roll

Before we say goodbye, because

 

Sometimes you're the windshield

Sometimes you're the bug

Sometimes it all comes together baby

Sometimes you're a fool in love

Sometimes you're the louisville slugger baby

Sometimes you're the ball

Sometimes it all comes together baby

Sometimes you're going lose it all

[dcstep]

Indeed. This made me think of this old saw by Mark Knopfler ... :)

 

...

 

Good one Sam!

[dcstep]

My experience with TC's is that the lesser IQ imposed by the TC optics frequently offsets the larger projected image of the subject. I find uncropped images taken with my best TC and telephoto are very nearly identical to the cropped images taken without the TC. I only use a TC when it's the only way to get the picture. I've experimented extensively using a TC1.4x + 200-500mm/5.6 on my 36MP D810, versus the same lens without TC on my 24MP D7100. The results are very nearly indistinguishable, and any differences are most likely due to impacts on the AF system by the TC (it makes my f/5.6 lens an f/8, operating at the very outer limits of the AF system). The 2x TC is even worse, and completely defeats the autofocus systems on both camera bodies. I may take Dave's advice, though, and experiment with various combinations for macro-specific applications. It sounds very interesting.

 

On another note, I originally began experimenting with extension tubes on various telephoto and fixed FL lenses a while back, when my only macro lens was the Micro-Nikkor 55mm/2.8, and wanted more working distance. What I found was that my 16MP D5100 worked pretty well with any average or better glass. However, the D7100, with its high resolution and pixel density, quickly revealed the deficiencies in all but the very best lenses, and particularly with the addition of a TC. This seems to be exacerbated by the addition of an extension tube, giving more lens-to-sensor distance for dispersion. I'm finding my best results are almost exclusively a dedicated, high-quality macro lens, sometimes with extension tube, at its native focal length on a high-resolution sensor like the D7100 or D810. Still, experiments are fun...!

 

I'm shooting Sony, so I don't have these issues. ;-) Really, I'm not being cute. My photography life has changed much with my move from Canon to Sony.

 

Like I said earlier, shooting an old Canon 7D is a whole different set of issues than shooting a current, high resolution, high-dynamic range body, incredible AF (yes at f/11 and worse). There are still issues, but the solutions are much better than just a couple of years ago.