Macro Photogrpahy Books - Which one?

[payyakkil]

I am a beginner in macro photogrpahy and would like to buy John Shaw's

"Closeups in Nature". Amazon is offering two combos.

 

1. Closeups in Nature (John Shaw) + Nature Photography Field Guide

(John Shaw).

 

2. Closeups in Nature (John Shaw) + The Complete Guide to Close Up &

Macro Photography (Paul Harcourt Davies)

 

I am a bit confused on which combo to buy.

 

Any recommendations?

[joel_blacher]

The John Shaw books are outstanding and user (and reader) friendly!

[alfred_alfred]

get both John's books. No worries and no regrets

[payyakkil]

Does "Nature Photography Field Guide" deal with macro techniques? Or is it a generic field guide? I read some reviews on Amazon and what I got from that is that it is a general field guide to photography.

 

Do you think once I have the "Closeups in nature", "The Complete Guide to Close Up & Macro Photography" wont be that useful?

[andrew_limiti]

I am only familiar with John Shaw's books, and both of them are very good. The Closeups in Nature book is a pretty thorough discussion of the topic, while The Nature Photgraphy Field Guide just has a chapter or two on macrophotography. If macrophotography is your interest Closeups in Nature is an excellent reference.

[rene_theberge]

I have both the Shaw and Davies books. John Shaw's book is by far he better of the two unless you are really into insects. Davies book is OK and a supplement to Shaw's, but not necessary.

[pdoyle]

I have both John Shaw books, and I highly recommend them both. As I recall, his "Closeups in Nature" may have been written several years before the latest version of "Field Guide", and I think in the later book he amended a few of his methods and recommendations from the "Closeups" book. It is true that "Field Guide" treats macro work only as a subsection of the book, although it is probably enough to get anyone started anyway.

[dan_fromm1]

I've looked in my library. Here's an incomplete list of well-known books that bear on closeup photography, in order of publication, with critical comments. For my money, Shaw's Closeups In Nature, published last, is the worst of the lot. People who aren't acquainted with the books I report on here aren't qualified to rate Shaw against them.

 

Gibson, H. Lou. Close-Up Photography and Photomacrography. 1970. Publication N-16. Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY. 98+95+6 pp. The two sections were published separately as Kodak Publications N-12A and N-12B respectively. Republished in 1977 with changes and without the 6 page analytic supplement, which was published separately as Kodak Publication N-15. 1977 edition is ISBN 0-87985-206-2.

 

Gibson is very strong on lighting, exposure, and on what can and cannot be accomplished. His books, although relatively weak on getting the magnification with lenses made for modern SLR cameras, provide a very useful foundation for thinking about working at magnifications above 1:10 and especially above 1:1. Extensive bibliography.

 

Blaker, Alfred A. 1976. Field Photography. W. H. Freeman & Co. San Francisco, CA. 451 pp. ISBN 0-7167-0518-4

 

A deep discussion of all aspects of photography, with considerable emphasis on close-up. Discusses getting the magnification, lighting, and exposure. Weaker than Lefkowitz on working above 1:1, stronger on lighting, especially flash. Extensive bibliography.

 

Shipman, Carl. 1978. How to Select & Use Nikon & Nikkormat SLR Cameras. HP Books. Tucson, AZ. 208 pp. ISBN 0-912656-77-8

 

This book is parallel to other books Shipman wrote for HP Books, on, respectively, Canon SLR Cameras; Minolta SLR Cameras; Minolta Maxxum Cameras; Olympus SLR Cameras; Pentax SLR Cameras; SLR Photographers Handbook. Each has much the same chapter on "Close-up & Macro" that discusses ways of getting the magnification, adjusting exposure for extension, and, as appropriate to the book's main subject, manufacturer-specific discussions of equipment. No bibliography.

 

Shipman's books were updated regularly as the manufacturers released new equipment. I happened to buy the 1978 version of his Nikon book, there are earlier versions that differ from it only in equipment reported.

 

Lefkowitz, Lester. 1979. The Manual of Close-Up Photography. Amphoto. Garden City, NY. 272 pp. ISBN 0-8174-2456-3 (hardbound) and 0-8174-2130-0 (softbound).

 

A thorough discussion of getting the magnification, lighting, and exposure. Especially good on working above 1:1. Extensive bibliography.

 

Shaw, John. 1987. John Shaw's Closeups In Nature. Amphoto. New York, NY. 144 pp. ISBN 0-8174-4051-8 (hardbound) and 0-8174-4052-6 (softbound).

 

Heavily padded discussion of getting the magnification. Weak on exposure and illumination, especially flash. Nikon SLR-centric to a fare-thee-well, with no discussion of other types of equipment. Says nothing that Blaker and Lefkowitz didn't say, explains worse than they do. Gibson is much stronger on limiting factors. Prettiest pictures of all, though. No bibliography.

[._._z]

Don't get any combos. Read the Shaw book and if you have any questions ask here.

 

However, I also recommend Heather Angel's "The Book of Close-Up Photography" which is

out of print but can be gotten used for $6 or so plus shipping.

[jack_johnston]

Excuse me if I come off here sounding incredibly ignorant, but one aspect to Shaw's "Close Ups in Nature" is his claim that the only difference between a 50mm or 55mm macro lens and a 50mm "normal" lens is that the macro has greater extension, and that the only reason to go with a macro lens is that it has flat field. Is this true? I thought that a 50 or 55mm macro lens had a much different optical approach and was far different than a 50mm "normal". Or - is this because Shaw doesn't like macro focal lengths in this range?

[dan_fromm2]

Jack Johnston asked whether Shaw's claim "that the only difference between a 50mm or 55mm macro lens and a 50mm "normal" lens is that the macro has greater extension, and that the only reason to go with a macro lens is that it has flat field" is true.

 

Short answer, in theory he's very wrong. A lens can be optimized for only one magnification. Lenses intended for general out-and-about use are usually optimized for infinity. Macro lenses are typically optimized for A (only one, it is rarely clear from the manufacturers' propaganda which) magnification between 1:1 and 1:10, so produce somewhat better image quality in that range than a "normal" lens.

 

Short answer, in practice it depends on the lens. Slowish (f/1.7-f/2) "normal" lenses often work very well on extension tubes or bellows at magnifications in the range 1:1 - 1:10. If you have one and are wavering about getting a macro lens and are short of cash, I'm not sure what you should do. Extension tube sets with auto diaphragm coupling can cost almost as much as a used macro lens. Fastish, e.g., f/1.4, normal lenses are typically pretty lousy close up.

 

What motivated Shaw to make the comment? I have no idea, I'm not a mind reader. FWIW, my close-up work started with a 50/1.4 Nikkor + diopters (terrible results), replaced almost instantly by a 55/3.5 MicroNikkor; when the 105/4 MicroNikkor came to market I got one. Nowadays I use a 55/2.8 as my out-and-about normal lens, reversed at 2:1-5:1 on my 2x3 Graphics, and take most, not all, of my close-up shots on 35mm with a 105/2.8. But the 55/2.8 is outstanding, like nearly all of the 50 mm +/- macro lenses. I much prefer the working distance the 105 gives, but back when got many nice shots with the 55/3.5. My wife still gets nice shots with hers.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan