|
Goldmund those fish look great for lighting through glass. I went for a bug walk yesterday trying a new lighting technique, but all available subjects were in pretty rough situations.   Goodbye Honey by Icybacon, on Flickr  A Tragic End (Though I can't tell which one) by Icybacon, on Flickr
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:28 |
|
|
Love the colors in that second one, is it stuck in tree sap? Speaking of lighting, what are thoughts on mixing off camera flash with fixed lighting? I'm thinking about picking up some 6500k CFL bulbs and 3 of the cheap clamp on silver hoods. Will I run into problems if I try to mix those with flashes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
Recently got an MP-E 65mm, a hell of a lens with a hell of a learning curve. Fly by Bryan's Photo Pages, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
Something else with a mp-e 65 spider feeding 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 10:28
|
|
|
I must say I am insanely jealous of everyone's skills at taking these macros, I've been into macro for nearly 10 years and haven't ever gotten those kinds of shots. There's more skill there than you take credit for I think, the gear isn't the whole story by a long shot! Something I'm endlessly fascinated by is sand and teeny tiny shells. My shots are awful and mostly blurry because so far I haven't found a tripod that will allow me to get close enough at the angles and (mainly) because I lack the patience/skill to set up a shot with the one I have (gorilla pod). Still practice makes perfect and the practice is fun fun fun! I've also learned the following over the years of taking sand/shell shots: 1. Focus stacking only works if some of your shots are actually IN focus. 2. If your fitness is, like mine, lacking - take a deep breath or two before standing up from kneeling to avoid what I call "a case of the faceplants" 3. Just because the seaweed is dry on top doesn't mean it isn't wet underneath, wet seaweed is slippery as gently caress and planting one's knee on a rock from some height loving hurts. 4. Sometimes even huge rear end rocks move when you step on them. Also scalp wounds bleed a lot, did you know that? 5. Just because it looks good in on the teeny tiny window (even zoomed in) on your camera doesn't mean it'll be good. 6. Low tide is a good idea, more choice of shells/sand/grit. 7. Don't kneel down with your arse pointing toward a rock that waves slosh up over. Not a good look. 8. Shells have very loving sharp edges and will think nothing of slicing through the thick skin of your heel causing you to leave horrible bloody footprints up the beach before you notice what the gently caress. Gods only know what diseases you've picked up now. 9. Any injury that leaves you able to walk home but that doesn't cause any damage to your camera is a success! Kinda. Eh, I take my success where I can folks. Here are a few shots free held, next time I am taking the tripod and taking more time with each shot. I just wanted to mooch about on the beach today (no injury today yaaay)       They're quite Meh compared to you lot but maybe inspire ya'll to point your lenses at the sand the next time you're at the beach yeh?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
I've only just started photography as a hobby and therefore have only just started macro photography, so far I'm really enjoying it. I haven't taken many photos, but this is probably my favourite so far, also I wont be taking any photos anytime soon as my secondhand D70 has stopped working. I'm trying to do this hobby on the cheap, but I guess there is a reason for the title of the old newbie thread. [Deleted] General Apathy fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Aug 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 11:23
|
|
|
I like this one and the subject matter in general. I have a small pile of shells and stuff from last summer and you inspired me to snap some macro shots of them when my tubes get here. Don't get too hurt out there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Played with my new extension tubes and an old lens off my Opa's camera. I still have a lot of work to do but I really enjoy this for a setup that cost me $10. Ruler by atticus_1354, on Flickr  Compass by atticus_1354, on Flickr  Barnacles by atticus_1354, on Flickr  Safety blade by atticus_1354, on Flickr Guess what objects were sitting within reach on my desk?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
Is there a decent beginners guide to macro? Like I don't even know where to start with the lighting and lenses. Should I use my 35 1.8 and like get really close? Or use my 55-200 and zoom in? I have some spoiled food in my fridge that would be fun to shoot. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
Read this whole thread and then buy a DCR250 and if you have the money a flash also.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
Figure out your minimum focus distance for each of your lenses, at throughout the zoom range on your zoom lens(es). Use whichever one gets you closest. Often, longer lenses or the long end of zoom have fairly far-away minimum focus distances, but wider lenses can get closer. The difference in magnification is outweighed by the ability to get closer, most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Cross-post from TCC This was done with a 50mm + DCR-250
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
Raikyn posted:Something else with a mp-e 65 Man, I miss my MP-E (was stolen along with all my canon gear)- almost makes me want to invest in the canon system again. I've dreamed about adapting it to my NEX or something similar but just can't seem to think of anything that works; nevermind that my nex doesn't have a real goddamn hotshoe
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
Time to brag... National Geographic picked one of my macro shots for this month's magazine. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Time to brag... Congrats man. I just got my flash in today and I love playing with it at my desk. Can't wait until I get a chance to go out and take really close pictures of plants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
I had the good fortune to acquire a set of Nikon PB-6 bellows late last year. It was the first time I was actually able to afford them, and I've been hooked on high-magnification work ever since. I mostly use old enlarger lenses, but I'm experimenting with old LOMO microscope lenses too (with limited success). My own interest is more in documenting critters in detail, so my setup involves stacking between 60 and 200 exposures of a single critter into one image. It's super labor-intensive, but the results can be really rewarding. Obviously, the subject have to be perfectly still (read: dead), so I try to collect only common bugs. Specimen handling, positioning and cleaning is a massive chore, and one that I struggle with quite badly, so any handy hints would be appreciated.  Click Beetle - A Portrait by spongepuppy, on Flickr  Bull Ant (Myrmecia Nigrocincta) by spongepuppy, on Flickr These were created with Zerene Stacker, which is a great piece of software written by a microscopy enthusiast / retired programmer. If you're interested in this sort of thing, I really encourage you to give it a go - it's truly excellent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 09:04
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Time to brag... "The photo is a composite of 30 highly focused images"  Congrats, that's a cool looking photo. Any chance of seeing it as not a photo of a printout?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:"The photo is a composite of 30 highly focused images" He posted it a while back in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Closest I can get. DCR250 on an old 70-210mm lens that belonged to my grandfathers. Liking having a flash. Now I need to build a diffuser for it. 14 32nds by atticus_1354, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
 I hate flies, but sometimes they're all you have. More can found on my site https://www.krisrob.com/macro (just as a side note, every single one of those insects/spiders was released alive, I know some people get upset about that sort of thing) Go easy, I am still getting my head around this whole photography lark.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:I had the good fortune to acquire a set of Nikon PB-6 bellows late last year. It was the first time I was actually able to afford them, and I've been hooked on high-magnification work ever since. I mostly use old enlarger lenses, but I'm experimenting with old LOMO microscope lenses too (with limited success). I'd love to hear more about what you do for specimen prep and lighting. I bought Zerene earlier this year and I've been using a 100macro lens on 150mm of cheap bellows. I think it hurts me that I am using a crappy rail and it's hard to make fine enough movements to end up with overlapping focus in my stack. The shot below has those bands of out-of-focus regions. It's a live critter, not studio, but still not as good as I would hope for 30 stacked shots. I am slowly talking myself into a StackShot, but I don't know if the rest of my technique is up to it. I've been reading the photomacrography.net forums, but there isn't really any good intro material that I can find on things like lighting.  For scale, this is a picture of the same moth with my pinky in frame. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:The shot below has those bands of out-of-focus regions. It's a live critter, not studio, but still not as good as I would hope for 30 stacked shots. I am slowly talking myself into a StackShot, but I don't know if the rest of my technique is up to it. I've got a Tamron 90mm, but the old EL-Nikkor 50mm/2.8 I use is sharper on the bellows, and is much lighter, which helps keep the bellows stable. The one I got was moldy inside, but it was easy enough to clean, even for someone with no practical skills like myself. I have also had fun with the stuff from Surplus Shed, some of which is remarkably good, and costs $3-5. Graniteman posted:I'd love to hear more about what you do for specimen prep and lighting. There are some fantastic Chinese friction arms that are copies of Manfrotto's "magic arms" that I am working on adding to my setup. They have ball joints at both ends and a central pivot with a locking knob that locks the whole assembly when tightened (the cost about $10 on ebay). On the specimen prep front, at the moment I pop critters in the fridge before submerging them in methylated spirits. I don't want to make the critters suffer, so I always wait until they are torpid from the cold before doing this. The metho kills and cleans them without leaving much residue, but you need to let them dry back out before shooting, and hairy bugs tend to wind up looking matted no matter whay I try. I have found that leaving them immersed in the methylated spirits for too long causes the sclerotized parts of the exoskeleton to go clear and lose its colour. Also, it turns green bugs (like grasshoppers, katydids, leafhoppers) yellow. Dia de Pikachutos fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Mar 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 06:52
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:If you can afford it, a Stackshot motorized rail is absolutely worth the tiny pittance (relative to most specialised, high quality macro gear) they charge for it.  You weren’t kidding. That’s not much more than some of the manual rails I’ve come across.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:If you can afford it, a Stackshot motorized rail is absolutely worth the tiny pittance (relative to most specialised, high quality macro gear) they charge for it. I looked into DIYing something, but it likely would have been much worse and only marginally cheaper. I think it was a good investment, because it has freed me to work on other aspects of my technique, like lighting and specimen prep. It also means that you can take much more precise stacks quickly, which can be an issue with really small specimens. BANME.sh posted:"The photo is a composite of 30 highly focused images"
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
The phrase "highly focused" bugs me a lot more than it should.  Way I see it, focus doesn't have shades. It's either in focus or it's not. Part of it might be that I did copy editing once upon a time, and would constantly have to deal with writers who would try to pad their word count by cramming in too many adjectives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
xzzy posted:The phrase "highly focused" bugs me a lot more than it should.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:tips Thanks for the info! The enlarging lenses are cheap on ebay so I'll scoop one up to try it. I'm probably going to pick up a stackshot in a month or two as well. I'm using a manfrotto 3278 flash bracket, which works great for hand holding but it's ideal for working on a tripod since the camera tilts if I want the flash arm to be off-horizontal. It might be ideal to stack those friction arms on though...
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
 Untitled by Eeek5127, on Flickr I finally bought a MT-24EX flash. I am extremely happy with it. As it stands, I am prepping my old gear to be sold to get the MPE-65.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
Eeek posted:
I am interested in purchasing macro gear for my 6D. Whatchu got?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
That's a 100mm 2.8 macro usm. The older, non L one on a 7D, so it's effectively a 160mm lens. And of course the flash. This is 1:1 manual focus. edit: I am a dumbass. Didn't see what you were asking. I am probably selling off a 40D, 50D, 10-22mm and 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. None of it is macro stuff. Eeek fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Mar 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:The enlarging lenses are cheap on ebay so I'll scoop one up to try it. I've got a Nikon 10X/0.25 CFI BE Planachromat lens on order at the moment - it should give me better image quality, and without the need to use the bellows. Cost was $75US from opticsplanet.com. It's an infinity corrected objective, which means you need a converging lens between it and the imaging plane. To get the rated magnification, a 200mm lens (focused to infinity) is the go. Apparently you can push infinite objectives to lower magnifications by sticking them on the end of a lens with a shorter focal length - so I'm planning to use it on an old 135mm lens. The numerical aperture stays the same, so in theory I should get better sharpness from this than with my enlarger lenses, because they're seriously diffraction limited at that magnification (about 6.5x). I'll post some images once I've had a go.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 07:59
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:I've got a Nikon 10X/0.25 CFI BE Planachromat lens on order at the moment - it should give me better image quality, and without the need to use the bellows. Cost was $75US from opticsplanet.com. The enlarger works great. Pretty sweet for a $20 lens!  Spider on leaf by Graniteman, on Flickr  Spider on paper by Graniteman, on Flickr I ordered a 4x infinity corrected objective, too. It's back ordered 30 days or so, but I'm also looking forward to playing with that. I think a higher magnification would require the stackshot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
What kind of flash would I be looking for for outdoor macro shots? I'm assuming I wouldn't need anything super expensive; would something like: http://www.amazon.com/Yongnuo-YN-560-Speedlight-Flash-Nikon/dp/B0079M711S/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1363191915&sr=8-5&keywords=canon+flash with a bracket to get it off-shoe & TTL cable work well? I've never used a flash before so I'm not quite sure where to start.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Well, hmm. I use a lot of TTL for my macro shots. That flash won't do TTL. A lot of other people use manual. I do, as well, but it depends on my subject. Some flies don't like the first flash TTL sends out. That said, you can get away with it in macro; just more variables to change. I've seen a lot of people do the off shoe thing with a bracket. All I used was a diffuser that lifted and spread the light directionally to where I needed it- which was at the focus point of my 1:1 macro lens. It's not a new design; I used the general principles from here: http://orionmystery.blogspot.com/2010/07/diy-snoot-diffuser.html I used a cereal box and a Styrofoam bowl. The only thing I had to buy was duct tape. You'll be forced to use more power on the flash to bounce the light through the snoot, which in turn will harm your recycle time. The plus side is it is really, really cheap to make. You can get some really good light from it:  Untitled by Eeek5127, on Flickr  Untitled by Eeek5127, on Flickr  Untitled by Eeek5127, on Flickr All that said, you can also just buy a MT-24EX. I just got mine and it is extremely awesome. It's been on my radar for some time and I finally bought it. It is exactly what I needed for macro work:  Untitled by Eeek5127, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 12:15
|
|
|
Eeek posted:Well, hmm. I use a lot of TTL for my macro shots. That flash won't do TTL. A lot of other people use manual. I do, as well, but it depends on my subject. Some flies don't like the first flash TTL sends out. That said, you can get away with it in macro; just more variables to change. I've seen a lot of people do the off shoe thing with a bracket. All I used was a diffuser that lifted and spread the light directionally to where I needed it- which was at the focus point of my 1:1 macro lens. It's not a new design; I used the general principles from here: How do you feel about the MR-14ex?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
I read a lot about it before I bought my flash and I have had a cheap ring flash that's a close clone. If you plan on sticking with 100mm or the like, it will probably serve your needs. I think if you got an MPE-65, it would be a struggle. Personally, I thought the light looks really flat from the 14. You can do ratios but you can't do any directional lighting with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
 Untitled by Eeek5127, on Flickr Hello! Let me introduce you to my family!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
Canon 100mm EF macro, not at it's closest focus. Also if anyone is interested in these type of shots, I am running an IndieGoGo campaign that will help me create a book of them. If you would, please visit at: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/slowflowtion-capturing-natures-miracle/x/988924 Thanks people!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
 2013-40 by Tom Rintjema, on Flickr Now I have a macro lens too. Canon 100mm 2.8 USM Macro. Cool shots in here too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:28 |
|
|
Graniteman posted:I ordered a 4x infinity corrected objective, too. It's back ordered 30 days or so, but I'm also looking forward to playing with that. I think a higher magnification would require the stackshot. The Nikon CFI 10x BE PLAN arrived today. No time for a proper test, but I did locate one tiny victim for a quick resolution test:  Nikon 10x/0.25 BE PLAN Test by spongepuppy, on Flickr That crop is from a 1mm wide section of the bug - resolution is outstanding! I'm using a $20 T2-mount Titar 135mm f/3.5 lens as a tube lens, and it seems to work just fine. On the downside, pushing the 10x down to 7x means extremely tiny DOF, which translates into lots of stacking time. Still, I'm looking forward to some great results. Let us know how you go with the 4x!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 08:27
|
|