|
Oh that poor bee, those mites are horrible.
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:33 |
|
|
I need to get a ring flash or something. Amputee banana spider trashcan defender.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 07:57
|
|
|
 Bee in the clover by Marc, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 12:53
|
|
|
Yeah wide angle macro is stunning. Yet another lens....
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 14:29
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:Yeah wide angle macro is stunning. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 06:34
|
|
|
And now for something completely different...  
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
What is that? An oil sheen shot with a flash?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 13:16
|
|
|
Atlatl posted:What is that? An oil sheen shot with a flash? Soap bubble solution. Those were shot with a flash, but continuous light works just as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
 Recently had to shoot food comparisons for a mag, Sourdough at 1-1 looks like a hive of some sort.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 06:07
|
|
|
What kind of setups are you guys using to get some of these shots? In addition to a kit lens and a cheaper telephoto, I have one of the older Canon 100mm 2.8 lenses, which is great, but I can't get nearly that close. I thought about getting some extension tubes for it. I'm also going to buy a 50mm lens pretty soon, I saw some people recommending reversal rings for a lens that size as well? Some really great photos in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:What kind of setups are you guys using to get some of these shots? In addition to a kit lens and a cheaper telephoto, I have one of the older Canon 100mm 2.8 lenses, which is great, but I can't get nearly that close. I thought about getting some extension tubes for it. I'm also going to buy a 50mm lens pretty soon, I saw some people recommending reversal rings for a lens that size as well? I would say most of us are using a dedicated macro lens (close focussing) and a diffused flash setup where needed. I use mainly the Canon 100mm L f/2.8 macro and a variety of diffused flash setups.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:I would say most of us are using a dedicated macro lens (close focussing) and a diffused flash setup where needed. Light setups is something I don't know hardly anything at all about yet, beyond some reading I've done. I got the canon 100mm f/2.8 (the old one, not the L model) because I wanted to work on macro stuff and it was a good price and I'm having a good time with it. Just need to work on technique and get some practice, and then start working with lighting more. Lot of intimidating information out there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
Pretty much what Jarlywarly said. I use the 60mm and the 105mm VR macros on my Nikon bodies. I'm a food photographer by trade, so I like having the options.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:Light setups is something I don't know hardly anything at all about yet, beyond some reading I've done. I got the canon 100mm f/2.8 (the old one, not the L model) because I wanted to work on macro stuff and it was a good price and I'm having a good time with it. Just need to work on technique and get some practice, and then start working with lighting more. Lot of intimidating information out there. I found this guide started me off well, it's a bit old but the principles are sound. http://edocfile.info/macroshooting/index.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:I found this guide started me off well, it's a bit old but the principles are sound. Bookmarked to read later, thanks! Is the L lens you have noticeably better out in the field for taking those bug shots? I find I'm propping myself on things as much as possible to reduce any shake when I'm outside using the 100mm. Probably just need to make better use of my tripod, but it's been wet and wintry the last couple months and it's been hard to get out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:What kind of setups are you guys using to get some of these shots? In addition to a kit lens and a cheaper telephoto, I have one of the older Canon 100mm 2.8 lenses, which is great, but I can't get nearly that close. I thought about getting some extension tubes for it. I'm also going to buy a 50mm lens pretty soon, I saw some people recommending reversal rings for a lens that size as well? I use the Olympus 60mm macro for m43, which is an awesome macro lens if you're in the m43 ecosystem. I haven't got into auxiliary lighting, mostly I'm outdoors using whatever light is available.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:Bookmarked to read later, thanks! Is the L lens you have noticeably better out in the field for taking those bug shots? I find I'm propping myself on things as much as possible to reduce any shake when I'm outside using the 100mm. Probably just need to make better use of my tripod, but it's been wet and wintry the last couple months and it's been hard to get out. If you want to do great macro you need to get away from natural light. If you use a flash you will freeze any hand shake. Build a diffuser. Get a flash. You don’t need a fancy flash (TTL metering is not needed). Great macro photogs shoot manual flash, manual camera settings, and put their time and energy into custom diffusers. Your lens is fine for doing great macro, you just need to up your lighting game and work on composition and finding good subjects. You probably won’t really believe me, because I got the same advice starting out and it took me a long time to come around to this, but that’s how it is. Here is a very thorough site for higher magnification macro. The guy knows his stuff. http://extreme-macro.co.uk
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:If you want to do great macro you need to get away from natural light. If you use a flash you will freeze any hand shake. Build a diffuser. Get a flash. You don’t need a fancy flash (TTL metering is not needed). No, I 100% believe you. Lighting is something I'm still working to understand better. I'm trying to grab another lens or two at the moment to round out my bag, but I'll look a bit at some of the lighting things mentioned. Everything I've read about macro stuff has said lighting is important for bringing out detail and getting good shots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 00:20
|
|
|
It goes like this, the closer you get the narrower the depth of field gets, at wide open apertures your depth of field is so narrow that the part of the subject in focus is minimal so you not only have problems getting the main parts in focus, any small movement will totally lose your focus. So you need to close down the aperture to get a usable depth of field, this gets the point where there is not enough light even on a sunny day to expose at a reasonable ISO, you can't use a long shutter speed because everything is so magnified that you get bad shake and a tripod isn't any good when your subject is moving or prone to being disturbed. The only way to achieve f/10 etc is to use a flash, but even there you have problems, with flashes the more light you need the longer the flash is on and it might seem wrong but even this is too much exposure time for rock solid details in order to reduce the flashes on time you need to lower the power and move the flash closer to the subject (snoots and off camera flash rigs) you also have the issue that flash generates hot spots and reflections so you need to diffuse it in some way and cap diff users just don't provide an even enough light. Eventually your camera looks like an engineering prototype with a lampshade tacked on to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 14:55
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:It goes like this, the closer you get the narrower the depth of field gets, at wide open apertures your depth of field is so narrow that the part of the subject in focus is minimal so you not only have problems getting the main parts in focus, any small movement will totally lose your focus. That's a weirdly useful breakdown, actually. Sometimes a lot of these articles I'm reading have a hard time breaking things down into layman's terms. Any suggestions for cheaper entry lighting setups? I've read that even just keeping some printer paper handy to deflect light downward onto your subject can be helpful. The flashes that come on the camera seem to have very little use for this kind of thing from what I've heard, seems that they directly light too straightforward at the subject instead of illuminating all around it, creating shadows and weird glares that aren't useful for any macros stuff. I love taking pictures of bugs and little critters, so I'll probably keep doing that and trying to get lucky on sunny days but I want to improve my setups before spring rolls around and the good critters pop out. In the meantime I'll probably practice on static objects and flowers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
Everyone seems to end up with a large flash or 2 snooted towards a semi circle ring of diffuser material mounted on the lens shade (like a dog cone) This kind of thing. https://www.flickr.com/photos/59583171@N07/14672583951 Although this setup looks like there might be a little too much distance between flash and subject.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
One of these days I'm going to update the firmware on my camera so that I can take advantage of focus stacking, which should mitigate needing too go to high on f-stop to get a useful DOF. 5 axis IBIS goes a long way to getting a useful amount of not blurry images when hand shooting stuff outdoors too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:Everyone seems to end up with a large flash or 2 snooted towards a semi circle ring of diffuser material mounted on the lens shade (like a dog cone)  Well maybe I'll get there eventually. I'm not currently budgeting for a mounted flash, although I'll get one in time. Is there any kinda "cheap hacks" I can use in the meantime, stuff to just throw in my bag to improve my lighting situations without much expensive for the time being?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
Not really, the flash is as integral to macro as the lens, you can try out your onboard flash with a snoot. A Yongnuo flash is not expensive compared to other equipment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 20:10
|
|
|
This isn't a "cheap" hack, but it is cheaper than some other options. I got this ring flash for Christmas and holy gently caress my macros are finally not lovely disappointments! I can finally photograph hand-held without needing to use wide open aperture on a sunny day! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:What kind of setups are you guys using to get some of these shots? In addition to a kit lens and a cheaper telephoto, I have one of the older Canon 100mm 2.8 lenses, which is great, but I can't get nearly that close. I thought about getting some extension tubes for it. I'm also going to buy a 50mm lens pretty soon, I saw some people recommending reversal rings for a lens that size as well? tl;dr: stick a Raynox dcr-150 on the end of a telephoto lens and start taking pictures. I've got two inexpensive setups that I use: 1) Telephoto lens and a $60 Raynox dcr-150 snapon lens. Yes, it sounds junky but it absolutely isn't. With my Tamron 18-270 extended all the way out and the raynox, I get a 20 cm working distance with an 18mm wide field of view focusing at infinity. Racking focus all the way back in the opposite direction gets me an 8cm working distance and a 35mm field of view. All your auto- stuff works. Focus, exposure, aperture, etc. Once you get used to the Raynox dcr-150, get a 250 for even closer pictures. 2) 50mm lens and a $20 set of extension tubes. $20 extension tubes are junky. Plan on shooting full manual, because although the tubes will have pins so your lens will communicate with the body, it's probably not going to work if you stack the tubes (which you'll want to do) Plan on putting a tube of matte black paper inside the extension tubes and electrical taping over the joints because they will leak light. You will also want a lens that can be manually stopped down with one touch/press/switch. A super-takumar 50/1.4 can be had for about $65. 68mm of extension tubes and my Westrocolor 50 gets me 5cm working distance and a 15mm field of view. Rig #1 advantages: Autoexposure Autoaperture Autofocus Better working distance - less likely to scare away skittish bugs It takes all of 2 seconds to switch from shooting with a regular lens to shooting macro. Rig #1 disadvantages: The longer working distance makes it hard to brace the lens on your hand. You can stretch your pinkie and thumb as wide apart as possible and use that as an almost-monopod. Rig #2 advantages: Super cheap, if you've got a suitable old lens laying around. If you're shooting bugs on walls, trees, benches, rails or the ground, your working distance is short enough to solidly brace the lens on your hand. Particularly if you're not using a flash, this will help you keep shutter speed and blur down. Rig#2 disadvantages: Unless you get better quality extension tubes, your going to be shooting full manual (you can still do autoexposure) Manual focus isn't a big deal if your subject is staying relatively still and you can brace the camera/lens on something - you're going to be focusing by moving the camera in and out anyway. Being able to somehow stop down the aperture is essential. How you do it makes some parts easier (especially if you use a flash - then you'll need be able to stop down with a single push/switch or you'll be shooting mostly blind) Short working distance will mean you'll scare away some insects before you can even hope to get them in focus. (Like butterflies) All of the macro shots here were taken with one of these setups. (Scroll down, cold weather isn't good for arthropods) And occasionally other stuff, like flash, tripod, focus rail, and zerene stacker. joat mon fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Feb 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
I'm rearranging some of my purchasing priorities a bit based on recommendations in this thread. Namely, I'm looking to get a mounted flash to improve my lighting situation, and other diffuser equipment to practice with. I'm also going to grab a set of extension rings to play around with, if anyone has a recommendation. I don't mind having to modify cheaper ones like suggested above, although I'll spend a few extra dollars to get something better quality if there's a decent suggestion. I recently bought a 50mm 1.8 because I wanted one anyway, so I figure between that and the 100mm 2.8, I'll have some things to play around with and practice on. Lots of different diffuser type setups I'm seeing online. Some look better suited for more controlled indoor macro photos, and some look more useful for outdoor stuff. Preferably I'd be doing a lot of outdoors shooting, as I already do a lot of hiking and outdoors things when it's not cold and wet, and getting into photography was partly another excuse to get outside. Any recommendations for good diffuser setups?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
This is the lighting/diffuser setup I'd use if I had $250 to spare: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JbJzENXjz8 I went to a class he put on a couple of years after this review and he was still using this setup (and a reversing ring - that and the tracing paper demonstrate that he's not a shill or a gear fetishist)
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
Well, that video alone definitely just helped me get a better understanding of lighting and the need for diffusion. Naturally, I immediately started looking for ways to diffuse my ring flash and eventually found this absurd and amazing collection of DIY diffusers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
Let's have a photo Mushrooms by Aves Lux, on Flickr These tiny mushrooms in my garden have all sorts of features that you can't really see with the naked eye.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:Let's have a photo Awesome. I really like the lighting on the green undergrowth. Neat seeing the fine growths on top of the mushroom cap too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
The under growth is sphagnum moss or similar, it's really tiny and fine, the lighting is a combo of off camera flash and a bit of natural light. I found it pretty challenging, my camera was basically nestled in the moss and the lighting took many attempts to get right, definitely a learning curve.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:Any recommendations for good diffuser setups?  Flash with manual settings. index card Paper towel LED headlamp Tape the index card to the top of the flash. This will help bounce light down onto your subject and will help to stand the paper towel off from the flash. Tape the paper towel on at top and bottom. If your taking pictures in the dark, wrap the LED headlight around the body of the flash so there's enough light for your autofocus to work. Set shutter at 1/200, iso at 1000, aperture at one stop up from all the way stopped down, adjust flash strength for desired exposure. Go find small stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
Borrowed the Zeiss 100mm Milvus today to dick around with and decide if I want to pick it up. Had a cocktail/beverage shoot booked, but the client ditched the night before, so I took it down to the local coffee place regardless. liking it so far, beats the snot out of my Nikkor.  Really impressed with the rendering.  It's a shame I had to handhold, I'd have loved to get the ISO down.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 09:25
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:The under growth is sphagnum moss or similar, it's really tiny and fine, the lighting is a combo of off camera flash and a bit of natural light. I found it pretty challenging, my camera was basically nestled in the moss and the lighting took many attempts to get right, definitely a learning curve. Well done  Love the lightingI've just got a butterfly  Monarch Butterfly by Marc, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2019 14:02
|
|
|
Raikyn posted:Well done Sexy eye detail there, butterflies just get weirder the closer you get.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
 Ladybug on moss by Kevin Long, on FlickrThis was my first outing with a newer camera and equipment, after having listened to some advice ya'll gave. Walking on the Blue Ridge Parkway and found a beautiful patch of bright green moss on a rock with water flowing down it, and a couple tiny ladybugs wandering the moss. They were small, probably 5mm long. I didn't have my tripod so I tried my best to take steady hand shots on manual focus at different distances, because the focal depth was very shallow- I was using a 100mm f2.8 lens with some extension tubes attached as well. I only ended up with about 4 shots that overlapped well enough to align and stack in PS. Any advice or criticism is appreciated!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2019 13:45
|
|
|
 Bumblebee by Marc, on Flickr Raikyn fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Mar 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 14:56
|
|
|
I'm looking for critical feedback because I feel that something in the exposure and/or color is off. While I am not absolutely certain, I think that direct illumination by the sun contributed to it looking off. However, without the direct illumination I could not have captured the shadows and the delicate lines running down the sides of the leaves. Edit: Maybe I should have gotten in closer to get a closer view of the shadows? Will try again. Edit2: It's a step in the right direction. Stupid wind. 
theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Mar 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:33 |
|
|
So I'd rotate it right so the flower is upright, crop so it's most of the picture and increase the contrast.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 23:27
|
|