|
Dalai Lamacide posted:What are some of the most affordable decent macro capable cameras that a person who is not planning on being a pro photographer could justify buying for fun. Preferably something with a changable lens. I've been using a canon powershot sx120 is, which takes some decent pics, but I've reached the end of my capabilities with it I think. If you get an interchangeable lens camera you will be able to shoot macro. Most any system will have a macro lens available for it, so for casual macro photography I don't think it will be hard to be satisfied. Do you have any other kinds of shooting in mind that you'd like to do? I think you might be better off picking a camera system that is more general purpose since I think "casual macro" is easy to get. If you want to step up your macro game, beyond just buying a macro lens, I think the next step is having a decent flash which you can point at your close-up subjects. It makes a huge difference in your images, but you have to generally buy a flash gun for it. If you think you might want to do that someday then just pick a camera system which allows you to use an external flash. The simplest option which is guaranteed to work well for macro is to get an older / used canon or nikon DSLR. They are bigger than a mirrorless camera but will do everything for macro and can be pretty cheap. A used canon T2i is a good camera, and can be had for $300.
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 20:59 |
|
|
Dalai Lamacide posted:Thank you for the reply. Tricerapowerbottom and I are on record for the T2i as a solid crop sensor camera that will work well for general photography, plus you have infinite growth potential for "extreme macro," which is what Tricerapowerbottom and I are posting. That's going beyond the 1:1 magnification ration you can get from a commercial macro lens. As a specific set of gear, consider this: Used Canon T2i $300 Used canon 100mm f/2.8 macro (non-L) $450 Now you are set for portaits and macro shooting with that one lens. Option: replace the 100mm macro lens with a reversed enlarging lens like Tricerapowerbottom mentioned. $40 for the lens, plus maybe $50 for a cheapo bellows. Now you are set for higher magnification macro, but it will be harder to use and you will probably need a flash (in my opinion). Option: add a flash plus ETTL cable to the kit. $200 for the flash, plus maybe $15 for the third party ETTL cable. It will help enormously to have the flash bounced off the ceiling for any indoor photography. It will also help to have the flash on a cable to point at your macro subjects for high magnification. Option: add whatever general purpose lens you want to have for landscapes etc. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is very good, but you may be just fine using one of the new STM kit lenses as well. They are actually nice, and should be really cheap to buy used since it's the kit lens. Option: if you DO get into extreme macro, buy some dedicated focus stacking software. I recommend Zerene Stacker for $100. All of the very high magnification shots you see use software like that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
4x objective on a raynox DCR-250 Grasshopper face I rented a MP-E 65 and MT-24 flash last weekend. Super nice. My bench setup is just about impossible to hand hold for shooting in the field, so the MP-E was really nice. People complain that the light from the MT-24 flash heads is too harsh, but I feel like it's manageable.   20140509-HA4A0804.jpg  20140509-HA4A0790.jpg  Honeysuckle pollen
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Lon Lon Rabbit posted:Is Zerene Stacker generally considered the best stacking software? Are there many other options? The main options are Zerene Stacker and Helicon Focus. I think Zerene has the better reputation but I've never used Helicon. ZS does have a lightroom plugin but I've also never used that. There's a free trial so you can give it a shot. One of a big strengths of ZS for me, compared to photoshop) is much better ability to handle fine hair-like details, and a hugely superior workflow for cleaning up / retouching stacked images. You can easily paint in detail from specific frames onto the final image if the automated stacking algorithm messes up. Issues are common with overlapping hairlike structures (bug antennas) but rare for me with other subjects.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Lon Lon Rabbit posted:I've been fiddling with Zerene and was hoping for some advice to improve my results. I've definitely run into that issue as well. I don't know of any settings in ZS that would reduce those blurred specular highlights. I have two maybe semi-helpful comments: People who are really into high magnification focus stacking shots spend a ton of time and energy on light diffusers and lighting modifiers in order to get the subject to look just right. Strong highlights are generally avoided where possible. No different than non-micro photographers really. But if you have the ability to control the lighting on your subject to minimize those highlights that would be my first recommendation. Secondly, since you are new to ZS you may not be using the "stack selected" retouching workflow to the fullest. I know I wasn't until I read the tutorial here. The short version is, the tool is designed so that if you want to pull in detail from several frames at once you should select all of those source frame, then stack them, then retouch using the sub-stack as the source. It makes retouching larger stacks much much easier.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:Are the differences between my Megachile example shown here simply a matter of learning how to use my flash and working on learning how to light the subject better, getting better equipment in general, taking more time with my post processing, or a combination of all three? I shoot stuff like this a lot. 1) your lighting is not even enough. The biggest challenge for good portrait photography (bugs or people) is getting the light just right. That's where I spend most of my time during setup. I use two flashes, but you can do a good job with one if you make a lot of effort to get even light on multiple sides. As I understand you, the bug is in a styrofoam cup. That's a good start. Try shooting across the side of the cup and position a small mirror on the other side to act like a reflector that bounces light back into the "shadow side" of the cup. Get more light around your subject and that will make a huge difference. 2) try to properly expose (not to the left). As long as you aren't blowing out your images or falling to complete black you are fine. 3) I use Zerene Stacker. the DMAP algorithm sucks for hairy subjects. Use PMAX. You can also get fancy and stack both way, then composite in photoshop to use the hairy bits from the PMAX image and the smooth bits from DMAP. That's what the most "serious" people do, but I don't and I think my images turn out pretty well. Definitely do not just use DMAP. 4) I don't think it helps much to process RAW files first. My post processing workflow: shoot the deep stack in jpeg. It really doesn't make a difference for focus stacking like this. Even the author of Zerene says that in his detailed testing it doesn't matter. That said, shoot in a locked white balance (not auto). Or shoot RAW and just deal with the slower workflow, but recognize you aren't really benefiting. Mass-crop the full image set if needed, and export them all to your working folder. Stack all in ZS using PMAX. Touch up stacking errors in ZS as needed. Export as a 16 bit tiff. The stacking algorithm is going to pull more detail and color into that resulting tiff by combining your 60 source jpgs. Open the resulting tiff in PS and apply camera raw as smart filter, then spot healing for dust trails. Finally sharpen using smart sharpen. It works really well for correcting diffraction limited blur, which is what you will have. You have the gear and software to do a great job, just practice! It's actually pretty tricky to get it all lined up to make good shots, but it's just the sum of a lot of small techniques you have to learn by practicing. The thing I've iterated on most though is trying different ways of lighting my subject.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
If you use a MT-24EX flash head, you probably have some crazy rigged up diffusers to make it look good for macro. I just saw this blog post about what looks like a really nice diffuser you can just buy from ebay.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:Some more than others: Nice shot! Here are a few from a recent trip to Hawaii.  20140831-20140831-HA4A6124.jpg Butterfly Hoverfly tongue  Aphid with pollen Ant tending aphids
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Raikyn posted:Bought a new flash, just waiting on diffusers I keep thinking about getting one. Given that the MR-14EX was just updated I keep hoping that the MT-24EX will be as well. I'm definitely buying one if it gets revised. The changes I'm hoping for are that it will allow finer adjustment of power in manual mode, and some better diffusion on the bulbs instead of just clear plastic. Also overheat protection would be nice. What diffusers did you order?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Unexpected posted:Holy crap - how do you take some of these amazing "super-macro" shots on a Nikon? I've only just started reading up on this and apparently in addition to "regular" macro lenses there are extension tubes, bellows, reverse rings, non-macro lens using all of the above, etc. Oh god. This is an enormously open-ended question. http://extreme-macro.co.uk/ this is a very nice site focused on extreme macro (1:1 to about 20:1). I'd browse around there first. The best/only community I know of focused on this niche photography style is http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/. There are forums for photos in the field, in the studio (dead stuff), equipment, and techniques. I would suggest reading that after the extreme-macro.co.uk site so you have a sense for the basics.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
I have been following the blog of Alex Wild (http://www.myrmecos.net/). He recently took a job as Curator of Entomology at the University of Texas in Austin, and he built a great high magnification setup. He wrote up a blog post about it on his blog at Scientific American. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/compound-eye/2015/02/24/build-a-world-class-insect-imaging-system-for-under-6000/ His post tells you exactly what he uses and how he set it up. I've got a pretty similar setup for studio stacking. In addition to the 5x macro lens one could add microscope objectives to get even more magnification. There are definitely more low budget ways to get similar results, but this is a good description of what it takes to start from scratch an built a top notch setup. And he is assuming you need to buy photoshop, a camera, a macro lens, basically everything.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:
I like it! Nice color, composition and detail on the wire.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
I fired up the focus stacking rig this weekend. Lady's face  Ladybug from below  Carpet beetle  Ladybug larva face  Ladybug larva
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:This is beautiful. I've been working on different lighting setups over the years.  This setup uses a home-made "gorillazilla" (see John Hallmen) holding the subject, plus two shoot-through flags made of translucent opalux (think rigid tracing paper). Two flashes shoot through the flags from above-left-front and below-right-rear. This is what I used for most of these shots. The carpet beetle only had one light, and I think it was inside a cut ping-pong ball. I'm happy with how the lighting turned out. The two flags worked really well and got me what I was going for. The LED lamps are just there so I can see what I'm doing while setting up. They are turned off while capturing the images.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
The people (venus) who made that recent 2:1 lens just announced a new funky macro twin flash. Looks interesting! http://www.venuslens.net/product/macro-twin-flash-kx-800/ It's a bit like the canon MT-24EX except that the flash heads are on flexible arms, plus it has a focusing light. For people who shoot above 1:1 magnification this could be pretty handy. I'm concerned about how well you can diffuse the flash heads though. At least with the MT-24EX you can fit heavy diffusers on them without the rig sagging. And of course it's fully manual, so no ETTL. It could be really good for a focus stacking rig.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
I shot a couple of deep stacks of a moth over the weekend. This was 259 images at 5:1 with an MP-E 65. Two flashes, similar to previous setup pictures I've posted. It didn't need to be 259 images though. I mistakenly left my stackshot set at 15 um steps, which is what I use for 10:1, then I left to deal with my 2 year old and came back to a big pile of images.  The second was my first stack using a Nikon 10x Plan Achromat Infinity Objective (MRL00102). This is an upgrade from my older (cheaper) Nikon 10x BE Plan objective. The new one is definitely a lot more sharp for this kind of photography. This was 130 images.  I also adjusted normally shoot big stacks in jpeg, but I also messed up and shot these in raw. About 8 gb of images for these two stacks. So unlike my normal workflow I adjusted white balance, raised shadows a bit, and removed dust spots from all of the raws in lightroom before exporting as high quality jpegs (no sharpening) before stacking. I really like how they turned out in terms of just technical quality.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Incredible! You may be doing something funny then. If you are focus stacking the idea is to shoot with a wide aperture so that you avoid diffraction effects. Remember that for diffraction, the effective f-stop is the actual lens f-stop multiplies by the magnification. So I shoot my MP-E at /2.8 and 5:1, which gives diffraction equal to f/16. However you still get light-gathering (for the flash) equal to f/2.8. The short of it is that I run my flash at 1/64 or 1/32 power and it's plenty for these shots. The flash recycles really fast, and on Sunday I shot 700 images on a single set of (beefy 2000 mAh) AA batteries. Choosing the right aperture for this kind of focus stacking is actually really complicated. You have to factor in the size of the sensor pixel elements. You want the narrowest aperture before you become diffraction limited, so that you end up with the fewest number of frames. I'm shooting on a full frame camera, so I've worked out that for my sensor, with this lens, I have a table of step sizes and apertures that give the best results. For the microscope objectives I have (mostly) figured out the best step size for their fixed aperture (N.A.). It's really complicated. There are papers publishes on how to calculate the depth of field for these scenarios. The typical formula used for regular photography isn't accurate at very short distances and high magnification. If your flash takes 3 seconds to recycle you are maybe running at too narrow an aperture. That will mean you have huge diffraction losses, making your image blurry. I shoot f/16 or f/11 if I'm hand-holding and just plan to end up with a single image, but for focus stacking I go wider.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
FlashBewin posted:For those of you with a stackshot/dedicated macro set up, what are you using for a platform to set the subject on? I built a horizontal platform out of some shelving. I've got a cheap x-y stage mounted to the board, and the stackshot on top of that.  I then have a second x-y stage on the vertial board to attach the subject to. I've since replaced the specimen holder with some flexible arms, and different lighting, but the platform is the same. I keep thinking about replacing the platform with a vertical setup like this one. It's hard to position very small subjects (1-2 mm) with my current setup, but with a vertical setup I could just set them on a piece of paper.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Went camping at Mount Madonna state park (redwood forest). Neat bugs there! It's too warm around my house to catch them sleeping like this in the morning, so I was happy to have some new opportunities. Sleeping wasp  Snakefly
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:This is awesome! What's your lighting setup like? Thanks! This shot was using a canon MT-24ex twin flash with diffusers from a guy on ebay. I think they're the best commercial diffusers for the MT-24. You can do better if you rig stuff up yourself, but in my experience this commercial solution is more sturdy and portable than what I've rigged up in the past. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq0hDgj8mXw
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
I attended a bug macro workshop in Belize recently. I put up a flickr album of shots, but here are a few highlights: Over and Under  Turtle Ant Through the glass Hooded mantis Crysalis Wandering StarIf you have the chance to go to a "BugShot" workshop I highly recommend it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Uh, is it scary to get this close to a wandering spider? I was too ignorant to be afraid. The guy I was with shoots all the time in the forest at night and he got right up to it to shoot, so I did the same. I was behind a big camera, with a large diffuser on the front like a big white shield. Graniteman fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Aug 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
A new diffuser rig: Field equipment August 2015 MT-24EX flash with a diffuser cone on the end. The cone is made from a ceiling light panel diffuser which I cut into the cone shape and attached to the camera with a rubber band. There is a big step-up ring on the end of the lens to give the rubber band something to grip. The flash heads are on flexible arms which let me position them far enough back from the cone to get rid of hot spots on the cone. I wish the flex arms were a bit more rigid though. They tend to flop around. Also, there is a bicycle light attached to the lens with a head lamp band. This is to serve as a powerful modeling light for shooting at night. The cable you see is running to a battery (clipped to my belt) for the bike light. The lens here is a 100mm macro with a raynox DCR-150 close up filter. I also have a much smaller cone I use for a MP-E 65 lens. That is a much more compact setup. Example shots.  Bee on yarrow  Ant in the moss In this last shot the flash heads flopped closer to the cone, giving less diffusion and more directional light. Still very nicely diffused, but I'd rather have a single highlight than two regions.  20150910-HA4A0715.jpg
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
I'm selling the MT-24EX and custom diffusers that I use for my macro stuff if anyone is interested. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3125105&pagenumber=231&perpage=40#post453287936
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Spring is sort of here, so I have bugs again! Ant on organge blossom  Ant on organge blossom  20160124-HA4A4161.jpg
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Raikyn posted:honey bee Nice! That shot must have been a pain to get.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:It's nice but the angle just makes my head want to tilt. I get you can't crop/tilt as it's corner to corner. I use Zerene. At the time I was testing Helicon was much faster but the image quality was much worse for hairy subjects with overlapping hairs (spiders). The zerene PMax algorithm was much better. That was maybe 4-5 years ago though and I think helicon has improved since then. Helicon has a much more slick UI and the stacking algorithm was much faster. I was thinking about trying Helicon again this season when I get more subjects. Helicon will output DNG but Zerene outputs 32 bit tiff so I think you get the same IQ. My take was that Zerene is (was) a product developed by a single guy and it had a great stacking algorithm with a clunky java UI. Helicon looks like a more modern software product but the core algorithm was not as good. But if they caught up it would be a better experience.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:Thinking about one of the dual-light rigs with the bendy arms. The bendy arm twin flash is really the best option for good light diffused field shooting. There are other good options, and I’ve used a lot of them, but the KX-800 is the best. Put some roscolux vellum sheets under it attached to the lens with the arms set back a bit and you are all set. edit: recent examples I shot: https://flic.kr/p/2g9MJPT https://flic.kr/p/2g9MJrP In my opinion images look best when you only have one specular highlight (there is only one sky, one sun). So I aim to have the two flash heads diffused highlights merge together in one using a single wide sheet of diffusing medium. Graniteman fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Jun 20, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:Thanks for sharing. Awesome focus on the eyes there. What's your setup look like with the paper attached? I do a lot of my photos on hikes and long walks, with my camera setup slung over one shoulder on a long strap. I was worried about a twin flash being cumbersome or tearing up the paper while hiking. I don’t have a current photo, but here’s an older one when I was using rigid plastic. https://flic.kr/p/J7cSGT The roscolux vellum is not paper, which is why I switched to it. It’s thin and flexible like tracing paper, but it’s actually a very durable, waterproof plastic. I’ve been using the same couple of sheets for two years in wet, tropical locations and it’s still going strong. It’s worth the price premium because it’s basically perfect diffusing material. It’s flexible enough to smoosh your camera up against a tree or the ground and the medium will flex. But it’s durable enough to last for years. I shoot through two layers with a bit of separation between them. The venus twin flash is not NEARLY as rugged as a first party twin flash like the canon. I’ve seen a couple of the KX-800 flashes die due to heat/humidity. Mine is a few years old and still works fine, but you can tell it’s much more flimsy construction. The hot shoe mount is getting loose.. But it’s 1/3 the price of a canon flash. I own the canon twin flash and I still only take the KX-800 with me. In order to get the canon to diffuse well you need to add additional arms/standoffs/brackets which adds a lot of weight. The flex flash has that all built in. I have pretty bad wrist/arm pain from carrying this heavy-rear end setup around and shooting one-handed while grabbing twigs with my left hand so I’m very interested in shedding weight where I can. Graniteman fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Jun 20, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2019 14:17
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:Cool! I'll look into that, I'm all about saving a few bucks on 3rd party items if I can and they work well. Where'd you get the roscolus vellum at? Is yours just attached at the bottom of the lens with some tape? I use the rosco #3026, and you can get it from BH. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/44042-REG/Rosco_RS302611_3026_Filter_Tough.html edit: I had linked to a tube that fits over a light. the 3026 I use comes in a roll. It may not be this exact big roll but it’s definitely 3026. You can thread rubber bands through the vellum and attach it to your lens that way. Really, customizing your diffuser to be just right for how you like to shoot is part of the craft and fun of it. The best configuration depends a lot on what subjects you shoot, at what distance/magnification. I have a big sheet stapled to a wire frame that I use for shooting larger critters at 0.2-0.5:1 magnification. I have a smaller one I use for 2:1 magnification. I have one with no wire frame that’s just sheets rubber-banded to the lens for pressing against the ground when shooting ants. Gaffer tape works. Rubber bands work. There are so many good configurations that make different trade offs between light quality, portability, durability, weight, configurability in the field, ability to flex into foliage, etc, etc. Personally I use a prototype media holder made by cognysis that they aren’t selling yet. It’s a molded piece of plastic with 1/4-20 threads for attaching to like a friction arm. My setup is very configurable, has a third flash head on an optical trigger for background lighting, has great diffusion, is not very smooshable, but is extremely heavy to the point that I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone because I fear I may end up needing surgery. I recommend you just buy some sheets and play with different configurations to see what you like to use. The real “secret” is to get the KX-800 with the heads about 4-6” away from the vellum so the highlights merge together. I actually do put a little “balloon” of vellum over each flash head to diffuse it a bit more before it hits the main sheet of vellum but that’s really fine tuning. You could also do two sheets of vellum with a little space between them. Get yourself a little marble or shiny sphere to photograph and see what the specular highlights look like. I always test new configurations on a big ball bearing. Getting close and not disturbing the subject is more about learning how to work with the insects and what they will tolerate. I have no problem getting an inch away from some subjects, but you will never get closer than 3 feet from an alert tiger beetle. spookygonk posted:That MP-E65mm is a fantastic macro lens. It really is. It gets a bad rap for being “soft” from people who don’t know how to use it. Diffraction effects multiply at above 1:1 magnification, so f/16 at 2:1 mag is as diffusion-limited as f/32 at normal magnification. i.e., it looks like poo poo so you need to open the aperture more if you are shooting above 1:1 or else just shoot at 1:1 and crop it and you’ll get the same image quality with a lot less pain in the rear end. Personally I find more than 2:1 to be impractical in the field for hand held shooting, and 1:1 is often too close for bigger subjects. I wish there was a 0.5:1-2:1 magnification lens with electronic aperture control. That’s my dream lens. There’s a venus 2:1 lens but it’s got manual aperture so the view would be dark as hell while focusing if stopped down to shooting aperture. Graniteman fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Jun 20, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2019 15:37
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:re the Canon MP-E 65mm That sounds about right. For anyone who doesn’t know, the diffraction limiting aperture depends on the pixel pitch of your specific camera. Consider that a point light source going through a mathematically perfect lens gets diffracted into a blurred circle (google “circle of confusion”). The smaller the lens aperture the bigger the CoC. At some point the CoC is big enough to overlap with adjacent sensor elements (pixels) and so you can now see that it is blurred if you are pixel peeping at 100%. So, the smaller the pixels on your image sensor the sooner you will start to see diffraction blurring as you stop down the lens. There are a couple of different ways to calculate it, but one can do it, and it turns out that for my Canon 5D III with a full frame 24MP sensor, a 100% zoomed image becomes diffraction limited at f/14.3. So I shoot 1:1 at f/14. If I’m shooting at 2:1 in the field I tend to shoot f/11 or f/8. If I’m focus stacking on a rail I have a table I calculated where I get my step sizes and apertures. But at 5:1 I’m already diffraction limited at f/2.8 so I shoot wide open. If I don’t want to shoot wide open and make a lot of steps in the focus stack I just shoot at less magnification and then crop and it ends up with the same image quality. Of course, if you are not pixel peeping or printing at huge sizes, pixel perfection doesn’t matter so just shoot at diffraction limited apertures that give you a workable DOF and get on with your day  I know of an excellent photographer who teach classes on macro, and they shoot at f/22. You’d never know it from looking at their work on the internet. Of course, they burn up their flash batteries, have slower flash recycles, and can’t crop aggressively without loss of quality. But if your output medium is social media, gently caress it, f/22 is a perfectly fine way to shoot. You can calculate the diffraction limiting aperture based on the output size instead of the image sensor dot pitch and come up with a totally different number than what I put above.And about rosco alternative, I have no idea. Looks like there are similar diffusion gels so try that out. I’ve spent many hundreds of dollars on diffuser setups and I don’t think there’s anything better than that polymer sheet stuff. One can do good work with anything, but the gels are just the most durable, flexible, neutral toned, most light transmissive yet diffusing, and just most appropriate for my kind of field shooting. I’ve used milk jugs and yogurt jars, cut up plastic light diffuser from ceiling lights, custom cut plastics from a TAP plastics store, tracing paper inside of a clear plastic binder sheet, laminated tracing paper, commercial cup diffusers that clip onto MT-24EX flash heads, cardboard/foil/paper/tape constructs of all kinds. Just on and on really. I recommend anyone build the diffuser that works for their specific wants, but using this kind of polymer based diffuser gel is just such a great material to include in your build. Graniteman fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Jun 20, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2019 18:56
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:There's a brand new Laowa 100mm macro that does infinity down to 2:1 with electronic aperture control. I preordered mine before release, but I'm still waiting for delivery. Very interesting! I’ll keep an eye on that for sure. The working distance look about twice my mpe65 which is not ideal for lighting, and I worry about dirt intrusion but that lens looks really promising for me. I bring my 65mm and 100mm in the field just to get the 0.1-2:1 range that this lens covers so this would let me drop a lens. I’d sell my 100mm L and get this one if it is as advertised. Do you know if you can put a UV filter on the front to cover that big cavity at low magnification? Or are the filter threads on the inner element? I can’t tell from photos.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:Speaking of stacking, has anyone used or have experience with the auto focus stacking modes of assorted modern mirrorless cameras? (I don't know if dslrs offer this, I don't know much about them). If so, how well does it work? Do you still need a tripod, or can you hand hold the camera? I haven’t tried them, but I wouldn’t expect them to work well for macro. Their algorithms are surely optimized for landscape focus stacking. There are big differences in quality from the results of different stacking algorithms, in particular with respect to fine overlapping details like hairs. Photoshop does a terrible job for example, although it’s fine for landscapes. The dedicated stacking programs like Zerene and Helicon let you select different algorithms matched to your content.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:In other news I bought a new lens the Laowa 100mm APO 2x it's a manual focus "zoomable" macro capable of infinity to 2x I’d really like to hear any more detailed thoughts you have about this lens after you’ve used it for a while. I have a MP-E 65 1-5x, and a 100 F/2.8L, and I carry them both with me for field shooting. However, since I rarely ever go above 2:1 hand-held this lens seems perfect for field shooting. If you have any thoughts to share, or comparisons I’d be interested. How weather-sealed does it seem? Is there filter threading on the outer barrel so you can cover that big open end, and if so do you get glare from your flash diffuser or any optical problems? Does it seem physically tough to handle travel or banging through the jungle? Did you get the tripod collar? Is it robust enough to mount my flash rig on? I saw your post on photomacrography.net, and I’m sure that audience would appreciate you adding those thoughts as well.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2019 13:23
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:I use a flash with diffuser most of the time, but a lot of the time I'm handheld shooting on hikes and notice the lack of IS depending on what I'm doing. I might just grab a 100mm L but I'll check out the Laowa too. Fingers McLongDong posted:I don't, actually. It's a Canon Speedlite 580ex II, if that helps. I am admittedly not very good at adjusting settings on the flash yet, I haven't taken the time to teach myself everything I should have. I've had some issues getting overexposure as a result in some of my shots. These posts sound like you are still learning the ropes, so I'll give you the advice I'd give someone learning how to use their camera to take good macro shots. I apologize if I'm misreading it and you have more advanced skills and are really trying to deliberately blend natural light and flash exposures for creative purposes. I've owned the canon 100 f/2.8, and currently own the L lens. The L lens (or with IS) will generally not help you with flash macro if you are using your flash correctly. Set your camera to manual exposure, F/16, 1/120s, ISO 200. Set your flash to ETTL. Done. No more blurry pictures. You will get a shot purely lit by flash, and you can focus on adjusting your diffuser. If you shoot with your camera with the flash turned off, and you see any light at all, then you are trying to blend natural light with flash. That can be done and look great, and IS can help with it, but it's certainly harder and more advanced than a pure natural light exposure, or pure flash exposure. But to make either one work you should really have your camera in manual. If you are shooting with the same diffuser each shot, and the subject is always at 1:1 (minimum distance), then you can also set your flash to manual mode as well. Just make test shots of your fingertip until the flash power is right, and then never touch it again unless you mess with your diffuser. This works because with a diffuser, and with your subject at the same spot every time, you have a mini-photo-studio going, and the same amount of light is good every time. This helps with macro because your flash recycles much faster (no pre-flash for the ETTL to meter from), and you also don't scare the fastest bugs with the pre-flash. You also eliminate errors from your flash ETTL algorithm where it uses more flash on a black subject, and less flash on a white subject. This is how I shoot everything, even with a fancy camera and flash, I just use everything manual (manual focus at the same distance every time, manual exposure, manual flash, and rarely change any settings). You really do eliminate problems shooting that way. Now, if when you say you "shoot handheld," if you mean you shoot WITHOUT a flash, then sure you would benefit from IS. I think you'd be a lot happier hand-holding with a flash though. The flash will freeze motion well enough to conceal any hand shake or subject motion.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:Flash has always intimidated me, so I never even tried it on macro. Thanks for writing this up. You're welcome. I just love this subject! I have to restrain myself if it ever comes up in conversation. I started out with just a canon 100 f/2.8 with no IS shooting bugs and flowers with no flash. The first time I took a photo with flash I was just loving speechless at how much better it looked. It was SO MUCH SHARPER. I could see every tiny hair on the beetle's body. I still remember the photo 8 years later. I couldn't believe that I took that photo. I mean, it wasn't anywhere near what I shoot today, but adding a flash was a quantum leap over my previous shots. It really hooked me on macro, and it's become my main interest since then. I always try to tell people (and people rarely seem to believe me) but world class macro photography is all about the right use of lighting. It's no different than portrait photography in a studio. Yes you can get GREAT photos of a person in natural light, but you do it by asking them to go stand next to an open window, or turn their head slightly. Bugs don't do that. They are in foliage. You are standing right over them, up very close, blocking a ton of light with your body and lens. You can use a cheap camera body, cheap lens, cheap flash. All manual. No ETTL needed for anything (it actually makes it harder IMO). Spend your money on a powerful manual flash and a bracket, and buy some diffusing media like what was discussed a few pages back here ("roscolux"). If anyone has a budget for bug photography workshops, I learned a TON going to a BugShot workshop about five years ago. They do two per year, one in the continental US, and one at some tropical location where they scout the site, find unique critters, and get permissions to wander around the rain forest (or whatever) at night. They also teach a few hours of classes every day on things like lighting / flash, basic photography stuff (exposure triangle basics), have a workshop where they help you build a diffuser for your flash, entomology lectures (the class is taught by a professor of entomology). I've been to three workshops just because I like the people, and it's fun to be in a group with other people who like this weird subject. Anyway, my point being, people who do field photography of insects use a flash. Period. That's just how you do it. There are certainly cases where you use some natural light in addition, or even purely natural light, but for insects that's really the exception to a pure flash type shooting. jarlywarly posted:http://edocfile.info/macroshooting/The_need_for_Flash.htm How are you liking that AD200 pro rig? Your post here and on the pm forums had me thinking. I spent like an hour yesterday mocking up a lighting rig like yours. I use a 5D III, venus kx-800, mp-e 65 (or 100 L), and a bracket holding my diffusion media, plus a second friction arm holding an optically triggered mini flash for a fill light (three flash heads total). I'm very happy with the quality of light I get and the control I have over light. However, it's very heavy. I actually have tennis elbow really badly from the weight of the camera rig, and it limits my shooting. I switched to a much lighter APS-C mirrorless + prime camera for my non-macro stuff because I couldn't take carrying the bigger camera any more. My point being, I'm highly motivated to look for a way to make my macro rig lighter. Your AD200 setup looked exciting because you move the battery off of the camera (to a belt or something I assume). But when I add up the stuff I need to replace a KX-800 twin flash, it seems to be about a wash. EC200 kit is maybe 100g on the camera, plus a bracket to mount the flash, plus the RF transmitter on the camera hot shoe. It seems like it's about the 450g of the twin flash. Is that accurate? I can't find the flash durations for the KX-800, but I'm guessing your AD200 has faster durations and you can maybe shoot at lower power. Graniteman fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Oct 17, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:Do you have any kind of rule of thumb or formula for adjusting your settings while using a flash outdoors, given the mixed nature of natural light? Living in the mountains, I might have full on sunlight, total shade, or a mix depending on the day and hike. I'm talking about bugs here, but I don't use any natural light for macro unless I'm trying for something really specific. Like 1/200 subjects I'll try to bring in natural light. If you set your camera and flash like I described above, you will have no natural light contribution in your image. So it doesn't matter what is going on around you. If you shoot ~f/16, 1/120s, ISO 200, with the flash turned OFF, you will have a totally black image. Maybe if your subject is in bright sunlight you might see something. But this is what you want. If you set it up this way then it doesn't matter if you have dappled light. The sun is not a factor. Now with that black frame as your starting point, you add in light from your flash. Set it to manual and take a test shot of your hand or something. Turn up the flash power until you get a good exposure of your fingertip. Now don't touch your camera or flash again. Those settings will work for any subject under your light diffuser, at 1:1 macro distance. The subject could be in the shadows, in a black hole, in open shade, on a tree. It could be a black spider or a white butterfly. This works because I'm using a nice diffuser that's always in the same position and distance relative to my subject (that 1:1 focus point). If you back up a little bit you might need some more light. I just bump up my ISO. IMO if you have a modern camera from the last 5 years you could shoot at 400 or even 800 or higher, and it won't be noticeable. Alternately, set your camera to manual like I said and use your flash in auto / ETTL mode. Your flash power will move up and down based on an algorithm, and if you are changing your subject distance all the time (and changing magnification all the time) then this may be easier for you. There will still be a black frame with no light unless the flash fires, and natural light doesn't matter at all. And yes, diffusers and bug macro is like light sabers and jedi. You build your own, custom to your own priorities. Maybe you want softer light, or a more enveloping light, or more insulation from hot spots, or you want more light from the front than the top. I think we all do many iterations of light diffusers. edit: I took this picture with a flash like yours inside a small collapsible softbox. The flash was attached to an ETTL cable. So the camera was in my right hand, and the flash (with soft box attached) was in my left hand. I held the flash above and behind the salamander and got this neat rim light and backlit silhouette. I usually have the diffuser on my camera and use my left hand to stabilize the twig my subject is on, but some of my most creative stuff ends up when I break out of that mold and hold the flash in an unusual position.  Tree salamander
Graniteman fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Oct 17, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 20:59 |
|
|
I've been avoiding taking the time to update my gear description for years, but here's what I've been shooting for about 2 years. Macro equipment October 2019This has been my macro setup for about two years, and is the culmination of a lot of iteration and conversations with other macro photographers. I feel that it gives me essentially everything I want from lighting, except that it is very heavy at 5 lbs. The concept is modeled on a beauty dish with light from large light sources both above and below. I’m using the Venus KX-800 twin flash. It’s just the most flexible and ideal macro flash I’ve ever used. I keep my canon twin flash for some focus stacking, but in the field I only use the venus. I’ve tried many, many diffusing media over the years and I’m most happy with this rosco gel. It is very transmissive, and very diffusive, and it’s a tough, flexible, waterproof plastic. Thanks to the instructors at BugShot for recommending it to us! The upper diffuser is mounted to a very nice prototype media holder made by the folks at cognisys. It doesn’t appear that it was ever put up for sale, but I have a more detailed photo you can see elsewhere in the flickr album if you want to make something like it yourself. I disassembled their media holder and mounted it to my own friction arm. The upper diffuser is large, sized to work with either the MP-E 65mm (very close working distance) or a 100mm macro (larger subjects further away). The lower flash head is triggered optically, and shoots through a flexible double-fold of Rosco Cinegel. The lower flash is used as a fill light to lift the shadows, but the lower cinegel is very flexible so I can press it right into foliage or against a tree and it will move freely out of the way. I can also point any of the three flash heads past the subject to light the background. The lower friction arm and flash contributes 1 lb (25% of the total weight). The use of the lower sheet of gel is inspired by Alex Wild who uses layers of flexible sheets on top of his lens (rather than below) to give him a flexible diffuser that he can press up against his ants on the ground. I flipped it upside down. Both friction arms (upper diffuser and lower flash head) are mounted to a CB Mini RC flash bracket. I have it on a tripod here to make it easier to photograph, but I shoot this setup freehand. ckground. The use of the lower sheet of gel is inspired by Alex Wild who uses layers of flexible sheets on top of his lens (rather than below) to give him a flexible diffuser that he can press up against his ants on the ground. I flipped it upside down. Here are recent examples that illustrate the light diffusion and specular highlights from three flash heads. The jumping spider isn't the best photo, but jumping spider eyes are the most challenging if you want to avoid multiple hot-spots.  Hanging Thief Robber Fly - Diogmites properans Parasitoid wasp laying eggs in a caterpillar  Carpentar ant carrying a caterpillar back to the nest  20181031-HA4A1119.jpgLike I said, it's heavy, and I may drop the lower flash to save my arm some pain. I've never seen another macro photographer do this trick of putting a friction arm upside down on a tripod mount to get another flash head on, and I felt pretty good about myself for having the idea. But man it's awkward and heavy. Graniteman fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Oct 24, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2019 20:55
|
|