Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

FM Forum Rules
Macro World Resource
  

FM Forums | Macro World | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       5       6       7       end
  

Archive 2013 · We can do better.
  
 
Dalantech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #1 · p.4 #1 · We can do better.


12monkeys wrote:
...I don't think the second of your pictures above, in particular, shows mastery of flash or even evidence that flash is necessary. It's a great pose, sure, but I don't see what you've achieved by getting that close. You're not revealing any body parts that wouldn't have been visible if you'd been further back. You have a lot of overcooked highlights and if you're getting that with several years of experience, as one of the more talented members of the forum, then why point beginners down that road?


Actually I'm far from being a master at flash photography -still learning new things every day, and I've got a lot of diffusion material on my work bench waiting for me to make a new diffuser out of it As for the image: you're right, I had a lot of difficulty with that shot since I was experimenting with slaving a 320EX of off the MT-24EX (320 used to illuminate the background). I ended up with a specular highlight from the 320 that was difficult to control in a tight space. Not a lot of room to work around in any of those images, since they are all either at or above 2x with the lens stopped down to at least F11. Not making excuses, in fact I'm working on a new project that I'm hoping will mimic a blue sky for my backgrounds so I don't have to resort to a third flash head. Here's a more recent image -still working on that background:







12monkeys wrote:
I don't think your last point is any more relevant to a macro photographer than a landscape photographer. Just go out when the light's good.


With a flash I don't have to wait for that good light -I can make it myself. So in the end it's actually easier to use -and that's the point I've been trying to make. Getting good natural light to shoot in is hit or miss. I actually quit taking landscape shots a few years ago cause the weather here changed -it was either completely clear or totally overcast. For a landscape shots I prefer partly cloudy skies.

I just don't see flash as being a documentary only light source -nor do I see natural light as being better than flash. If it is then there's no art in 99% of all portrait photography


Edited on Sep 12, 2013 at 12:13 PM · View previous versions



Sep 12, 2013 at 11:55 AM
Dalantech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #2 · p.4 #2 · We can do better.


12monkeys wrote:
I think it would be excellent framing as a focus stack.


I've been down this road before, years ago in fact. I've pretty much proven that focus stacking isn't necessary except in a few situations (like dew drop refractions and shooting very tiny subjects). It all depends on what you want to do with your photography, but if you're really concerned about the art side of things how does getting every minute detail add to it? I've never heard of anyone walking through a museum looking at the paintings and complaining that they're not sharp enough...



Sep 12, 2013 at 12:11 PM
12monkeys
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #3 · p.4 #3 · We can do better.


Dalantech wrote:
Actually I'm far from being a master at flash photography -still learning new things every day, and I've got a lot of diffusion material on my work bench waiting for me to make a new diffuser out of it As for the image: you're right, I had a lot of difficulty with that shot since I was experimenting with slaving a 320EX of off the MT-24EX (320 used to illuminate the background). I ended up with a specular highlight from the 320 that was difficult to control in a tight space. Not a lot of room to work around
...Show more

From memory, the only two people to really master flash photography on this board - and I'm really sorry if I'm forgetting or am unacquainted with any others - were SteB and Anthony Tancredi, both of whom were using concave diffusers with light tents. I think it's that or nothing, and it's because I don't have time to do that at the moment that I put my mpe-65 down. I would love to get it out, with flash, and take some extreme macros, artistic or otherwise. Obviously there's room for "true" macro on a macro board of all places.

I fully agree with you on the last point above. However, I think that a lot of people have been scared off macro from the direction in which the board has gone and, unfortunately, from the "post your set-up" thread. What I find interesting is when someone posts a question about macro lenses on the Canon board, and a lot of people who have never tried macrophotography will immediately tell the poster that all sorts of complicated equipment are necessary. We only see the people who post; we don't see who came along to the macro board, had a look around and thought "bugger this, looks too complicated". If simplicity was encouraged a bit more, we might have some new posters and a bit more variety.



Sep 12, 2013 at 12:12 PM
Dalantech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #4 · p.4 #4 · We can do better.


12monkeys wrote:
...From memory, the only two people to really master flash photography on this board - and I'm really sorry if I'm forgetting or am unacquainted with any others - were SteB and Anthony Tancredi, both of whom were using concave diffusers with light tents. I think it's that or nothing, and it's because I don't have time to do that at the moment that I put my mpe-65 down...


Concave diffusers create some odd shaped specular highlights -I really don't think that they are the only choice.

12monkeys wrote:
I fully agree with you on the last point above. However, I think that a lot of people have been scared off macro from the direction in which the board has gone and, unfortunately, from the "post your set-up" thread.


Nope, I've seen more people bail out of macro because people on this board (and others) led them to believe that they had to focus stack. Most newbies struggle to nail the focus in a single frame and panic if they think they have to take multiple frames and stack...

12monkeys wrote:
What I find interesting is when someone posts a question about macro lenses on the Canon board, and a lot of people who have never tried macrophotography will immediately tell the poster that all sorts of complicated equipment are necessary.


Actually they are frequently told that long focal length lenses are necessary if they want to shoot insects -and it's completely false. I see bad advice all the time and expend way too much energy trying to correct them -one of the reasons I blog



Sep 12, 2013 at 12:21 PM
Dalantech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #5 · p.4 #5 · We can do better.


For the record: You really don't need anything other than a camera and a lens to shoot macro -the rest really falls into the category of gear that allows you to take the images that you want to take. I shoot with the MT-24EX not because it's the best flash for macro (far from it!), but because I like to shoot hand held and I like the balance that the MT-24EX provides. That flash fits my style of shooting, so I use it. I shoot with the MPE-65mm because I'm hooked on being able to instantly dial in the magnification that I want to shoot at. Is it the best lens for macro? Only when I'm the one holding the camera...


Sep 12, 2013 at 12:32 PM
John Koerner
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #6 · p.4 #6 · We can do better.


Honestly, Dalantech, I don't like the lighting of those bee shots on the previous page at all. While not harsh, the light is too yellow and the colors do not seem either optimal or natural IMO.

The bumble bee shot, above, is harsh to look at and to my eye is clearly synthetic. That said, that bumble bee would be a tough shot for any light, simply because of how dark the bee's face is and how light the yellow flower is (as well as its thorax). It would be best to bracket a shot like that, getting optimal exposure for the light elements in one shot, then optimal exposure for the dark elements in another, and then combining these together.

I agree with what you said about Photomacrography.net. I had my run-ins with that moderator myself, who was more interested in stacks, than art, and himself never really posted an image I thought much of at all ... nor did he like the fact I preferred using Adobe CS6 for stacking, as well minimal stacking for more artistic shots.

With this preamble out of the way, getting good natural light shots is easy if you go out in the early morning hours, let go of your camera, start using a tripod, drop your shutter speeds down, and use a remote switch. You can even get good natural light shots indoors. Check this out.

In fact, here are a series of natural light photos I took of various crab spiders. About half were taken outdoors, about half were taken indoors, and I guarantee not a single person here can distinguish the difference

Further, ALL are stacks (albeit minimal stacks), and about half were taken with the MPE-65mm lens, the other half were taken with the 180mm macro, and not a single image required the use of flash. I would consider these "artistic" shots even though they're stacked. IMO, there are very few shooters whose use of flash looks natural. I have seen a couple, and I really admire their work, and yes, all of them have mastered the concave diffuser. Without that, most flash shots can be spotted as such immediately. Anyway, here are my images (which I recently posted on another forum). Feel free to criticize honestly, as any good idea or way in which I can improve is always welcome!



White-Banded Crab Spider ♂
(Misumenoides formosipes)



White-Banded Crab Spider ♀
(Misumenoides formosipes)



Swift Crab Spider ♀
(Mecaphesa celer)



Flower Crab Spider ♀
(Misumenops bellulus)



Swift Crab Spider ♀
(Mecaphesa celer)



White-Banded Crab Spider ♂
(Misumenoides formosipes)



Cheers,

Jack

Edited on Sep 12, 2013 at 01:01 PM · View previous versions



Sep 12, 2013 at 12:56 PM
12monkeys
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #7 · p.4 #7 · We can do better.


Dalantech wrote:
Concave diffusers create some odd shaped specular highlights -I really don't think that they are the only choice.


They're probably not but I've yet to see someone provide a better solution.

Dalantech wrote:
Nope, I've seen more people bail out of macro because people on this board (and others) led them to believe that they had to focus stack. Most newbies struggle to nail the focus in a single frame and panic if they think they have to take multiple frames and stack...


Neither of us really know how many or how few people are put off doing macro because of the focus on equipment because they don't stick around to tell us. I'm hypothesizing that it's quite a lot, based on the ratio of newbies on the macro board to people asking about macro equipment on the Canon board. FWIW, I've never done a focus stack.

Dalantech wrote:
Actually they are frequently told that long focal length lenses are necessary if they want to shoot insects -and it's completely false. I see bad advice all the time and expend way too much energy trying to correct them -one of the reasons I blog


That's not been my experience on the Canon board. I'm not saying there won't be someone coming along saying it's better to buy a 180mm lens for more working distance, but from memory it's usually somebody saying that you need a tripod, focusing rail and twin-headed flash with home-made diffusers. Again, FWIW, I use a 100mm lens on a FF body. My own personal bugbear is people being told that they have to use manual focus. Maybe at high magnification but for bees and wasps and the like, my autofocus works wonders up to 0.34m, and makes life a lot easier with wind and fidgety bugs.

As MarkB kind of suggested above, I think it would be nice to have a sticky for macro in all its simplicity. No flash, no tubes, no tripods, no reflectors and no focus stacking. Not because it's better than other forms of macro photography but because I think these other forms receive sufficient coverage as it is. Tom?



Sep 12, 2013 at 12:56 PM
John Koerner
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #8 · p.4 #8 · We can do better.


Tom Hicks wrote:
It's been almost 11years since I got the macro forum started , and I have seen it take on many different forms.
This forum started out as a teaching forum , Myself and a hand full of others , ( most of who have long since gone) put or hearts and soles into making this the best forum on Fred's . We challenged each other , we experimented and came up with lots of ways to inspire the next person to do their best. Years ago we had monthly contest that were judged by me or some of the other
...Show more


I agree with you wholeheartedly, as technical suggestion has been the single greatest contributor to my own improvements as well. Constructive, well-meaning (and well-informed) criticism are the greatest thing to anyone's improvement IMO.

In a Toastmaster's Club, which is a group of people who practice public speaking together (of which I am a member), there is a specific structure to all criticism. First is an overall praise for the effort. Next are "suggestions" for improvement. Third is again to praise the effort and perceived thrust of the speech. Every mistake is documented; every strong point is documented.

With photography, there is definitely just a "this is fun to do" aspect to it, which should be enouraged in all beginners. However, for people who are serious, there is also a real desire to excel, so there can a fine line between "honest criticism" and "hey, just relax and have fun."

No criticism should be mean-spirited, and the love of nature & beauty should also never be forgotten in the "quest for perfection" ... because even less-than-perfect shots were taken because someone really enjoys the beauty of our natural world and is trying to capture that beauty to camera.

Cheers,

Jack



Sep 12, 2013 at 01:14 PM
kwoodard
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #9 · p.4 #9 · We can do better.


John Koerner wrote:
I agree with you wholeheartedly, as technical suggestion has been the single greatest contributor to my own improvements as well. Constructive, well-meaning (and well-informed) criticism are the greatest thing to anyone's improvement IMO.

In a Toastmaster's Club, which is a group of people who practice public speaking together (of which I am a member), there is a specific structure to all criticism. First is an overall praise for the effort. Next are "suggestions" for improvement. Third is again to praise the effort and perceived thrust of the speech. Every mistake is documented; every strong point is documented.

With photography, there is
...Show more

I agree with you completely. I have heard all the same lines of advice when I was starting out in macro. You need this lens, manual focus, sturdy tripod, focusing rail... I got all those things and my work didn't really improve. Then I got someone who sent me a PM and gave nice, honest, not overly technical, and "non-bashing" advice. She talked about composition, lighting and angle. She even took the time to share some of her early work where she was specifically working on say just angle. I found that so much more helpful than, "Maybe this would look better in different lighting..." When you are a beginner, you really don't know what this means.



Sep 12, 2013 at 05:03 PM
John Koerner
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #10 · p.4 #10 · We can do better.


kwoodard wrote:
I agree with you completely. I have heard all the same lines of advice when I was starting out in macro. You need this lens, manual focus, sturdy tripod, focusing rail... I got all those things and my work didn't really improve. Then I got someone who sent me a PM and gave nice, honest, not overly technical, and "non-bashing" advice. She talked about composition, lighting and angle. She even took the time to share some of her early work where she was specifically working on say just angle. I found that so much more helpful than, "Maybe this would
...Show more


Great post. What you're talking about is, essentially, the difference between "tools" versus "craft." I can have the best guitar in the world, but that doesn't mean I will know how to play it. I can buy the tools, but understanding the craft will take some time.

Regarding the craft of taking good macro shots, it is key to me the "simplicity of approach" that woman gave you ... namely about composition, lighting, and angle ... as just 3 days ago I made a YouTube video saying almost the exact same thing in reference to artistic macro shots: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1tFVUVyuYU

I do believe you need certain basic pieces of equipment in place; however I also agree that none of your equipment matters if you're taking your photograph at the wrong angle or in bad light. This was the overall thrust of the brief video tutorial I gave. Getting your compositions and lighting down are the fundamentals that have nothing to do with equipment, but more of an "eye" or "feel" ...

As most of us know, photography means "drawing with light," so having aesthetically-pleasing light is, literally, everything (well, almost). Once optimal lighting is available, then it's all about composition (which involves angle) and focus. They all kind of overlap, as composition and angle can affect light, what's in focus, etc.

In the end, a person does not need every expensive piece of macro equipment he can buy; all he or she needs is a good lens, a decent camera, and (imo) a tripod. The aptitude for understanding light & composition will come from hands-on experience, and an open mind, which brings us full circle to a beginner just getting out there, taking shots, and having fun

The more a person is aware of the basic principles, however, and at the same time is aware of the limitless number of angles and compositions available, the more creative and free the person will feel to experiment. The final icing on the cake is taking advantage of the value of feedback, as is the thrust of this original thread topic.

Cheers,



Sep 12, 2013 at 06:41 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Tom Hicks
Offline
• • • • • • •
Moderator
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #11 · p.4 #11 · We can do better.


Hello everyone , I'm back in town and have better access to my images . First I would like to thanks each and everyone of you for replying to this thread and continuing the discussion of the macro forum . By helping others improve there skill level as well as helping them develop there craft, ( good word John K ) we help improve the forum.

I am going to post some images that I have taken in years past , And I can honestly say that I am sick of looking at them myself , but it's all I have . For me it's been a long time since I have taken a meaningful shot .

Perspectives, change them up ; it creates a stronger image.















Backing off can help strengthen an image




















Use of negative space




















Showing habitat . with perspective change















Magical natural light.







Even moody natural light.







These are just a few examples . will post more later.

Again, I wish I had some new work and thanks for everyones participation .

Tom





Sep 12, 2013 at 11:59 PM
Dalantech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #12 · p.4 #12 · We can do better.


John Koerner wrote:
Honestly, Dalantech, I don't like the lighting of those bee shots on the previous page at all. While not harsh, the light is too yellow and the colors do not seem either optimal or natural IMO.


Actually John I think your assessment of my flash photography is spot on (except for the bumblebee shot, just don't think that the light in that one is harsh). Over the last year or more I've been experimenting with the light, looking for ways to get the quality I wanted with the camera. But sometimes a gel or a filter will work, and sometimes it won't. I just don't have time to mess with the gear when I'm shooting semi-active to hyperactive subjects. Ever chase a honeybee with a tripod? So now I've come full circle, not using anything to modify the light other than a diffuser, and I'm getting the color and saturation that I want in post.

As for your images: I like them, but I think you and I are such polar opposites that it's tough for me to give you a critique. You're lighting, to me, looks almost flat (it's almost too diffused for my tastes) and a lot of those images look the same to me cause they were shot from about the same angle. I'm wondering if you're letting your gear dictate what you can shoot and how you can shoot it.



Sep 13, 2013 at 05:30 AM
e6filmuser
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #13 · p.4 #13 · We can do better.


Dalantech wrote:
Actually they are frequently told that long focal length lenses are necessary if they want to shoot insects -and it's completely false. I see bad advice all the time and expend way too much energy trying to correct them -one of the reasons I blog.


With respect, John that has elements of bad advice, in that it is an unhelpful generalisation.

It depends on your subject and your circumstances.

I have shot portraits of damselflies and dragonflies in daylight with a 60mm macro lens. Sometimes it took half an hour to much longer to get close enough to do so. On other occasions, not least when they are over water, or there was tall vegetation between us, I have needed the full-frame equivalent of a 200mm or 300mm to get any image with the insect (butterfly, dragonfly, etc.) as a significant proportion of the frame. For smaller subjects, I have sometimes used a 38mm bellows lens on extension (in habitat).

You can do some macro with a given lens but versatility requires more choice, perhaps via teleconverters or high quality supplementaries in the first instance.

Harold



Sep 13, 2013 at 07:36 AM
Dalantech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #14 · p.4 #14 · We can do better.


e6filmuser wrote:
With respect, John that has elements of bad advice, in that it is an unhelpful generalisation.

It depends on your subject and your circumstances.

I have shot portraits of damselflies and dragonflies in daylight with a 60mm macro lens. Sometimes it took half an hour to much longer to get close enough to do so. On other occasions, not least when they are over water, or there was tall vegetation between us, I have needed the full-frame equivalent of a 200mm or 300mm to get any image with the insect (butterfly, dragonfly, etc.) as a significant proportion of the frame. For smaller
...Show more

Uh, yeah, that was pretty much my point -that you don't have to have a specific lens for a specific type of subject. Me thinks you're reading way too much into what I've said just for the sake of arguing with me...

I said it earlier in this thread but I think you over looked it: You only need a camera and a lens to shoot macro. Everything else falls into the category of gear that fits your style of shooting, or that lets you get the images that you want to take (it's personal, so not necessary for everyone). The biggest trap I've seen a lot of photographers fall into is in thinking that there are only two ways to take a photo: Their way, and everyone else's way....



Sep 13, 2013 at 07:58 AM
e6filmuser
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #15 · p.4 #15 · We can do better.


Dalantech wrote:
You only need a camera and a lens to shoot macro. Everything else falls into the category of gear that fits your style of shooting, or that lets you get the images that you want to take (it's personal, so not necessary for everyone)..


I'm totally with you on that.

I think there are two stages: Learning to shoot macro and shooting the macro you want to. Going straight to the second phase could impede progress and lead to disappointment and subsequent loss of interest.

My personal recommendation for a new recruit would be to forget about insects for the time being and start with flowers. They don't walk or fly away and can be tethered. Even better, use a potted plant, which can be put on a support at a height for photographer comfort, and turned to get the "best" light. Then, using the chosen hardware, a great deal of learning could be done in a very short time before progressing to more challenging subjects. But how many are going to start this way? Again, it might be better to introduce flash at this stage rather than risk losing shots of more interesting material later, due to poor technique.

Harold



Sep 13, 2013 at 08:34 AM
Dalantech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #16 · p.4 #16 · We can do better.


Agreed Harold. I also think that composition should be stressed over absolute image sharpness. Just nailing the focus, and getting all the fine details, really isn't enough.


Sep 13, 2013 at 08:51 AM
e6filmuser
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #17 · p.4 #17 · We can do better.


Dalantech wrote:
I also think that composition should be stressed over absolute image sharpness. Just nailing the focus, and getting all the fine details, really isn't enough.


Absolutely! I believe that you and I may be members of a very small and exclusive club. Also, having a lifelong interest in plants, insects, mushrooms, etc., I cannot see an image of them purely as an image. It has also to say something about the subject, if only to me, perhaps sometimes an empathy. (I am struggling a bit with the words here but it is real).

Harold



Sep 13, 2013 at 09:11 AM
John Koerner
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #18 · p.4 #18 · We can do better.


Dalantech wrote:
Actually John I think your assessment of my flash photography is spot on (except for the bumblebee shot, just don't think that the light in that one is harsh). Over the last year or more I've been experimenting with the light, looking for ways to get the quality I wanted with the camera. But sometimes a gel or a filter will work, and sometimes it won't. I just don't have time to mess with the gear when I'm shooting semi-active to hyperactive subjects. Ever chase a honeybee with a tripod?


Okay, perhaps the word harsh was, er, harsh (lol), but the colors look a little bright and synthetic to me. I favor softer, more pastel-like colors, which of course is just personal preference.

Totally understand about moving subjects. There is no way I could take my images of moving subjects, with a shutter speed of 1/5. As for the tripod statement, one very well known bee photographer actually does use a tripod for his work (which is exceptional), because he does not bother "chasing" them anymore.

Rather, what he does is select the best flower, sets his tripod up and composes his optimal shot in relation to that flower, and then just "waits." That way, he's got his strobe, ISO, etc. set up beforehand ... and then just lets the bee(s) come to his controlled environment ... rather than chasing them.


Dalantech wrote:
But sometimes a gel or a filter will work, and sometimes it won't. I just don't have time to mess with the gear when I'm shooting semi-active to hyperactive subjects. So now I've come full circle, not using anything to modify the light other than a diffuser, and I'm getting the color and saturation that I want in post.


I hear you. I personally try not to use flash at all, if possible; however, I also realize that (esp. with moving subjects) then flash use becomes necessary. Rarely does the look of "flash light" do it for me when I use flash. I appreciate the subject; I appreciate that I was able to capture what I wanted to camera, but the soft pastel colors I prefer are seldom realized with flash. Typically, when they are, it is because I have used hardly any flash at all, and have layers of diffusion in place.



Dalantech wrote:
As for your images: I like them, but I think you and I are such polar opposites that it's tough for me to give you a critique.


That's a fair statement. When two people have dramatically different tastes and styles, it's often difficult to separate bias from technique.



Dalantech wrote:
You're lighting, to me, looks almost flat (it's almost too diffused for my tastes) and a lot of those images look the same to me cause they were shot from about the same angle. I'm wondering if you're letting your gear dictate what you can shoot and how you can shoot it.


I love the lighting in my shots, as soft pastel lighting is my preference, but I do appreciate your input. Flash lighting tends to look "neon" to me and unnatural, but many people prefer that look as well.

As for all my images looking "the same," I see what you mean in a sense. Many spider photographers always go to the ultra-close shot of a jumping spider's face, to the extent these images are now commonplace. These shots, of course, can be fantastic ... and just really rivet one's attention to their almost alien appearance ... but this is done so often that I don't want to be an also-ran.

I try to present the form and color of the spider's whole body against a pleasant background. Most people are afraid of spiders, and so I try to set them up in a beautiful, almost artsy way ... so as to take the "fear factor" out of spiders and (perhaps) have them perceived as something beautiful. Don't know how successful I am at that, lol, but that is what I am trying for

But I do appreciate your pointing out the "sameness" in my shots, as that is something I don't want to get stuck into, either, is another kind of rut. So thank you for that.

Cheers,

Jack



Sep 13, 2013 at 12:15 PM
John Koerner
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #19 · p.4 #19 · We can do better.


Dalantech wrote:
You only need a camera and a lens to shoot macro. Everything else falls into the category of gear that fits your style of shooting, or that lets you get the images that you want to take (it's personal, so not necessary for everyone)..


You may only need a camera and lens to "shoot macro" ... but you will not be successful in many instances, where specialty items are needed, which is why other kinds of supplemental tools have been invented. (Tripod, flash, remote switch, diffusers, tubes, etc.)

I do agree that everyone should pretty much start out with a camera and basic 100mm macro, to get their bearings, after which they can then add to their kit "what they need" to achieve the kind of shots they find themselves leaning toward.

That said, absolutely, many fantastic and creative results can be achieved with nothing but a basic camera and lens.



___________________________________________



e6filmuser wrote:
I'm totally with you on that.
I think there are two stages: Learning to shoot macro and shooting the macro you want to. Going straight to the second phase could impede progress and lead to disappointment and subsequent loss of interest.


Great post.


e6filmuser wrote:
My personal recommendation for a new recruit would be to forget about insects for the time being and start with flowers. They don't walk or fly away and can be tethered. Even better, use a potted plant, which can be put on a support at a height for photographer comfort, and turned to get the "best" light. Then, using the chosen hardware, a great deal of learning could be done in a very short time before progressing to more challenging subjects. But how many are going to start this way? Again, it might be better to introduce flash at this
...Show more

Interesting advise. I started out shooting butterflies on flowers, and then took almost nothing but flower shots for quite awhile, for exactly the reasons you described: they didn't move (except in the wind). However, I think a person would do well to master natural light first, time of day, angle of sun, etc. Or, better yet, learning how to diffuse the sun, and to really learn the interrelationship of shutter speed + ISO + f/stop in modifying natural light based on circumstance. Then learn "fill flash" to full flash, etc.

Great discussion



Sep 13, 2013 at 12:35 PM
e6filmuser
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #20 · p.4 #20 · We can do better.


John Koerner wrote:
I try to present the form and color of the spider's whole body against a pleasant background. Most people are afraid of spiders, and so I try to set them up in a beautiful, almost artsy way ... so as to take the "fear factor" out of spiders and (perhaps) have them perceived as something beautiful. Don't know how successful I am at that, lol, but that is what I am trying for


Jack,

I think your images are superb. The choice of soft textures and pastel colours works very well and even I can appreciate the creative element. I think at least some of them would qualify as "Fine Art" in the print world, although I am in no way qualified to judge.

You are very keen on concave diffusers. This reminds me that I have an Olympus legacy T8 gun which has a diffuser the size of a dinner plate. It is cumbersome to use but I have been more concerned with its low guide number when I use ISO 100 film. With a bit more flexibility with the lower ISOs of digital, I must dig it out and perhaps try it on lenses where there is a suitable filter thread.

http://www.alanwood.net/photography/olympus/t8-ring-flash.html

Harold



Sep 13, 2013 at 12:44 PM
1       2       3      
4
       5       6       7       end




FM Forums | Macro World | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       5       6       7       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password