Tom Hicks wrote:
Kyle Yu wrote:
Tom,

Thanks for all your great info, I have a question. I tried hand holding my 18-105 lens reversed to test it out, but I cant see anything when i look through the viewfinder. Is this normal or am i doing something wrong? I tried it in bright sunlight. Thanks.

Kyle



If you are trying to use an EF lens. you will need to select an f stop then activate your DOF prewiev button. While the lens is stopped down remove it from the camera and it will stay at that f stop, you can then hold it or attach it to the camera body lens opening and take a shot . f8--- f16 works well but it will be dark , so make sure you are shooting in some good light.

Hope this helps.


Thanks Tom,

Actually, I have a Nikon D90 so its an AF-S lens. I tried removing the lens after pressing the DOF preview button but im not too sure that it works. I ended up manually moving the aperture level and aimed a flash light at my subject and it did work. it was interesting and I will need to look for an old 50mm lens and reversing ring so i play with it some more. Thanks a lot for time and effort to answer questions and share your knowledge.

Kyle

I have tried with my D40 with 55mm ais with PK13 and by itself but have no working distance to speak of,
Makes it really tough unless you have a willing subject!Terry

You don't need a many hundred dollar macro lens to do the job. You will often hear there is no such thing as a bad macro, and this is true. What I am recommending was recommended by Pop Photo when this lens first came out, now you will have to look for one used, if shooting with an ef canon camera - I own this lens.

The lens I am suggesting you try and obtain is the Vivitar/Phoenix/Cosina 100 f3.5 macro lens. I will add a link to a review of it. I promise that if you take photos with this lens, no one will know it is a "cheapy." You can probably purchase this lens used for around $70 or less.

The lens by itself is 1:2 ratio but when you add the propitiatory supplemental lens (comes with the lens), it becomes a 1:1 ratio. The build is cheap but tough, many have dropped it and it has survived.

If you are a starving student wanting to get into macro, this is the lens to buy.

http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-primes/vivitar/PRD_84631_3111crx.aspx

Here are some images with it:

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=18394

While I agree with the sentiments, not least the expense issue, this is really only for seeing whether you like macro, or for occasional macro work.

I have a tiny confession. (Some bigger ones may emerge in other contexts). I purchased reversing rings, and one or two other items for adapting existing equipment, but have not used them).

Having struggled with manual setting of diaphragms, even with that of my Canon (FD) 20mm bellow lens, I have obtained OM autodiaphragm models and other true macro lenses (Tamron 90mm f2.5, OM 50mm macro). As I deal mainly with active subjects such as insects (some close-ups, rather than true macro) this makes image capture (not least framing the subject) much easier and quicker. I have added dedicated macro flash equipment for freezing motion and giving greater depth of field.

What I am saying is, when you have the commitment, and can afford to, remove some of the frustrations and disappointments by using kit designed for the purpose. Having said that, I am now moving some of my activity into the next phase, of seeing what I can do with lenses designed for specialist purposes but not the ones I want to use them for. I have also somewhat stretched the possibilites of the macro lenses, for example hand-held shots with a 38mm bellows lens on extension rings.

Great thread Tom!

I've been totally digging close-up filters for many years now!

For people wanting to get into macro photography think about a $25 close up lens first. There are two basic types. Single element multi-coated ones often designated by an MC printed on the barrel and multi-lens high grade achromatic ones often designated with an AC printed on the barrel and usually containing aspherical elements. The price difference is usually negligible like $25 for the MC and $45 for the AC or something close to that.

Regardless of the focal length of your camera lens (if it's distance reading is set to infinity) focus is obtainable at a point equal to the distance from the tip of the camera's lens to the focal length of the close up attachment. Of course adjusting the focus in from infinity will bring it in closer as well! The various focal lengths available from close up attachments are all about the same price and designated usually by a "No. X" also printed on it's barrel. For example a "No. 1" close up lens is 1,000mm and a "No. 10" is 100mm. This would mean that with a No.1 the farthest you can (typically) focus out to is 1000mm or about 1 yard and with a No.10 100mm (10 cm) or about 1/3 of a foot. Here's a useful table of designate numbers and their typical focal lengths:

Number.........Focal Length............Magnification
No.1............... 1000mm............... 1/20 - 1/6.5
No.2................ 500mm................ 1/10 - 1/5
No.3................ 330mm................ 1/6.7 - 1/4
No.4................ 250mm................ 1/5 - 1/3
No.5................ 200mm................ 1/4 - 1/2.8
No.6................ 160mm................
No.7................ 140mm................
No.8................ 125mm................
No.9................ 115mm................
No.10.............. 100mm................ 1/2.3 - 1/1.7


The AC types are really recommended as there's no fringing or other aberrations that occur with them as opposed to the single lens MC types. At about No. 8 you start seeing some pin cushion (AKA Pillow shaped) distortion on the outer edges for both types. It's usually not too bad though depending on the camera's lens.

I often read people recommending to buy a set comprised of No.1, No.2, and No. 4 only - saying that by combining them you can get a No. 3 (by adding the No.1 atop the No.2), No. 5 (4+1), No. 6 (4+2), and a No.7 (1+2+4) but I dunno if I would recommend that as aberrations (fringe etc.) and distortions are compounded not to mention that these things are thick so with just 2 of them on the front of your lens you've got about a 1 inch black tube which will cause severe vignetting at the lower end of most zoom lenses. I would get a No. 4 (or 5) and a No. 10 (or 9) if I had limited funds and wanted to play with macro. And probably the No. 4 (or 5) is more generally useful than the 10.

Extension tubes are "OK" too but far less convenient IMO, usually more expensive, and now we're exposing our sensor to dust every time we attache or remove it.

Here's some examples of AC grade close-up filters:

$20 (AC) achromat close-up filter (№ 3) at 200 mm, f/3.5






$22 (AC) achromat close-up filter (№ 4) at 101 mm, f/5.6






$22 (AC) achromat close-up filter (№ 4) at 200 mm, f/8.0
(this little guy is about 1cm in length)






$22 (AC) achromat close-up filter (№ 4) at 200 mm, f/8.0




Ad also the macro in my thread here was created with an #8 achromatic close-up filter on a 200mm macro lens.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/700113

Tom Hicks wrote:
Don't get caught in the macro photography hype.

Macro is an interesting and challenging style of photography, which is wonderful. We are fortunate that it can be accomplished with a multitude of different shooting styles and equipment. We have here at Fred's a very high number of very very fine Macro shooters all of which bring a lot to the table , Like the Knights at the round table. We are all approachable and are willing to help. I know that many of the newer photographers here that lurk in the shadows ( newbies to the art of macro ) look at the images here and probably scratch most of the hair from your head trying to figure out how this is done.

First I will say to the beginner that you don't need any fancy equipment to do this , if anything it is a poor man's style of photography. All you need is a camera body , a reversed lens and a pop up flash if you feel it is needed.

Don't get caught up in all this hype like megapixels , stacking this on that , 42 flash unites hanging off god knows what. Can it be done this way? Yes . Is it needed? No. Is it fun to play with and use ? Yes, that's what's so good about Macro so many way's to get the same results.

Some of the members here are fortunate enough to have incomes that will support all this craziness, but for all the new people IT IS NOT NEEDED.

Edited by Tom Hicks on Aug 09, 2008 at 11:19 AM GMT
I have a macro lens. It auto focuses quickly--speedy insects don't wait. It can be used as the only lens at a wildlife refuge--nothing has to be removed, reversed, or changed.

In professional ($) film and digital studio photography the use of reflection and refraction (translucent) panels are super common. Just about every kind of shot uses them. Often there are many set up just for one shot. They make a huge amount of difference and it's usually nothing you can achieve through software although if you had a week to do the edit in a package like LightWave3D, Maya, XSI, Houdini, or the another 3D package you could probably pull it off in some cases.

But I guess even though most of the people here are using cary-about cameras and don't have access to a studio and all the goodies found in one, we can still use those techniques. There's all kinds of stuff you can do with a flash or two just using the surfaces in whatever environment you're in.

In this mini-tut I'd like to discuss and show you what I've been playing with recently. Most of you by now have probably already read about the paper trick. It's an old trick to be sure - probably the best explanation I've ever seen of it was this image:

Straight Flash - No diffusor. (Notice the hard shadows and harsh lighting.)

Image Courtesy Of LumiQuest.

1. Its construction implements an extra thick center panel to attempt to combat the hotspot the flash will produce. Such a hotspot will defeat most of it's usefulness. Smart, but now we have to use allot more power to achieve the same quantity of light. Probably not too bad with a professional grade flash though.
   
   
2. It's using extremely inexpensive materials with translucent properties. It looks like vinyl (naugahyde) to me.
   
   
3. And we're still emitting light from the same basic direction - in front of the subject. If you can get real close this is probably not a problem and certainly Daan's (Doenoe's) examples here are a great testament to just how well it can work when fitted on a fairly strong dedicated flash unit.
   

Flash with Paper Rig Diffuser (Notice slightly better shadows, but unevenly lit.)

Notice the clarity or translucent properties of the materials here as they lay on the towels.


Here's the clearest one looking at the amount of translucent diffusion over a distance of 0 ~ 40cm.



Here's the whitish one looking at the amount of translucent diffusion over a distance of 0 ~ 40cm.

Flash With Frosted Clear Plastic Diffuser Panel. (Improved shadow softness, slightly hot center)

Flash With White Translucent Plastic Diffuser Panel. (Even better shadow softness, better center lighting)

White Plastic Diffuser ~15° off Film Axis - Fluorescent-like Transmission Properties



White Plastic Diffuser ~90° off Film Axis - Diffuser-cap-like Front Hot Lighting.

Excellent post Bifurcator! I wish you had made a completely new thread with it so I could easily bookmark it...

Although I agree with what you have to say and the results it's tough to translate it into what I'm doing with a camera. I don't think this guy would sit still if I came at him with a big piece of white plastic on my camera:

Dalantech wrote:
Excellent post Bifurcator! I wish you had made a completely new thread with it so I could easily bookmark it...


http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/675134/2#6352600

Dalantech wrote:

Although I agree with what you have to say and the results it's tough to translate it into what I'm doing with a camera. I don't think this guy would sit still if I came at him with a big piece of white plastic on my camera:

True. Because of the size and desired orientation of my little rig here it won't be optimal in every situation. Still I think it applicable in most.

Here only the flash to subject distance has changed.
The subject size and Subject <--> BG distance remain the same (supposedly ).

Bifurcator wrote:
Dalantech wrote:
Excellent post Bifurcator! I wish you had made a completely new thread with it so I could easily bookmark it...


http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/675134/2#6352600



Sorry -I said that wrong. I know I can bookmark this page, but your post is an interesting one since it centers on lighting, and not all of the general topics covered in this thread. Would be cool to get into a single thread just about light...

Bifurcator wrote:
I mean, we're sticking our lenses in their faces already as it is. It doesn't seem to affect most of the insects I've tried it on. In fact - in the case of some crawlers they stop and pose for me - probably trying to figure out what the heck I am / it is.

We're shooting different subjects -a lot of the critters I go after, and at the time of day that I shoot them (very active), won't put up with a large white surface coming at them -I've tried. I noticed a difference in my ability to get close to the subjects I shoot after taping the sides of my Sto-Fen diffusers.

Another reason for not using a large diffusion surface: Shadow control. No offence; I like your insect shots. But the shadows are almost too soft, or maybe just not dirrectional enough for me. By using two small light sources, as opposed to one large light source, I can gain control of where the shadows are to give a 2D image a 3D look...

Bifurcator wrote:
Mmmm, I think it's negligible in the digital world where color temperature correction is at slider's reach.

Sure, I think we agree on all points, shadow control, lighting as a composition tool, even size as an obstacle. So our only real point of contention is over how much difference is produced from impure materials and those marketed as being specifically for photography. Although one might contend in accordance with the pentagon's own research and successful experiments with marine troops killing sheep with only "mind power" (documented and released into the public record) and by the sheer number of "psychic warriors" they employ to remote sense (also documented), that the disturbance of an insect by the size color and proximity of an object is at least affected by that objet handler's confidence, beliefs, will, and assumptions in disallowing it.

How much information is subdued by photographing an object illuminated by 5000K light filtering through a material which measures about a degree or less thermal radiation on a standard HSL/HSV color wheel and a chromaticity difference of probably less than a few nanometers Euclidean distance or Delta-E of less than about 2.0 or 3.0 in comparison with a product which is marketed as being "good" for such? I dunno but just given the fact that each image sensor model varies more than that from model to model or manufacturer to manufacturer , I'm going to claim "not much" and cross my fingers. If I'm wrong we better never take another picture on a cloudy day, under a canopy of any kind, or with any kind of common lights - even daylight would be out of the question in actuality. So just flash?

We're talking entirely about the visible light spectrum here so with only our cameras we should be able to compile very convincing test results just by setting it up logically and comparing the two results. If either produces a noticeable amount of data loss the results have spoken.

I think the major difference between your shots and mine (posted here) besides the number and size of light sources used, are due almost entirely to the differences in lenses. My lens while exceptionally good for a bridge camera, just doesn't compare to even slightly high grade lenses available for dSLR cameras. The second major difference I would assume to be the lens and bucket density differences between our respective image sensors. I'm using a tiny little 2/3" Interlaced RGBG CCD sensor with 8.3 megapixels crammed on. That's a fourth of the area of a common 4/3'rds sensor.

Bifurcator wrote:
... that the disturbance of an insect by the size color and proximity of an object is at least affected by that objet handler's confidence, beliefs, will, and assumptions in disallowing it.

That's it -I'll use the Jedi critter trick! "This is not the photographer you're looking for". Brilliant!

Bifurcator wrote:
How much information is subdued by photographing an object illuminated by 5000K light filtering through a material which measures about a degree or less thermal radiation on a standard HSL/HSV color wheel ... lots of stuff here that made my head spin... on a cloudy day, under a canopy of any kind, or with any kind of common lights - even daylight would be out of the question in actuality. So just flash?

Well this kinda gets back to your earlier statement about changing the white balance in post -something I'd like to avoid. It just makes more sense to me to get it right with the camera. I've got nothing against using off the shelf stuff for a diffuser -I've used plenty of assorted household plastics. But a milk jug isn't designed to diffuse light, and from what I've seen a lot of common plastics do more to block the light coming from the flash than to diffuse it. Not a big deal if you only shoot up to life size, of have a very powerful accessory flash. But when shooting with the tiny flash heads on the MT-24EX at 2x and higher magnification I just don't have light to waste...

Bifurcator wrote:
We're talking entirely about the visible light spectrum here so with only our cameras we should be able to compile very convincing test results just by setting it up logically and comparing the two results. If either produces a noticeable amount of data loss the results have spoken.

I think the differences would, in some cases, be subtle and just looking at a histogram wouldn't be enough. You'd have to take identical shots with the camera on a tripod, print then both out, and compare them side by side.Your not going to see differences in glare an diffusion by looking at a histogram. Even resizing images for a web site can cause problems -in the recent MT-24EX Diffusion Test that I did it would be difficult to see the difference between the images if I had turned the highlight warning indicator off...

Bifurcator wrote:
The second major difference I would assume to be the lens and bucket density differences between our respective image sensors. I'm using a tiny little 2/3" Interlaced RGBG CCD sensor with 8.3 megapixels crammed on. That's half the area of a common 4/3'rds sensor.


Honestly if you are shooting in good light, and I'm not (or I don't know the difference between good light and bad light), then your images would look better than mine -the quality of the light in a scene is critical to getting good photos. As for what can be done with a bridge camera look no further than my mentor Professor Mark Plonsky. His macro photography with a Canon G3 has inspired a number of macro shooters. Although he uses a DSLR and the MPE-65mm macro lens now...

Well, you're right that "color balancing" in ACR and others, does cause information loss. It is a linear operation. If it wasn't then the entire hue wheel would rotate. Anyone can test this by sliding the "Temperature" slider all the way over to one end - tint too and sliding it all the way in combination should blow away a LARGE portion of pixels in most images. A true "Hue" adjustment on the other hand is 100% lossless and you can change it as often as you want as much as you want and always be able to rotate it back into place for 100% recovery. My argument is based on the assumption that there's likely less than a few degrees Kelvin (less than 150 for sure!) difference between an "official" piece of plastic and one my eyes tell me is "white". This is not even considering all the chromatic pollution introduced by bounced light and alternate light sources adding into the mix.

Light source color temperature, size, and intensity or "good light" as you call it is also is very important. We can do the "extreme example" thing in order to test this too. Shooting under a 100% red light will kill 100% of your greens and blues resulting in a comparative information loss. Likewise a light source that produces 50% more red will kill a large percentage of greens and blues. etc. etc. And of course we're all aware of how our sensors or film emulsion behaves under low intensity light - or sources that produce intense specular reflections and/or dispersion with some materials.

All of these properties and mechanisms additively factor into the conditions which can indeed affect the quality of a photograph (IQ). How much depends of course on their relative amounts combined with the limits of human perception and the limits of the lenses and sensors being used. If we single out only color temperature difference of the plastics used between you and I my guesstimate is that the differences are not perceivable. Certainly using two light sources would make a VERY big difference as would the lens and sensor being used. For example my lens is just not capable of these kinds of magnification powers without additional attachments:

Fly Eye
Bug Head
Ant on Leaf
Albino Fly
Grasshopper Head

For canon EOS - - EOS reverse lens mount adapter . I just bought a 52 and a 58 off ebay . Mine were 10 dollars each out of texas .
You can do a search on ebay starting with EOS reverse lens and add / change wording to find what you are looking for .

Tom Hicks wrote

Get an old minolta, pentax, nikon, takamar, manual focus lens , set f stop , and simply hold it up to the camera body and take a few shots of a static object and see what you get it's that easy . you can use your 60 macro , set f stop , Mash DOF preview button,while removing the lens from the camera and it will stay fixed at that f stop , rev and hold to body face , put camera in AV mode meter and take the shot.
.


Thanks for this Tom. Utter genius! Works a treat with my 50mm 1.8 mk1. Having fun. Results later.

Paul

Yes on ebay . About 10 with s/h
. EOS 58 ADAPTER
EOS 52 ADAPTER
EOS 55 ADAPTER---- EVERYONE WAS OUT LAST WEED
EOS screw adapter .
lens reversing adapter
There are a bunch of names they are listed under .

Bifurcators website is down I can't see the examples! Sigh

Thanks a lot Tom. I wish to do more macro shooting this year, and I will remember your advise. It's photographers like you who are generous in spirit
and realize there are many photo opportunities out here. Sharing knowledge
improves us all as people first and photographers second.

Tom-

Really great thread. Don't stop by often enough. Usually hang out in wedding forum. Lots of great tips and inexpensive ways to do macro and make it fun.
My fave is a set of Kenko tubes. I purchased a set in B&S in great shape for $115 and I have seen them go for less. A bit more than your $45 Nikkor zoom, but worth it and attach your fav sharp lens and go! Toobz are your friend for macro-

Btw, I tried the Canon and they are nice too, but not worth the extra, IMO, build is good on the Kenkos and the air inside the Kenko is of equal quality to the Canon.
;-)

Tom

As a Noob, this information is very encouraging and very much appreciated.

BTW - Incredible work!

This question is mainly aimed at Tom Hicks since it was his work earlier in the thread that raised this.

In terms of DoF are you racking the f-stop as wide as it will go or are you letting off a whole load of shots, shifting the focus each time and then stacking them?

Lezloid wrote:
This question is mainly aimed at Tom Hicks since it was his work earlier in the thread that raised this.

In terms of DoF are you racking the f-stop as wide as it will go or are you letting off a whole load of shots, shifting the focus each time and then stacking them?


If you are talking about the spider shot , it is a single shot taken at f11. I'm not much into focus stacking.

Tom

Does anyone know if someone makes the adapter for a 72mm filter?