For all of those new to the world of macro you can post your pics here if you feel you need critique , advice on tech, or any other question you may have . Please don't be shy , we are all here to help.
Tom
Aug 01, 2014 at 11:04 PM
Fred Miranda Offline Admin Upload & Sell: On Registered: Dec 30, 2001 Total Posts: 49148 Country: United States Featured Thread wins: 17 times Received Likes: 86964
Due to the length of this thread, only recent posts are available here. Older posts can be viewed from the archive by clicking this link:
Some lovely shots here already! Will comment as I go!
Cross post from the extension tube forum. Having had macro lenses on and off for many years but never used them much or at all I am now finally getting in to it more.
So one of my first using an OM-D E-M1, extension tubes and an old Nikon Micro Nikkor 55mm 3.5 non-ai lens.
Hand held at 3200 ISO.
Critique much appreciated, that's how one learns.
Got an Olympus macro on order and it'll be very fun to try it!
Wilbus wrote:
Some lovely shots here already! Will comment as I go!
Cross post from the extension tube forum. Having had macro lenses on and off for many years but never used them much or at all I am now finally getting in to it more.
So one of my first using an OM-D E-M1, extension tubes and an old Nikon Micro Nikkor 55mm 3.5 non-ai lens.
Hand held at 3200 ISO.
Critique much appreciated, that's how one learns.
Got an Olympus macro on order and it'll be very fun to try it!
You shouldn't need to use such high ISO. I use 400 or 800 for hand-held daylight shots of considerably smaller insects.
e6filmuser wrote:
You shouldn't need to use such high ISO. I use 400 or 800 for hand-held daylight shots of considerably smaller insects.
Harold
Yeah I know thanks, the light situation was quite poor and I needed the higher speed in order to shoot high speed and freeze some of my own motion while moving slightly forward/backward in order to get some luck with the focus where I wanted it. I could easily have been at 400 ISO with more experience in the macro world
I would have aimed a little higher, to get the remainder of those delicate floral parts in the frame.
The subject is very central. The rule of thirds is a good starting point.
For me, it is a bit too bright, perhaps losing some detail in the whites.
Not everyone bothers with removing noise but I think the image would look much cleaner and crisper.
That patch of OOF orange could be cloned out.
Harold
As a lurker, here trying to learn, I appreciate informative comments very much. Yours are among the very best. The extra effort you put into responses, such as the one here, are the benchmark.
calk wrote:
As a lurker, here trying to learn, I appreciate informative comments very much. Yours are among the very best. The extra effort you put into responses, such as the one here, are the benchmark.
Thank you for all of us.
Cal K
You are very welcome. There are few, if any, rights and wrongs. Sharing our experience can get you up and running without going through all the basic struggles that some of us had, and we are all still learning.
Great photos here. Thank you for posting the aperture info as well. Learning a lot from here.
I used to use the larger aperture to get disappointing result. I will try to push to f/8 and see how it comes out next time.
Jim Dockery wrote:
Thanks Harold, put it here since I'm new to macro and learning.
The thread is for those not feeling confident enough to post alongside established contributors as well as those who.are starting with the basics. The pity is that I suspect that only a small proportion of viewings in the forum are of this thread.
As for learning, I am still learning after several decades of macro.
I'm not sure what you call 'new' but I have only been playing with macro for about two years now, and have two small sensor Canons that I use to try and achieve my aims. One camera is a beat-up SX40 which I use for static shots with a Raynox 150, and the other is a well-used S120 Powershot which I use in the garden. I find the small camera quite capable of doing things well enough for what I want photos for. I recently built a removable tube for the S120 which can take any 58mm filter, and by using a Marum 200 (plus the Raynox if needed) I find I have something a little more potent to play with when the occasion arises - the fact that it breaks down into parts I can fit in a coat pocket is a bonus. One day when the kids have all left home I shall graduate to a better quality rig, but this is what I have to play with right now
Here's a couple of recent samples (all from the S120 rig with the Marumi and/or the Raynox):
I'm keen to do better within the constraints of my set-up so any advice is gratefully received. I do not use flash (useless on the little camera) but if the need arises I have a little lighting rack with constant diffused LED light on it; typically I also shoot hand-held with a high shutter speed - I don't have a tripod. It's very much a run 'n gun rig, which suits the speed I seem to spend all day running around at
I'm not sure what you call 'new' but I have only been playing with macro for about two years now, and have two small sensor Canons that I use to try and achieve my aims. One camera is a beat-up SX40 which I use for static shots with a Raynox 150, and the other is a well-used S120 Powershot which I use in the garden. I find the small camera quite capable of doing things well enough for what I want photos for. I recently built a removable tube for the S120 which can take any 58mm filter, and by using a Marum 200 (plus the Raynox if needed) I find I have something a little more potent to play with when the occasion arises - the fact that it breaks down into parts I can fit in a coat pocket is a bonus. One day when the kids have all left home I shall graduate to a better quality rig, but this is what I have to play with right now
Here's a couple of recent samples (all from the S120 rig with the Marumi and/or the Raynox):
I'm keen to do better within the constraints of my set-up so any advice is gratefully received. I do not use flash (useless on the little camera) but if the need arises I have a little lighting rack with constant diffused LED light on it; typically I also shoot hand-held with a high shutter speed - I don't have a tripod. It's very much a run 'n gun rig, which suits the speed I seem to spend all day running around at ...Show more →
Very good results.
Using daylight, you get much more noise than with flash. Your images will look so much claener if you remove it.
I have used Marumi (Achromat) and Raynox (MSN-202) filters a lot.
I use flash for most macro, and always for the very high magnification ones. I have started doing a few more daylight ones recently. The main problem with daylight is the shadows, which you can moderate if you have the software.
With the zoom capability on the SX40 you don't need other focal lengths. The main problem is the lack of RAW capability. RAW files withstand more processing that JPEGs without deterioration of image quality.
I post images here most days and give technical data.
The SX40 is so slow in AF acquisition, and so difficult to use 'on the run' at longer focal lengths that I find it impossible to use for anything macro unless it is set up on a surface. Its continuous shooting mode in manual is also a joke Hence the reason I developed the system for the S120. Whilst I have some decent spider shots with the SX40 and Raynox combo, for anything else I simply find it too slow. The S120, on the other hand, can shoot at up to 12fps, has a better processor and simply seems to work in the hand so much better. I do use the constant LED lighting as much as possible now with it, which has helped immensely.
I'm interested in your comments about noise. I try to take out as much noise as I think my images can bear without becoming too soft so would very much like to hear what else would you do? I have PS and LR, so any pointers would be much appreciated. I'm not very technical, and prefer to shoot rather process but realise that I can improve matters substantially with a little touching up.
Its continuous shooting mode in manual is also a joke Hence the reason I developed the system for the S120. Whilst I have some decent spider shots with the SX40 and Raynox combo, for anything else I simply find it too slow. The S120, on the other hand, can shoot at up to 12fps, has a better processor and simply seems to work in the hand so much better.
What is all this about continuous shooting mode? I only ever shoot single frame.
DrHook wrote:
I'm interested in your comments about noise. I try to take out as much noise as I think my images can bear without becoming too soft so would very much like to hear what else would you do?...
I use Topaz DeNiose 6 plugin in PS. I have just used it to barely remove the noise in one of your images. Do you thinkit has lost sharpness?
Having been a transparency film user for most of my life, I agree with getting it right at the time of the exposure. Unfortunately, noise is far more of a problem with digital than it (grain) ever was with film.
