One of the best times to take photographs is during overcast conditions when there are no hard shadows.
I will also say that you sound very ignorant by claiming your way is the only way.
Furthermore, if you have a problem with unrealistic lighting, you need to stop looking at macro photographs, because I cant remember the last time I was walking around and saw the hairs on an ant- macro photography doesn't represent normal reality, it is a magical realm full of possibilities.
Julian Nell wrote:
One of the best times to take photographs is during overcast conditions when there are no hard shadows.
Light overcast, yes. Heavy overcast, no -the light is too "cold:.
Julian Nell wrote:
I will also say that you sound very ignorant by claiming your way is the only way.
...and now we devolve into name calling... *sigh*
OK, so since you claim that I'm ignorant you're going to show me a photo taken in good natural light of an active subject...
Julian Nell wrote:
Furthermore, if you have a problem with unrealistic lighting, you need to stop looking at macro photographs, because I cant remember the last time I was walking around and saw the hairs on an ant- macro photography doesn't represent normal reality, it is a magical realm full of possibilities.
...and that's the reason why I gave up on trying to make my images look "natural" a long time ago...
And I have a whole series of those because the tussle between the bugs took several minutes before the lower one dragged it too deep into the grass to follow...
charlyw wrote:
And I have a whole series of those because the tussle between the bugs took several minutes before the lower one dragged it too deep into the grass to follow...
How about something at 1x or higher. With that photo you're comparing apples to oranges...
Julian Nell wrote:
I will also say that you sound very ignorant by claiming your way is the only way.
My point is that flash isn't the only preferred means for macro photography as Dalantech claims! That's why the ability to use a tripod ring is so much more important to the selection of a macro lens...
I don't think he thinks flash is the only type of lighting for macro photography, I believe what he is saying is that natural lighting works for the magnification that you have showed, but past 1X-2X is a very different matter.
Dalantech wrote:
How about something at 1x or higher. With that photo you're comparing apples to oranges...
You wanted a macro shot of active insects in natural light - and I provided one where they didn't slurp up a carefully provided drop of sugar solution as featured in most of your shown photos. That I don't consider interesting activity (I'm too polite to say what I think about the baiting you do)...
Julian Nell wrote:
I don't think he thinks flash is the only type of lighting for macro photography, I believe what he is saying is that natural lighting works for the magnification that you have showed, but past 1X-2X is a very different matter.
But for the normal shooter macro encompasses taking photos of insects and flowers as a whole - else there were only one choice of macro lens and that would be the MP/E 65mm... And you don't start macro photography with a lens that is only usable from 1:1 to 5:1 magnification. So we are quite safe to assume that the OP wants a traditional macro lens which is usable up to 1:1 magnification - and up to 1:1 you can easily work with natural light.
Julian Nell wrote:
If the op states that he doesn't want to work in 1X I will recommend he buys extension tubes rather than an expensive macro lens.
If the handling of such extension tubes weren't such a hassle - if budget permits I would always advocate a normal macro lens (anything but the MP/E 65mm) because the handling is so much easier. I always carry a set of extension tubes with me to lower the near focusing distance of my telephoto lenses but besides their use on my 400mm lens I haven't really used them ever since I bought my first macro lens more than 10 years ago.
I think @rossi3218 needs to start with a macro lens with a focal length of about 100mm.
Best cheaper option - Tamron 90mm/2.8 macro and expensive one - Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L macro IS (image stabilization for better handheld closeUp shots IQ).
Dalantech wrote:
How about something at 1x or higher. With that photo you're comparing apples to oranges...
I have to say that is true. I quite like Dalantech's photos - one of the best I have seen on flickr.
