Thanks for commenting, Jim. I still cannot see any "big problems" anywhere, though
And thanks for the experiment idea. I won't be able to conduct any experiment in the nearest future, though. In a few hours I'm off to the Norwegian mountains, bicycling and taking pictures with my totally inferior, long lens macro rig
Just a short note: You seem to think that putting the flash in manual ensures shorter flash durations than E-TTL. I believe Fred V has just proven otherwise, ref. the posting at DPR, linked above.
Have a nice week-end, John and Jim - I hope you'll able to sneak in some shooting into your scheedules, too
Eyvind Ness wrote:
Thanks for commenting, Jim. I still cannot see any "big problems" anywhere, though
Well, there aren't. It's just that this shot doesn't disprove what I was saying.
Eyvind Ness wrote:
And thanks for the experiment idea. I won't be able to conduct any experiment in the nearest future, though. In a few hours I'm off to the Norwegian mountains, bicycling and taking pictures with my totally inferior, long lens macro rig
Now that sounds like fun! Don't feel that I'm down on your long-lens rig. I do a similar thing with my 70-300 IS and a 250D. And it's pretty handy at times! But I don't expect to get good diffusion or to be able to hand-hold it well without the IS turned on. My comments and original point were just that:
I constantly see people go on and on about how beneficial a long working distance is for macros. But my experience has been that longer working distances impose some very real drawbacks, especially when it comes to applying flash to the shots and hand-holding them. That's all.
Eyvind Ness wrote:
Just a short note: You seem to think that putting the flash in manual ensures shorter flash durations than E-TTL. I believe Fred V has just proven otherwise, ref. the posting at DPR, linked above.
Where did I say that putting the flash into manual ensures shorter flash durations? This is baffling to me. I never stated anything even remotely like that!
I fear that people are being overly confused by my posts, it seems, but I don't see why.
Obviously, for any given set-up, to achieve the same exposure, the exact same flash durations will be required regardless of whether we're in ETTL or Manual.
The point is that *we cannot know* what the power levels were when we shoot in ETTL mode because the camera does not record the power level information for us.
And for some reason, people are seeing the first shot in my series, taken at 1/64th power, and then assuming that all of their real-world shots will be taken at 1/64th power. That's unreasonable, and I never expected people to make that assumption.
What I'm saying is that I *can* achieve very short flash pulses when I manually set the power to 1/64th. But by the same token, I can achieve very long flash pulses if I set the power to (for example) 1/2 or 1/1.
So the question is: What power levels are we actually using when we shoot using various set-ups? The only way to draw any conclusions (from my tests) about the pulse widths we're getting is to know what power levels our shots are using. And I have no way to test this for everyone. We'll all need to do it for ourselves, using the method I outlined above. It's actually very fast to perform this test, and since it's digital, we can just delete the test shots when we're done.
'Eyvind Ness wrote:
Have a nice week-end, John and Jim - I hope you'll able to sneak in some shooting into your scheedules, too
Oh, I'm sure I will.
Thanks, and have a great trip. It should be beautiful!
There is one point that is not really mentioned in all these discussions though. I can freeze motion of an insect with a flash duration of 1 second.... provided the camera and insect is perfectly still (or at least, the relative motion between insect and camera is zero).
This can never be reached, but it is possible to approach this by mounting the camera on a tripod, or supporting it properly when hand holding it, and by not expecting sharp images when the wind blows a flower on which an insect is perching.
Point is - I think we can get away with sharp images using slower (sub optimal) flash speeds *provided* we get the relative camera/subject motion down to a minimum. So technique plays a great role here. In other words, fast flash duration is not a requirement for sharp photos, but it sure goes a long way to help.
pwnell wrote:
...Point is - I think we can get away with sharp images using slower (sub optimal) flash speeds *provided* we get the relative camera/subject motion down to a minimum. So technique plays a great role here. In other words, fast flash duration is not a requirement for sharp photos, but it sure goes a long way to help.
Absolutely -well said! The problem, at least for me, is that I'm never shooting in perfect conditions. There is always some wind, the critter is moving as it feeds on the flower, and I'm moving. So to keep motion blur to a minimum I do a lot of things like hold onto the flower the critter is on with my left hand and rest the lens on that same hand so that the camera and the flower will move in unison. As I'm focusing the shot I half press the shutter release so that when I get the focus point where I want it all I have to do is that final half press...
I'm still convinced, from my own experience, that motion blur is a problem even if the flash is the only light source. I offer this shot, taken at 1x, F16, 1/200, and ISO 100 of a honeybee that's acting as an air conditioner for a hive. MT-24EX set to -2/3 FEC. I had some plastic hot glued to the diffuser -I think it was from a milk jug (Edit: It was a fruit juice bottle -pretty thick). After I took this shot I started working on getting better diffusion and shorter flash durations and the level of detail in my images improved...
That's a good example. And I'm in the same boat most of the time. I tend to shoot "targets of opportunity" while out walking or just rooting around in my yard. I thus shoot hand-held for the most part. And it's windy here quite often.
So all in all, I need every advantage I can get
Anything I can do to get faster flash pulses does seem to improve my success at getting things really sharp.
But as pwnell notes, if you can steady things as much as possible, that also helps. I'l take every advantage that I can get.
I usually hold the lens in my left hand and rest the lens, the flash ring, or my hand on something when I can. Barring that, the technique of grabbing the leaf or stem in my hand so that at least the lens moves with the subject is helpful.
I do my very best to cheat any way I can think of.
Steadiness along with very fast flash pulses add up to the sharpest shots
Yeah macro photography makes one a bit weird, doesn't it? But there is nothing in this world more exciting that getting a macro of some bug you have never seen so close up before. It is like visiting an alien planet - at least it is for me.
I've always felt that one of the main things that photography can do is to allow the viewer of a picture to see something that they normally would not have gotten to see.
I worked as a newspaper photographer in the mid 1970s, and it was exciting to be able to show people things that they would not have seen on their own. And that same feeling has always sort of been with me.
Whether it's a landscape, or an event from around the world, or a special moment captured in time, photos can show us things we'd otherwise completely miss out on. And macro is an extension of that for me.
It lets us see things we'd ordinarily pass right by without noticing.
It really does open up a whole new world - even though it was there all along
Dalantech wrote:
Absolutely -well said! The problem, at least for me, is that I'm never shooting in perfect conditions. There is always some wind, the critter is moving as it feeds on the flower, and I'm moving. So to keep motion blur to a minimum I do a lot of things like hold onto the flower the critter is on with my left hand and rest the lens on that same hand so that the camera and the flower will move in unison. As I'm focusing the shot I half press the shutter release so that when I get the focus point where I want it all I have to do is that final half press...
I'm still convinced, from my own experience, that motion blur is a problem even if the flash is the only light source. I offer this shot, taken at 1x, F16, 1/200, and ISO 100 of a honeybee that's acting as an air conditioner for a hive. MT-24EX set to -2/3 FEC. I had some plastic hot glued to the diffuser -I think it was from a milk jug (Edit: It was a fruit juice bottle -pretty thick). After I took this shot I started working on getting better diffusion and shorter flash durations and the level of detail in my images improved...
Edited by Dalantech on Sep 12, 2008 at 06:30 PM GMT...Show more →
That's a very good example of motion blur - but exif-data is missing, could you please re-post, with the full exif included?
Wings are blurred, even the fanciest lighting will have trouble stopping wing blur, but it seems the antenna is also moving, which is pretty remarkable, I think.
