Captive First go at bugs with Raynox

Sir SR

Sir SR

Messages
5,635
Name
Shaheed
Edit My Images
No
So I thought the dandelion was hard........blimey - Spiders are hard - I nearly fell backward when I first saw it in the viewfinder - this spider was tiny (until I saw it in the viewfinder!!)

DOF tiny.......got lots of OOF ones but this one was vaguely in focus. What I've discovered is that I need a better way of lighting the subject - hand held diffused SB900 camera left, camera hand held - I was very shaky!!

Anyway all help gratefully received. It tested my patience a lot but this is probably the most magnified shot I've ever done!

Spider Raynox Test by Sir SR, on Flickr

Thanks for looking

Shaheed
 
Nice one Shaheed, can't see much wrong with that one. Sounds like you need to find a suitable flash bracket....
 
I went for this one first time around. It's not the best but it's cheap and is does the job:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B005FRI44M/ref=wms_ohs_product?ie=UTF8&psc=1

This should be fine at lower magnifications, although you'll likely need to get a more sturdy ballhead as the one that comes with it is flimsy and won't support a large flash (+ diffuser) very well. I had a gorilla pod with Joby ballhead, so just swapped it for that.

For high magnification (when my MP-E is fully extended) it doesn't have enough reach, and I'm not sure if you will have a similar problem with a the 105mm (I doubt it but it's possible if it's a long lens). I got a more expensive manfrotto option. This is more than long enough (a bit too long) but heavy so it rarely gets much use nowadays. I've been working on my own front mounting bracket recently but that will only support a small flash unit.

Edit: Oh you'll also need a way to trigger the flash, so an equivalent of something like this should do it:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pixel-FC-311-Compact-Camera-Extension/dp/B003UDFMO8/ref=pd_bxgy_ph_text_y

You only need a short cable.
 
Last edited:
TimmyG said:
I went for this one first time around. It's not the best but it's cheap and is does the job:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B005FRI44M/ref=wms_ohs_product?ie=UTF8&psc=1

This should be fine at lower magnifications, although you'll likely need to get a more sturdy ballhead as the one that comes with it is flimsy and won't support a large flash (+ diffuser) very well. I had a gorilla pod with Joby ballhead, so just swapped it for that.

For high magnification (when my MP-E is fully extended) it doesn't have enough reach, and I'm not sure if you will have a similar problem with a the 105mm (I doubt it but it's possible if it's a long lens). I got a more expensive manfrotto option. This is more than long enough (a bit too long) but heavy so it rarely gets much use nowadays. I've been working on my own front mounting bracket recently but that will only support a small flash unit.

Edit: Oh you'll also need a way to trigger the flash, so an equivalent of something like this should do it:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pixel-FC-311-Compact-Camera-Extension/dp/B003UDFMO8/ref=pd_bxgy_ph_text_y

You only need a short cable.
Click to expand...

I've got a TTL cable and some yongnuo ttl triggers too - would they work?

I lent my friend a ray flash thingy (20 quid off amazon) would that work or is the light too flat?
 
Sir SR said:
I've got a TTL cable and some yongnuo ttl triggers too - would they work?

I lent my friend a ray flash thingy (20 quid off amazon) would that work or is the light too flat?
Click to expand...
Yes, any way to remotely trigger your flash will work. You just have to decide what is best for you. I used an infrared flash for a long time (because I was given it for free), and only got the cable so I didn't have to worry about batteries for it. If you have the kit already, try and make use of it. You'll soon figure out if there is a better way and if it's worth paying for.

The ray flash I assume is a bit like a ring flash. They are commonly used for macro and can give a good result. I do think they require diffusion, and this can be quite awkward but it is possible (there are a couple of example solutions in the Macro setup sticky).

As for the flatness of light, some ringflashes allow you to make one side brighter than the other, but I doubt a £20 option will do this. Usually I don't mind flat light (I call it "even" lighting). It will bring out good detail on the subject and gives a good base image to work on. I will often play around with contrast and shadow in post anyway. I guess it all depends "the look" you are trying to achieve.
 
Nice greenfly/aphid image btw. The light looks a little hot to me so maybe reducing the highlights will tease out some more detail on the head. I like "the look" you are getting, however you may want to think about some further diffusion and the possibility of holding up a background behind the subject to reflect light back and prevent the dark fall-off of light into nothingness (you may need to grow another arm for this). Again, it depends what kind of images you are aiming for.

Practice will make things easier over time but you also need perseverance. Take lots of shots and just pick out the best ones ;)
 
Last edited:
TimmyG said:
Nice greenfly/aphid image btw. The light looks a little hot to me so maybe reducing the highlights will tease out some more detail on the head. I like "the look" you are getting, however you may want to think about some further diffusion and the possibility of holding up a background behind the subject to reflect light back and prevent the dark fall-off of light into nothingness (you may need to grow another arm for this). Again, it depends what kind of images you are aiming for.

Practice will make things easier over time but you also need perseverance. Take lots of shots and just pick out the best ones ;)
Click to expand...

I did take lots of shots (loads out of focus, badly lit.......). Its frustrating because I feel i can light a portrait reasonably but as I was taking the shots I knew the light wasn't quite right! Agreed it needs further diffusion - It was (literally) a balancing act of holding the flash, leaning into focus and holding the camera steady-ish!
 
I can understand your frustration, especially coming at it from portrait photography, where you want to use the light (often multiple sources) to help create depth and texture etc. This becomes very difficult when the entire scene you are trying to light can be less than half a centimetre wide. Adding to the problem is the fact your subject will likely run/fly/spring off at any moment, or you may only have a few short seconds once you've found it in the viewfinder. It's for this reason many macro photographers try and achieve a nice, even (flat) light, that they can leave in place and concentrate on focus and composition.

That said, i did some experimentation with creative lighting for macro shots in the early days. I even went as far as gelling my flash in this one, and shooting in the "wrong" white balance to get the warm versus cool light:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8895270502/
 
Last edited:
Not sure how I can follow on from the "Zen master" o_O @TimmyG but agree with his points. Think all my weird and wonderfully setups are on my macro testing page (album) on flickr and you may be surprised at how little you need to do to a flash at higher magnifications.

Both shots are very well considered and can see your portraiture work style invoked.
 
TimmyG said:
I can understand your frustration, especially coming at it from portrait photography, where you want to use the light (often multiple sources) to help create depth and texture etc. This becomes very difficult when the entire scene you are trying to light can be less than half a centimetre wide. Adding to the problem is the fact your subject will likely run/fly/spring off at any moment, or you may only have a few short seconds once you've found it in the viewfinder. It's for this reason many macro photographers try and achieve a nice, even (flat) light, that they can leave in place and concentrate on focus and composition.

That said, i did some experimentation with creative lighting for macro shots in the early days. I even went as far as gelling my flash in this one, and shooting in the "wrong" white balance to get the warm versus cool light:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8895270502/
Click to expand...


I keep forgetting the actual size I'm trying to light!

I like that shot!
 
Tintin124 said:
Not sure how I can follow on from the "Zen master" o_O @TimmyG but agree with his points. Think all my weird and wonderfully setups are on my macro testing page (album) on flickr and you may be surprised at how little you need to do to a flash at higher magnifications.

Both shots are very well considered and can see your portraiture work style invoked.
Click to expand...

Cheers! I'll have a look after the school run. I sense a little while before I get better at this!!
 
Nice shots Shaheed - F22 - bet that flattened the batteries quick to light up that bugger ! :)

I pop the flash onto the camera and use a pringle-tubes setup, then you have one hand free to move branches etc.. out of the way or both hands to steady your camera (y) I like to use F11-F14 - mainly and ISO200 - mainly to get my batteries lasting longer while I am out, not the depth of F22 but I can at least fire 4-5 shots off before recharging takes a few seconds on the flash itself from fast-battery drain.

If Im lucky, I will have got 5-6 shots that I can then double-up usage, for stacking :)
 
Last edited:
Carlh said:
Nice shots Shaheed - F22 - bet that flattened the batteries quick to light up that bugger ! :)

I pop the flash onto the camera and use a pringle-tubes setup, then you have one hand free to move branches etc.. out of the way or both hands to steady your camera (y) I like to use F11-F14 - mainly and ISO200 - mainly to get my batteries lasting longer while I am out, not the depth of F22 but I can at least fire 4-5 shots off before recharging takes a few seconds on the flash itself from fast-battery drain.

If Im lucky, I will have got 5-6 shots that I can then double-up usage, for stacking :)
Click to expand...

Pringles tube?! That sounds interesting!!
 
Sir SR said:
Pringles tube?! That sounds interesting!!
Click to expand...
Look at the "show us your macro rig" section. Don`t get too fat eating all those Pringles either ;):D
 
Sir SR said:
Pringles tube?! That sounds interesting!!
Click to expand...
14512796617_4b483318f9_b.jpg


something like this :)
 
I wonder whether I was being too ambitious starting with the raynox on the 105 macro.

Might try it on the 28-75 f2.8!

S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top