First go at Macro....

Hi Shak, I've linked the image here for the benefit of others (hope that's ok with you)

With regards to critique. The overall clarity and detail in the image is very nice. It could do with a touch of unsharp mask or smart sharpen. DoF looks good and the light is nice also. There's well controlled highlights on the back which are not blown out. Possible well diffused flash or nice soft natural light.

Focus does appear to be more on the back as opposed to the eyes but the composition doesn't lend itself to the eyes anyway. The image also looks a little warm (colour temp). If you have light room or similar, try dial back the colour temp maybe 100 - 200 kelvin. If this comes out far too blue, then reduce by a smaller amount.

I would say the main factor that could let this image down is the composition. Directly above shots only work if you have other shots from the same shoot that show a side on or frontal composition.

Mind you, I know how wasps tend to stay in one spot for a very very small amount of time so sometimes, you get what you can. I would recommend attempting to get down at the same level as the subject. That way you can get a broadside shot or a head shot.

Sometimes getting a little lower than the subject is good too as it tends to make them look larger (I don't mean from a magnification persepective, but larger within the world if you know what I mean)

Keep on shooting, and keep on posting. Your first shot is certainly a very good start.

SHAK's IMAGE

6034408652_f4301c161e_b.jpg
 
Thanks for attaching the pic I should have done that myself, wasn't sure how.


Cheers for the feedback, very helpful and better than I expected :D

Yes totally agreed the composition is crap. was more focussed on the getting shot then getting the right shot. And yes i probably did focus on the back as opposed to eyes.

Flashwise was the standard onboard canon flash, am looking at getting some sort of diffuser for my Nissin 622 MkII. Seen some of the crazy "made at home" kits on here that I think i might have a go at.

And I have lightroom so I should start using that to tidy up the images, will try out some of the things you've suggested and maybe repost post edit.

The lens i got after alot of research and so i know i've got a cracking lens just need to bring it all together now.
 
shak3232 said:
Hi,

So I wanted to try out my Canon 100mm macro lens and here's my first shot...critique please as I want to improve the quality of my macro shots greatly.
Click to expand...

Good start Shak, and good advice from Ian.


shak3232 said:
I found it difficult to work with DOF.
Click to expand...

A couple of thoughts.

The DOF will always be thin, and tastes differ as to how to deal with that. A lot of people make a merit of the thin DOF, and focus on a part of the subject, like an insect's head, or eyes, or a spider's eyes and mouth parts. That can work well if the out of focus parts of the subject make for a nice composition where it seems natural to focus on the one area of interest.

Another approach is to try to get all of the subject, or most of it, in focus. For example, if taken from the side I like to try to get all of an insect's head and body in focus, and if possible also the wings and/or legs on the side nearest the camera. There are a several issues - the angle between you and the subject, where to place the centre of the DOF, how to maximise the DOF.

For subjects that are more or less "long and thin", the more that you can get the subject side on (or top down) the more of it you will be able to get into focus. (Actually it doesn't have to be side on or top down, it can be anywhere between, including sometimes more or less underneath, just as long as the camera is pointing somewhat towards the middle of the subject and at right angles to the line between the front and back of the subject.)

For the DOF positioning, remember that there will be an range of distances that will be in focus, some nearer to the camera than the focus point and some further away. If you focus on a part of the subject that is nearest to the camera you will "waste" the region of sharp focus that is nearer to the camera. So you need to find something to focus on that is at a suitable distance so that all the available DOF is put to good use.

It depends on how the subject lines up, but I often use the "shoulder" or "neck" for insects. I find it sometimes helps to look at the subject "real world" as well as through the viewfinder or on the LCD to work out which bits are actually closest etc, as sometimes the subject is at an angle that isn't obvious looking at it only through the camera, especially I find for flowers.

It is obviously important to get the "important" bits in focus (e.g. typically an insect's eyes), but keep in mind that doesn't necessarily mean that is the best place to put the focus point.

There are a couple of ways to maximise the amount (front to back) of the subject that is in focus. One is to use a smaller aperture (e.g. f/16, f/22). As you get into these smaller apertures the sharpness will drop off because of diffraction, but for my taste at least the increase in DOF more than compensates for the loss in sharpness.

Another approach is to make the subject smaller in the frame and then crop the image to the composition you want. This will increase the amount (front to back) of the subject that is in focus, but because of the cropping (essentially "magnifying the image") you will lose detail. With the camera and lens you are using you can do a fair amount of cropping and still get a good quality image.

shak3232 said:
Can't remember if I used flash on this or not...
Click to expand...

Apologies if you know this already, but you can find that out from flickr. On the photo page click on Actions, View Exif data. If you have installed it, Canon's Zoombrowser will also give you all sorts of information about an image. (I'm still waiting for Lightroom to arrive, but that might tell you too.)
 
Some great pics like the fly especially.

"Thanks for attaching the pic I should have done that myself, wasn't sure how".

How to attach from flickr
1. Click on the image
2. Click on Share
3. Click Grab the HTML/BBCode
4. Select BBCode
5. Set image size at medium unless forum allows larger images
6. Copy the entire BBcode and paste it into your post

Job done

John.
 
Appreciate all the replies and taking time out for a newbie like me. Will take it all onboard, it's all all very useful info and will only encourage myself and others like me to learn.
 
Congratulations on getting a great lens but without IS handheld shots outside will often be a problem

With this lens a tripod is almost essential - especially indoors, where you can get exceptional shots with it.

As you have found the DOF is almost non existent which means a small aperture which means you almost certainly will need flash.

The onboard flash is very restricting with this lens so you need to invest in a better flash, either off the camera or one which is higher up.

I use a Jessops 320AFC which is not TTL but works OK or, as you have said you have a great choice of home made brews on here.

.
 
Nice pic Shek, and great feedback looking forward to post a few of my pics now!
 
petersmart said:
Congratulations on getting a great lens but without IS handheld shots outside will often be a problem

With this lens a tripod is almost essential - especially indoors, where you can get exceptional shots with it.

As you have found the DOF is almost non existent which means a small aperture which means you almost certainly will need flash.


.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that is just not true.

The 100mm (non IS) can easily be used outside in good light to capture butterflies, large flies like the wasp and such. You don't always need a flash for subjects. Yes if you get up close to a tiny object that is fast moving - you may need flash to freeze it - or when using an aperture about F8. I'd say 95% of my shots on this lens this year were natural light, and around 50-60% handheld.

True sometimes a tripod can help - especially in windy conditions, and something I use on occassions ( also can help your framing ).

I normally use ISO 400 outside for natural light shots of insects. For stationary shots of flowers, fungi ISO 100 mainly as I use a tripod for these anyway.
 
Last edited:
ChrisA said:
I'm sorry but that is just not true.

The 100mm (non IS) can easily be used outside in good light to capture butterflies, large flies like the wasp and such. You don't always need a flash for subjects. Yes if you get up close to a tiny object that is fast moving - you may need flash to freeze it - or when using an aperture about F8. I'd say 95% of my shots on this lens this year were natural light, and around 50-60% handheld.

True sometimes a tripod can help - especially in windy conditions, and something I use on occassions ( also can help your framing ).

I normally use ISO 400 outside for natural light shots of insects. For stationary shots of flowers, fungi ISO 100 mainly as I use a tripod for these anyway.
Click to expand...

Well let me amend it and say it's certainly true for me.

When I had the same lens I found it almost impossible to go very close and get any kind of focus simply because any tiny movements on my part meant that the image moved wildly all over the place.

Which is one of the reasons I now use my 70-33mm L IS USM lens with extension tubes as a variable macro lens and find it miles easier to focus properly outside without a tripod.

And I don't use flash to freeze the subject outdoors but to allow me to use smaller apertures and, in bright sunlight, to act as a fill-in light.

.

'
 
Last edited:
This is a case of people adapting their shooting styles to get the results they want.

Personally, I never use my tripod for bug macro (unless it was dead... which I haven't really done anything of). It's just simply not practical for me to try and get 3 legs of a tripod into a bush to photograph a subject that is sticking around for 1 or two seconds at a time.

Therefore, I always shoot hand held with a non-IS Sigma 105 and seem to do well enough :)

HOWEVER!, Natural light, with a high enough ISO can still produce the same kind of sharpness albeit often with different colours and details so it's definitely down to preference.

IS is not required. The MPE-65 doesn't have IS (AFAIK). Although it's certainly very useful.
 
IanClark said:
This is a case of people adapting their shooting styles to get the results they want.

Personally, I never use my tripod for bug macro (unless it was dead... which I haven't really done anything of). It's just simply not practical for me to try and get 3 legs of a tripod into a bush to photograph a subject that is sticking around for 1 or two seconds at a time.

Therefore, I always shoot hand held with a non-IS Sigma 105 and seem to do well enough :)

HOWEVER!, Natural light, with a high enough ISO can still produce the same kind of sharpness albeit often with different colours and details so it's definitely down to preference.

IS is not required. The MPE-65 doesn't have IS (AFAIK). Although it's certainly very useful.
Click to expand...

Well you certainly would need a tripod for the MPE-65:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-MP-E-65mm-1-5x-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

.
 
petersmart said:
Well you certainly would need a tripod for the MPE-65:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-MP-E-65mm-1-5x-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

.
Click to expand...


I respectfully disagree Peter. Quoting from that site - "Basically, you will need an very stable tripod and a motionless subject - or you need a flash" . This confirms that with flash, a tripod would not be necessary.

Check out Goldenorfe and LordV over at Dgrin.com. They often shoot handheld or with monopod and both use an MPE-65 (a lens I plan to own.. just as soon as I raise the £1000 for it), even taking multiple shots handheld to focus stack in PP. Actually, I'm heading out with Goldenorfe on Monday so I'll get to see his MPE techniques first hand.

See his focus stacking butterflies tutorial here using MPE-65 hand held - http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=177982

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you shouldn't use a tripod, I'm not saying using one is an absolute non-starter, I'm simply saying that a tripod is relatively cumbersome when shooting in the wild. A monopod would most certainly be a more viable option as it can be rotated on various axis and can be used to brace the camera too.

I just don't think you can categorically state you MUST use a tripod. ;)


As I have mentioned in another thread, the most important thing is that people do what works for them so that they can get the shot they need.
 
IanClark said:
I respectfully disagree Peter. Quoting from that site - "Basically, you will need an very stable tripod and a motionless subject - or you need a flash" . This confirms that with flash, a tripod would not be necessary.

Check out Goldenorfe and LordV over at Dgrin.com. They often shoot handheld or with monopod and both use an MPE-65 (a lens I plan to own.. just as soon as I raise the £1000 for it), even taking multiple shots handheld to focus stack in PP. Actually, I'm heading out with Goldenorfe on Monday so I'll get to see his MPE techniques first hand.

See his focus stacking butterflies tutorial here using MPE-65 hand held - http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=177982

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you shouldn't use a tripod, I'm not saying using one is an absolute non-starter, I'm simply saying that a tripod is relatively cumbersome when shooting in the wild. A monopod would most certainly be a more viable option as it can be rotated on various axis and can be used to brace the camera too.

I just don't think you can categorically state you MUST use a tripod. ;)


As I have mentioned in another thread, the most important thing is that people do what works for them so that they can get the shot they need.
Click to expand...

Well I wish you luck with the MPE-65 but looking at the first picture I cannot believe that he is not using a tripod.

At the magnification he is working at even the slightest movement would be magnified 5 times and attempting to use the MPE-65 at 5x magnification means he is working at an effective aperture of f16 at least ( and that's with the lens wide open at f2.8 where the DOF will be almost non-existent)

"At 5x and f/16, the MP-E gives a minute .269mm DOF." - I certainly wish you the best of luck trying to get any kind of focus handheld at that DOF!

Of course I could be wrong and handholding the MPE-65 at 5x magnification with no lighting (as he is doing) to help in seeing the insect is not very difficult at all.

Perhaps Dogfish Magnet would give us his take on this subject since he uses this lens to produce stunning macro shots?

.
 
petersmart said:
I now use my 70-33mm L IS USM lens with extension tubes as a variable macro lens and find it miles easier to focus properly outside without a tripod.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm missing the point here, but for a given scene (e.g. a particular fly filling half of the screen width) is it easier to focus the zoom + extension tubes than it would be to focus the 100mm macro for the same scene?
 
petersmart said:
Well I wish you luck with the MPE-65 but looking at the first picture I cannot believe that he is not using a tripod.
Click to expand...

Brian (LordV) has described his technique roughly as follows. The camera's focus is fixed (on infinity perhaps, don't know, not sure it matters).

He holds a pole (with one end on the ground) with (presumably) the hand holding the camera. This reduces the effect of hand-shake (FWIW I use my tripod in the same way some of the time, both to reduce the effect of hand-shake and in my case also to help get the shot framed as I want, and keep it framed that way as I take multiple shots).

He rocks back and forth to discover the point where the image comes into the focus he wants to use. On a subsequent traverse he then presses the shutter button as he passes through the chosen point of focus. As he put it "It takes quite a bit of practice" or words to that effect.
 
petersmart said:
Well I wish you luck with the MPE-65 but looking at the first picture I cannot believe that he is not using a tripod.

At the magnification he is working at even the slightest movement would be magnified 5 times and attempting to use the MPE-65 at 5x magnification means he is working at an effective aperture of f16 at least ( and that's with the lens wide open at f2.8 where the DOF will be almost non-existent)

"At 5x and f/16, the MP-E gives a minute .269mm DOF." - I certainly wish you the best of luck trying to get any kind of focus handheld at that DOF!

Of course I could be wrong and handholding the MPE-65 at 5x magnification with no lighting (as he is doing) to help in seeing the insect is not very difficult at all.

Perhaps Dogfish Magnet would give us his take on this subject since he uses this lens to produce stunning macro shots?

.
Click to expand...

I suspect that the subject is being flashlit at that magnification which would help freeze the blur. The MPE does need either to be on a tripod or used with some sort of flash. In fact both can be helpful once you push the magnification up, if you don't have steady hands and the subject is co-operative.

I mostly use my MPE handheld with a flashgun - unless I get the chance of putting it on a pod. Most recently I have been attempting natural light shots a higher than 1:1 magnification (around 3x) but that has to be at that 3x + in my experience on a tripod/rail to get a sharp image - with a still subject obviously!

The MPE does not have IS. It does not have autofocus. It does not do anything less than 1:1. Whereas the 100mm macro lenses do. Unless up close to a subject you most likely won't be using it at 1:1 - butterflies and dragonflies for example will mostly be taken around 1:2 or less, so IS or flash is often not required.

If up close, dark conditions, high F numbers (eg F11 +) , moving bugs may well require flash. I just wanted to point out that stating you need IS or flash to get a good image out of a 100mm Canon Non IS is normally not the case for most peoples (especially beginners) needs. Often too natural light does look better.
 
GardenersHelper said:
Brian (LordV) has described his technique roughly as follows. The camera's focus is fixed (on infinity perhaps, don't know, not sure it matters).

He holds a pole (with one end on the ground) with (presumably) the hand holding the camera. This reduces the effect of hand-shake (FWIW I use my tripod in the same way some of the time, both to reduce the effect of hand-shake and in my case also to help get the shot framed as I want, and keep it framed that way as I take multiple shots).

He rocks back and forth to discover the point where the image comes into the focus he wants to use. On a subsequent traverse he then presses the shutter button as he passes through the chosen point of focus. As he put it "It takes quite a bit of practice" or words to that effect.
Click to expand...

Yes that is what he is quoted as saying he does (re pole). Setting a rough focus on the subject and moving to and fro instead of using autofocus is how I would go about taking macro shots. I find it gives better keepers, and auto focus hunting on small subjects is generally not helpful at all.

The image goldenorfe is taking looks like to be done using a technique that I think was termed "Left hand brace" by Dalentech (see No Cropping Zone blog). Holding the subject / plant and then moving the lens along an arm till focus is achieved. This helps reduce shake in the image, as the lens is moving in the same direction as the subject ( as you are essentially holding both).
 
petersmart said:
Well I wish you luck with the MPE-65 but looking at the first picture I cannot believe that he is not using a tripod.

At the magnification he is working at even the slightest movement would be magnified 5 times and attempting to use the MPE-65 at 5x magnification means he is working at an effective aperture of f16 at least ( and that's with the lens wide open at f2.8 where the DOF will be almost non-existent)

"At 5x and f/16, the MP-E gives a minute .269mm DOF." - I certainly wish you the best of luck trying to get any kind of focus handheld at that DOF!

Of course I could be wrong and handholding the MPE-65 at 5x magnification with no lighting (as he is doing) to help in seeing the insect is not very difficult at all.

Perhaps Dogfish Magnet would give us his take on this subject since he uses this lens to produce stunning macro shots?

.
Click to expand...


You can clearly see he's using his hand to steady the lens. Secondly, if you look at the tape on his diffuser, you'll notice very bright sunlight reflecting off it. Therefore, he has good ambient light to see.

Additionally, I'm not sure if you missed it but he has a Speedlite flash with home made diffuser on there so will have freezing of the subject as required. Hand held, it all depends on how you do it. Hold the camera as if you were taking landscape shots without a tripod and yeah, forget trying to get focus. However rest part of the camera or lens on something such as a beanbag, piece of piping (as I know LordV has done) or your hand then there's not reason why you can't get focus.

He's not the only person to use it hand held. I do not wish to get into a protracted debate on this. Looking at your shots, and looking at mine, we both do not own an MPE so realistically, until one or both of us do, the only thing we can do is go by the word of others. Some people are just better than others.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/14414927@N00/discuss/72157624701082569/


Read the 3rd comment down by Overread2000 where he actually refers to LordV using the MPE hand held to obtain images for focus stacking.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/14414927@N00/discuss/72157626444731457/


Would be interesting to see DogFish's take on this. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, I'm meeting up with Goldenorfe on Monday (He only lives about 10 miles away from me) and I'll certainly be seeing him at work. May even get a chance to have a go of the MPE but of course only upon an offer of that.
 
Last edited:
GardenersHelper said:
Perhaps I'm missing the point here, but for a given scene (e.g. a particular fly filling half of the screen width) is it easier to focus the zoom + extension tubes than it would be to focus the 100mm macro for the same scene?
Click to expand...

It is for me beause the IS helps to make the subject appear reasonably steady in the viewfinder which makes it a lot easier to achieve focus.

Of course that only applies to my movements not to movements on the part of the subject.

I can't quite get it 1:1 on the zoom lens simply because the shortest focal length on the zoom is 70mm and the extension tubes together add to 68mm, but it's quite close.

But I don't normally try to get that close TBH I use the zoom lens to get shots where otherwise the insect, butterfly, hoverfly etc would simply fly away and at that it's quite good.

.
 
IanClark said:
You can clearly see he's using his hand to steady the lens. Secondly, if you look at the tape on his diffuser, you'll notice very bright sunlight reflecting off it. Therefore, he has good ambient light to see.

Additionally, I'm not sure if you missed it but he has a Speedlite flash with home made diffuser on there so will have freezing of the subject as required. Hand held, it all depends on how you do it. Hold the camera as if you were taking landscape shots without a tripod and yeah, forget trying to get focus. However rest part of the camera or lens on something such as a beanbag, piece of piping (as I know LordV has done) or your hand then there's not reason why you can't get focus.

He's not the only person to use it hand held. I do not wish to get into a protracted debate on this. Looking at your shots, and looking at mine, we both do not own an MPE so realistically, until one or both of us do, the only thing we can do is go by the word of others. Some people are just better than others.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/14414927@N00/discuss/72157624701082569/


Read the 3rd comment down by Overread2000 where he actually refers to LordV using the MPE hand held to obtain images for focus stacking.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/14414927@N00/discuss/72157626444731457/


Would be interesting to see DogFish's take on this. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, I'm meeting up with Goldenorfe on Monday (He only lives about 10 miles away from me) and I'll certainly be seeing him at work. May even get a chance to have a go of the MPE but of course only upon an offer of that.
Click to expand...

Well all I can say is that achieve focus that close and at such a narrow DOF he has to be brilliant and have incredible eyesight! - I know how difficult I find it to achieve focus on my setup!

Anyway I have no desire to have this turn into one of those protracted "I'm right, you're not" debates so please let us know how you get on. and I do hope you get the chance to try the MPE-65.

.
 
I certainly agree with you here Peter :)

I wll let you know. I'm as intrigued as you for sure. Just hope the weather is ok on Monday.
 
IanClark said:
Hand held, it all depends on how you do it. Hold the camera as if you were taking landscape shots without a tripod and yeah, forget trying to get focus. However rest part of the camera or lens on something such as a beanbag, piece of piping (as I know LordV has done) or your hand then there's not reason why you can't get focus.

He's not the only person to use it hand held.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we need a new term that isn't "Hand held" or "Tripod". We tend to talk in terms of either using a tripod or working hand held. But like you point out there are intermediate methods. For example, I use three distinct methods which you might call "Hand held", "Tripod" and (for want of something better) "Mixed".

Hand held (1).

Especially when chasing subjects that move around a lot (e.g. bees, butterflies) I sometimes work hand held in strong light where I can most of the time get a moderately fast (for me) shutter speed of 1/(depends on mood, but lets say 200 for example). May use fill flash, which may be just the camera's pop-up flash. With this option I have IS turned on in case the shutter speed for some shots is a bit on the slow side, for example when the subject moves into the shade.

Hand held (2).

Very occasionally recently, but possibly more in future, using diffused flash as the primary light source. IS turned on, because I might be using somewhat marginal (slow) shutter speeds in order to bring up the background.

On reflection, these two options aren't clear either/or for me - I think they merge into one another seamlessly.

Tripod.

Camera on tripod, line up shot, let camera settle, use remote release or self timer to take one or more shots. May use available light alone, or some combination of available light and diffused or reflected flash, up to and including flash as the sole light source. With this option IS is off.

Mixed.

Camera on tripod. Both hands stay on camera. Using the tripod makes fairly exact framing and subject/camera distance control practical, and also retaining framing and distance for repeated shots (of a still or slow moving subject that I am tracking). Make changes in distance by quick crude adjustments to focus rail. For fine framing adjustments make slight vertical/horizontal movements and rotations by applying pressure to camera (which moves/bends joints of tripod, arm, ball-head etc).

Use shutter release to fire off single shots or short bursts. Lighting as for Tripod. IS on because of residual movement from hands and from springyness of tripod etc.


EDIT: Perhaps worth mentioning, given some earlier comments, that I always use autofocus for Hand held and Mixed methods, and almost always for Tripod. Only very occasionally I use manual focusing with the Tripod method, for example when I want to focus on a spider which is on the other side of its web. Also, I often go down to 1:1 (that is MFT 1:1, i.e. scenes 18mm across), sometimes a bit further (down to scenes about 11mm across, which is I think around 1:2 in APS-C terms, and around 1:3 in FF terms).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top