First Macro Attempts

L

LumixNoob

Messages
233
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
I've just got a set of extension tubes and these are the first attempts with it (link to album below). I'm pretty happy with them but I can't step down past about f10 with flash + natural light or about f6.3 with flash alone. I'm after some feedback on the shots (focus, sharpness etc) and some help/suggestions for lighting.

https://flic.kr/s/aHskuFiBcS
 
Your best bet would be to have a look at the 3 sticky threads at the top of the macro section, they give something different and have some fine detail in there.
Agree with above, either link directly to flickr with BB code or upload from your photo file on your pc.
The pics don't look too bad but I'm on my phone, my pick would be image 3093 I think it is, 2nd from last. I'm sure others would be happy to comment.
 
Fair point, I'll post them in a mo. All the shots are large camera JPG and unprocessed apart from Sharpening on the coin (greyscale & cropped - slightly), Battery, Dry Flower (Sharpened and cropped), Apple Stalk and Satsuma Stalk. I cropped them because the focus point was a little lost, they were the smallest items/focal points.

20 Pence Macro by James Howard, on Flickr

Apple Stalk Macro by James Howard, on Flickr

Battery Macro by James Howard, on Flickr

Dry Flower by James Howard, on Flickr

IMG_3050 by James Howard, on Flickr



Arthurium Stamen by James Howard, on Flickr

Crispy Onion by James Howard, on Flickr

Satsuma Stalk by James Howard, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit confused.

The first is @ 85mm with all three extension tubes. The lighting appears more natural than the second, even though with the extra tube and closer focusing it has less natural light than the other one has. ISO was 200 and flash was set to +2. The second one was taken with the two shortest tubes @ 85mm, the exact same settings as #1 but less flash (by -2). But it looks like more flash! I'm confused...(ignore the fact the focus is wrong on the first one, I was in a rush and wanted to practice the lighting more than focus). I prefer the working distance of the second one, but can't get the same lighting as #1 (which I know needs fixing a bit). They are both taken with the built-in flash.

IMG_3405 by James Howard, on Flickr

IMG_3408 by James Howard, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
LumixNoob said:
The lighting appears more natural than the second, even though with the extra tube
Click to expand...
•


The extra tube is not guilty…

It only has to do with light incidence… you moved the light source ;-)
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•


The extra tube is not guilty…

It only has to do with light incidence… you moved the light source ;-)
Click to expand...

I forgot to mention that, I moved the plant in the second one closer to the wall, thinking the flash might bounce of it and create some more light to mimic the lighting of the first one. It didn't work, surprise surprise.

With the plant in the same position in shot #2 as shot #1, I got the shot below. I had to ramp up the ISO to 3200 and have flash to get close to shot #1. I just don't get it. With lower ISO it was all flash again, NOT like shot #1.

IMG_3400 by James Howard, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
All the shots I posted at the top of the thread were done the same as shot#1 above. I cannot replicate that light/flash with a longer working distance/less tubes. I'm happy to use all three tubes SOMETIMES, but it doesn't seem practical - the subject is an inch away from the lens.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•


That's why a longer focal length lens is recommended!
Click to expand...

Yep, I know. I'm just having to make do with what I've got for the time being. That's why I took the longest tube off, to give me a bit more working space (although less magnification).
 
OK, I think I've figured this out - tell me if I'm wrong.

The subject is so close to the lens that it's actually not getting any direct flash whatsoever. It's getting the added 'ambient' light of the flash lighting up the room, like an unintentional diffuser? That's why at shorter focal lengths I'm getting some shadow off the lens, like so along with some direct flash:

 
Last edited:
I had a feeling it was a case of 'first time lucky' yesterday! Now I know why. That is a pretty useful accident.
 
LumixNoob said:
I had a feeling it was a case of 'first time lucky' yesterday! Now I know why. That is a pretty useful accident.
Click to expand...

Accidents that dont hurt or cost anythng and you learn from are good
 
GardenersHelper said:
You'll need to diffuse the flash to get nice looking light. Have a look at the Show us your macro rig thread to get some ideas about that. You'll need to experiment to find out what works best for you.
Click to expand...

All I can say is both Gardenershelper and Tintin put me right last year ! Loads of great advice on the forum.
Macro is a nightmare ! And in my opinion if you like your photo I wouldn't be to bothered what other people think.

I did an exercise with around a £ coin on the edge at different Fstops try this as it helps with your depth of field (focus)

Oh and don't forget most macro shots are stacked as well.

Welcome to the small world !
 
chrispp said:
All I can say is both Gardenershelper and Tintin put me right last year ! Loads of great advice on the forum.
Macro is a nightmare ! And in my opinion if you like your photo I wouldn't be to bothered what other people think.

I did an exercise with around a £ coin on the edge at different Fstops try this as it helps with your depth of field (focus)
Click to expand...

All good stuff up to here. But ...

chrispp said:
Oh and don't forget most macro shots are stacked as well.
Click to expand...

Noooooo. Quite the opposite in fact. I think.

chrispp said:
Welcome to the small world !
Click to expand...

Yes indeed. :)
 
Thanks fir the replies/help everybody. I've been busy crafting a hi-tech diffuser, it actually work quite well with every tube configuration, but looks like crap! I'm on my phone at the moment so can't post any samples but the offending item as attached.
 

Attachments

  • WP_20160219_18_55_28_Pro.jpg
    WP_20160219_18_55_28_Pro.jpg
    84.2 KB · Views: 12
Chris, a flash is next on my shopping list, so hopefully this nightmarish creation I'm currently wrapping in a bin liner can be retired to the wheelie bin.

What are you using instead of your Blue Peter job btw?!
 
LumixNoob said:
Chris, a flash is next on my shopping list, so hopefully this nightmarish creation I'm currently wrapping in a bin liner can be retired to the wheelie bin.

What are you using instead of your Blue Peter job btw?!
Click to expand...

I will still use but have also got a flash lead and move the flash around by hand etc. Possibly looking for the following

http://www.tripodhead.com/products/flash-bracket-macro-brackets.cfm

My mine issue I believe is the lighting so something like the above I'm hoping will help.

It's great though when you do post pics and you get feedback here good or bad always helps me
 
Back to the Drawing Board

I destroyed the hideous pie-tin creation and came up with this. It's a lot more manageable and doesn't block my light. And will make me look less like a nutter when I take it outdoors:

WP_20160220_14_45_20_Pro by James Howard, on Flickr

I had about 400 test shots yesterday from various attempts and tube configurations, then deleted them all this morning. These are a few from the finished (I think) diffuser/set up above, All taken on manual, manual focus, IS off @ 1/200th. I haven't tried it with all 3 tubes and don't think I'll bother - it's too unwieldy and the subject is too close to the lens:

IMG_4097 by James Howard, on Flickr

IMG_4089 by James Howard, on Flickr

IMG_4085 by James Howard, on Flickr

IMG_4107 by James Howard, on Flickr

IMG_4080 by James Howard, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
GardenersHelper said:
Much more even, softer light by the look of it (although different subjects, so difficult to be sure). Great (and very rapid) progress. Well done!
Click to expand...

Thanks GardenersHelper, I spent a couple of evenings reading and then last night til about 2a.m trying to perfect the diffuser and shooting test shots. I still think the light could be softer, but I'm not sure how to do this without altering the amount of light the flash is producing. I've already got about 7 layers of kitchen roll and packing wrap (the misty thin type toasters etc come in) on it, and any more seems to drastically reduce the output. I might make another one with a different diffuser material. This is how I spend my weekends now evidently :)
 
Last edited:
I added the satsuma at the bottom as an example of what I think is too much glare. Am I being too critical? It certainly looks more well lit than the one in the original post...
 
Last edited:
LumixNoob said:
Thanks GardenersHelper, I spent a couple of evenings reading and then last night til about 2a.m trying to perfect the diffuser and shooting test shots.
Click to expand...

That sound somehow familiar. :)

LumixNoob said:
I still think the light could be softer, but I'm not sure how to do this without altering the amount of light the flash is producing. I've already got about 7 layers of kitchen roll and packing wrap (the misty thin type toasters etc come in) on it, and any more seems to drastically reduce the output. I might make another one with a different diffuser material.
Click to expand...

Experimenting with different diffuser materials and diffuser configurations is a popular pastime around here.

With the arrangement you've got there you might want to try to set up a concave diffuser on the top half of the lens. Tracing paper, vellum paper, something like that. @Tintin124 for example has done a lot with concave diffusers I think.

With the diffusion materials in the tube you might want to try and arrange it (if you haven't already) so there are gaps between the layers of diffusing material to give the light a chance to spread out.

The loss of light is a real issue. There is a (in my experience, difficult) balance to achieve between the amount of diffusion on one hand and the loss of light on the other.

Remember also that the softness of the light depends on the size of the light source from the subject's point of view - the larger the better. There is a balance to be had there too of course. Too large, especially if centrally placed like yours is, and it will block your view of the subject (although depending on how you work, that might not actually matter, if the viewfinder or LCD provides you with all you need to see).

LumixNoob said:
This is how I spend my weekends now evidently :)
Click to expand...

That's the way it goes. :)
 
LumixNoob said:
Thanks GardenersHelper, I spent a couple of evenings reading and then last night til about 2a.m trying to perfect the diffuser and shooting test shots. I still think the light could be softer, but I'm not sure how to do this without altering the amount of light the flash is producing. I've already got about 7 layers of kitchen roll and packing wrap (the misty thin type toasters etc come in) on it, and any more seems to drastically reduce the output. I might make another one with a different diffuser material. This is how I spend my weekends now evidently :)
Click to expand...

Yes it does look better. It does no harm to go on trying to improve the lighting arrangement. You need to be realistic though. At some point you'll need to accept that you've got it as good as you can for the moment, and concentrate on other aspects. I'm not happy with the amount of glare I get from curved shiny surfaces, and that has got me down from time to time, but now I am just living with it for now until I get some new inspiration (or not) on that front. You can only do so much. You, we, I, and even the very best macro photographers are always going to get some glare when in fact we'd much prefer absolutely even lighting. Even fairly flat, natural lighting can cause variations in brightness and colour saturation on curved, somewhat reflective surfaces.
 
GardenersHelper said:
Yes it does look better. It does no harm to go on trying to improve the lighting arrangement. You need to be realistic though. At some point you'll need to accept that you've got it as good as you can for the moment, and concentrate on other aspects. I'm not happy with the amount of glare I get from curved shiny surfaces, and that has got me down from time to time, but now I am just living with it for now until I get some new inspiration (or not) on that front. You can only do so much. You, we, I, and even the very best macro photographers are always going to get some glare when in fact we'd much prefer absolutely even lighting. Even fairly flat, natural lighting can cause variations in brightness and colour saturation on curved, somewhat reflective surfaces.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking and for the time being decided to leave the diffuser alone. Even in good natural light there'd be some glare. I'll have a think about it and start work on another one at some point. At least I've got one I can work with in the mean time. Without it I'd be nowhere.
 
I told you the guys here would help an you really improved already.
 
What would I need to get me a bit further away from the subject? Would I be looking at a telephoto + extension tubes or maybe a Raynox adaptor for my current lens (85mm at longest end)? I'm thinking about 4 inches is way too close for insects etc.
 
LumixNoob said:
What would I need to get me a bit further away from the subject? Would I be looking at a telephoto + extension tubes or maybe a Raynox adaptor for my current lens (85mm at longest end)? I'm thinking about 4 inches is way too close for insects etc.
Click to expand...

Achromatic close-up lenses (achromats) like the Raynox 150 and Raynox 250 work well on longer focal length lenses, particularly telephoto zoom lenses. I use my FZ200 bridge camera mainly for insects etc, keeping the 70D for flowers mainly, but the Raynox 150 and 250 work ok-ish on my 55-250 STM on my 70D. (I say "ok-ish" because autofocus with the 150 and 250 is nowhere near as good on the 70D as on my FZ200. But most people don't use autofocus for close-ups/macros and so don't care about that.)

With the Raynox 150 you work at about 6 inches from the subject and with the Raynox 250 you work at about 4 inches from the subject. Unlike with a prime macro lens, instead of moving the camera to alter the magnification you change the amount of zoom (focal length) to alter the magnification. For a given achromat, the distance between the achromat and the subject remains constant whatever the magnification. (But when using an achromat on a zoom lens which extends/contracts as you zoom in and out you have to move the camera when you change magnification so as to keep the distance between the subject and the achromat constant. If this is new to you might want to watch a video I made recently, An Introduction to close-up lenses.

If you want a shedload of magnification then you'll have to work much closer to the subject - an inch or an inch and a half or so perhaps for really small subjects. Closer perhaps with some hardware configurations. The only way you can get a long way away is either to stick with low magnifications (like I use for flowers for example), or use a really long focal length macro length, like a 180mm or 200mm lens. These are big, heavy, and expensive. Not something to contemplate too early in your macro/close-up career I suggest unless you are rich enough that spending a grand (or two) really doesn't matter one way or the other.

This is not a suggestion that you should use close-up lenses. There are various other ways you can tackle close-ups/macros, including extension tubes, teleconverters, reversed lenses, macro lenses. Not many people do it the way I do. You need to find your own way. I am biased.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top