Trying Macro Photography

[Sam]

Using a TAMRON macro lens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

also, it's on my deviantART, so you can +fav it 8-)

 

 

 

 

 

Very slight noise reduction in the BG.

[Soa]

Nice. But very unoriginal.. water drops are way to common.

 

Try taking macro's of other things like bugs, technology, paintings. Anything with fine detail.

[pryomancer]

You need the foreground to be in focus as well.

 

 

 

I'd say you're not close enough, you need to zoom in even more.

[tripsis]

Yay for macro! :thumbsup: Are you borrowing this lens or is it yours?

 

 

 

Nice job, I'd love to see more though :)

[Sam]

Well, the camera isn't mine :P So neither is the lens :lol:

[shivers21]

It's actually not bad, try boosting up the contrast ;)

 

 

 

yay for tameron :D, which macro was it? Tameron makes 2 macros.

[tripsis]

It's actually not bad, try boosting up the contrast ;)

 

 

 

yay for tameron :D, which macro was it? Tameron makes 2 macros.

 

I agree. Contrast is yummy :lol:

 

 

 

You probably don't have do quite this much but I love contrast :P

 

 

 

[hide=]Before

 

 

 

 

 

 

After

 

 

 

[/hide]

[shivers21]

It's actually not bad, try boosting up the contrast ;)

 

 

 

yay for tameron :D, which macro was it? Tameron makes 2 macros.

 

I agree. Contrast is yummy :lol:

 

 

 

You probably don't have do quite this much but I love contrast :P

 

 

 

[hide=]Before

 

 

 

 

 

 

After

 

 

 

[/hide]

 

 

 

Your contrast made the glare too intense.

[tripsis]

Fine :P

 

 

 

[hide=][/hide]

[Shiny]

Seems alright, but very boring, not to mention over-done. Add some contrast as well, and remember the WOW factor.

[Sam]

It's actually not bad, try boosting up the contrast ;)

 

 

 

yay for tameron :D, which macro was it? Tameron makes 2 macros.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know which one it is actually :P

[Sam]

With subdued brightness and increased contrast.

 

 

 

[woopidoo2]

Meh, I dont think only the subject as in 'waterdrop' is overdone,

 

its the lighting that lacks too which is just as important as the drop itself.

 

 

 

Waterdrops can make great photos, once it has been done right.

 

 

 

Like the one below, the lighting is great and the colors are fresh too.

 

Combine that with a sharp waterdrop: Great results.

 

 

 

[hide=Photo][/hide]

 

 

 

Dont worry, its something that every photographer did/will do. Some stick to it and improve by doing it (Tripsis :P )

 

And some like it, but dont actively search for it except when they know they are around (me).

[tripsis]

Nice. But very unoriginal.. water drops are way to common.

 

Try taking macro's of other things like bugs, technology, paintings. Anything with fine detail.

 

Meh, I dont think only the subject as in 'waterdrop' is overdone,

 

its the lighting that lacks too which is just as important as the drop itself.

 

I agree with woopidoo. I read several Photography Forums and I have noticed that what actually tends to be done the most is insects. All subjects, including water drops, are done frequently, but that doesn't mean that they should be discouraged.

 

 

 

And great point on lighting, woopidoo. Here are some water refractions from my favourite macro photographer:

 

 

 

[hide=Large Images]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[/hide]

[woopidoo2]

The photos above all look great, but the more I think about it, the more it starts to look fake...

 

 

 

-The waterdrops in those photos seem unnaturally big. I havent seen them as big as that,

 

and I know lots of stories where the photographer uses some substance (wax?) to keep the drops intact, while adding more water to them.

 

 

 

-All these photos could have been made inside a softbox (except the second one) which also doesnt add to the 'natural' feel to them.

 

 

 

 

 

These are all great money makers though, and I havent got a clue how much effort he put into making these. :)

[Sam]

I haven't waxed the leaves or anything. I did take the picture through a window so it might look slightly different. 'Twas too cold outside D:

[tripsis]

They're certainly not fake :P I know a lot about the photographer and how he composes his images. Do you know anything about the Canon MP-E 65mm lens? That's what he uses. It goes from 1:1 to 5:1 lifesize. The Canon 100mm 2.8 lens has a MAXIMUM magnification of 1:1. So as a comparison:

 

 

 

[hide=]My Image, at 1:1 Ratio

 

 

 

 

 

 

His Image, at 3:1 Ratio or greater

 

 

 

[/hide]

 

 

 

Most of his images are taken at a 3:1 lifesize ratio, but it is possible to go even larger (4:1 or 5:1). His last two images above look to be at least 4:1. Water drop refractions are popular amongst a lot of Canon MP-E 65mm users, so the above photographer isn't alone. Here are a few images from a different photographer's work:

 

 

 

[hide=]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And here is another photo of his taken at 7x lifesize. The photographer used the MP-E 65mm lens and a Sigma 1.4x Teleconverter:

 

 

 

[/hide]

 

 

 

One reason why the images may appear fake to you is that many MP-E 65mm users use a technique called Focus Stacking. As someone who owns a 100mm macro lens, I'm sure you know how thin the depth of field can be at a 1:1 magnification. Well imagine how thin it is at 3:1 or even greater. You can learn more about focus stacking here if you don't already know what it is. The author of the article is actually the same photographer as the one I alluded two in my last post. The article also contains a picture of his set up (Canon camera, Canon MP-E 65mm lens, Canon 430ex speedlight, home-made diffuser).

 

 

 

I too have heard of the method you described to keep water drops in tact, and although I cannot vouch for the photographer, he has said that he does not use that method. He gets up early in the morning and photographs the dew in his garden. Dew drops can get really big - much bigger than drops left on plants after it rains. I have encountered my fair share of dew when I had to get up early monday mornings for my gardening class. There would always be huge dew drops on all the plants, which I craved to photograph and finally did one morning:

 

 

 

[hide=][/hide]

 

 

 

I'd say that's a fair sized drop of water. Now imagine that same image at a greater magnification (3:1 or greater). I'd say it would look pretty similar to one of the above photographer's images.

[Pat_61]

I haven't waxed the leaves or anything. I did take the picture through a window so it might look slightly different. 'Twas too cold outside D:

 

 

 

Lol, he was talking about the photos tripsis posted.

[woopidoo2]

They're certainly not fake :P I know a lot about the photographer and how he composes his images. Do you know anything about the Canon MP-E 65mm lens? That's what he uses. It goes from 1:1 to 5:1 lifesize. The Canon 100mm 2.8 lens has a MAXIMUM magnification of 1:1. So as a comparison:

 

 

 

[hide=]My Image, at 1:1 Ratio

 

 

 

 

 

 

His Image, at 3:1 Ratio or greater

 

 

 

[/hide]

 

 

 

Most of his images are taken at a 3:1 lifesize ratio, but it is possible to go even larger (4:1 or 5:1). His last two images above look to be at least 4:1. Water drop refractions are popular amongst a lot of Canon MP-E 65mm users, so the above photographer isn't alone. Here are a few images from a different photographer's work:

 

 

 

[hide=]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And here is another photo of his taken at 7x lifesize. The photographer used the MP-E 65mm lens and a Sigma 1.4x Teleconverter:

 

 

 

[/hide]

 

 

 

One reason why the images may appear fake to you is that many MP-E 65mm users use a technique called Focus Stacking. As someone who owns a 100mm macro lens, I'm sure you know how thin the depth of field can be at a 1:1 magnification. Well imagine how thin it is at 3:1 or even greater. You can learn more about focus stacking here if you don't already know what it is. The author of the article is actually the same photographer as the one I alluded two in my last post. The article also contains a picture of his set up (Canon camera, Canon MP-E 65mm lens, Canon 430ex speedlight, home-made diffuser).

 

 

 

I too have heard of the method you described to keep water drops in tact, and although I cannot vouch for the photographer, he has said that he does not use that method. He gets up early in the morning and photographs the dew in his garden. Dew drops can get really big - much bigger than drops left on plants after it rains. I have encountered my fair share of dew when I had to get up early monday mornings for my gardening class. There would always be huge dew drops on all the plants, which I craved to photograph and finally did one morning:

 

 

 

[hide=][/hide]

 

 

 

I'd say that's a fair sized drop of water. Now imagine that same image at a greater magnification (3:1 or greater). I'd say it would look pretty similar to one of the above photographer's images.

 

 

 

Wow, interesting. :thumbup:

 

 

 

I heard about focus stacking before, but I have never heard of the MP-E 65mm. I thought 1:1 was the max, and you could only go to 2:1 and beyond by using teleconverters and extension tubes :)

[tripsis]

Wow, interesting. :thumbup:

 

 

 

I heard about focus stacking before, but I have never heard of the MP-E 65mm. I thought 1:1 was the max, and you could only go to 2:1 and beyond by using teleconverters and extension tubes :)

 

Yeah the MP-E 65mm is pretty much the god of macro photography (I'm dying to try it out myself). But it doesn't focus to infinity so you have to be pretty die-hard about macro photography to buy one of your own. Last time I checked, it was at around $800, plus it is HIGHLY recommended that you get a macro flash which is another $500 - $700, unless you want a flash bracket which seems rather annoying to carry around.

 

 

 

I'm very sorry, littleboy, for hijacking your thread :ohnoes: :oops:

[Sam]

Hey, no worries. It gives me stuff to consider too!

[woopidoo2]

Wow, interesting. :thumbup:

 

 

 

I heard about focus stacking before, but I have never heard of the MP-E 65mm. I thought 1:1 was the max, and you could only go to 2:1 and beyond by using teleconverters and extension tubes :)

 

Yeah the MP-E 65mm is pretty much the god of macro photography (I'm dying to try it out myself). But it doesn't focus to infinity so you have to be pretty die-hard about macro photography to buy one of your own. Last time I checked, it was at around $800, plus it is HIGHLY recommended that you get a macro flash which is another $500 - $700, unless you want a flash bracket which seems rather annoying to carry around.

 

 

 

I'm very sorry, littleboy, for hijacking your thread :ohnoes: :oops:

 

 

 

If you really want more macro, you could always get near the 100% crop of your photo. You can get a bit closer once you do that, but the quality will start to lack pretty soon by doing that.

 

 

 

A ring flash would be the first thing to consider if I would start to focus more on macro, but still, the EF 100mm is still an excellent macro lens. :)

[tripsis]

If you really want more macro, you could always get near the 100% crop of your photo. You can get a bit closer once you do that, but the quality will start to lack pretty soon by doing that.

 

 

 

A ring flash would be the first thing to consider if I would start to focus more on macro, but still, the EF 100mm is still an excellent macro lens. :)

 

Yeah I don't like cropping for the very reason that you mentioned. The quality loss is just too much for me. For now I'm content with the 100mm macro and extension tubes if necessary.

 

 

 

If you ever do decide to get a dedicated macro photography flash, I would recommend the Canon MT-24EX Macro Twin Lite Flash over the Canon MR-14EX Macro Ring Lite. There is a $200 difference but if you get the ring lite instead, after some time you'll probably wish that you had gotten the twin lite. The quality of light is much better than the rather flat ring lite. Or as Amazon puts it:

 

 

 

The new Macro Twin Lite gives serious close-up, nature, and macro enthusiasts a different option in macro lighting - a directional quality of light, as opposed to the rather "flat" character of the traditional ring lite.

 

 

 

The twin lights are pretty much exactly as they sound: two mini flashes on the front of your lens!

 

 

 

And yeah, the 100mm really is an incredible lens, even when it's not used for macro work. It's just so incredibly sharp, I love it!!

[eias]

Tripsis,how much does that 100mm lens cost? :D

[tripsis]

Tripsis,how much does that 100mm lens cost? :D

 

$444 in the US on Amazon.com :)

 

 

 

There is an alternative for $100 less: the Canon Ef-S 60mm Macro lens, but I would highly recommend the 100mm instead.