First steps in Macro Photography, Mistakes to Avoid?

[Bronson Dugnutt]

I got a set of extension tubes for my 67 a few weeks ago, as the 'macro' lens for the 67 system doesn't provide 1:1 magnification as-is. I'll look to shoot my 90mm LS reversed on tubes with flash as an alternative in strong daylight. I'd like to wind up with some chromes worth mounting and displaying in a lightbox frame.

 

[wiltw]

You are right wiltw, i hadn't considered how to recognize the 1:1 ratio once the teleconverter was installed. Why is getting it exact so important? Is it to be able to give an exact magnification ratio and thus size of the subject portraied or something else?

The answer is, yet once again, "It depends".

1. Consider that originally macro was useed for scientific purposes, and knowing that you were viewing an 8X scaled reproduction of the actual object was important for documentation purposes...you could simply scale the print and divide by 8 to determine real size dimensions of the subject matter.
2. These days, 'macro' is so very loosely used, and for most folks it really translates to '"ocus closer that I otherwise might, and not image it to scale but merely 'fit the frame' "

So it depends on YOUR purposes for taking the photo! If you fit description #2, it DOES NOT matter the exact scale, so utilitizing a 1.4x teleconvertor is a convension with no consequence!

 

[Dan Fromm]

[QUOTE="Wolfram 1, post: 2402154, member: 93416"You are right wiltw, i hadn't considered how to recognize the 1:1 ratio once the teleconverter was installed. Why is getting it exact so important? Is it to be able to give an exact magnification ratio and thus size of the subject portraied or something else?[/QUOTE]

If you're not metering exposure through the lens, knowing the magnification is crucial. Without knowing the magnification you can't calculate effective aperture. See, e.g., the Lefkowitz book I recommended in post #8 above. He gets the formula right.

 

[Wolfram 1]

As it happens i was intending to use some of the better photographs in my university course, its mostly about creating scientifically relevant photographs using digital cameras but film photographs will be accepted also.
We were told to use a scale to determine subject size but since the 1:1 ratio makes this obsolete i wont have to fiddle with getting the scale into the same focal plane as long as i keep to the 1:1 exposure. Thank you for bringing this to my attention and explaining it so well.

In my country there is a new lock-down currently so i haven't been able to go to the library just jet but i will check out that book if they have it.


Thanks again for all your help.

 

[StepheKoontz]

A camera with TTL auto flash is very useful with macro. Using an off camera TTL cord allows you to move the flash to where it's needed and you don't have to try to deal with the complex calculations. The flash duration with macro is normally VERY short, which helps with any camera shake. I've had great success even hand holding pretty high magnification macro shots using TTL flash. Just be aware of the shallow DOF and do a bit of focus bracketing for the "best" shot. Also, longer focal lengths tend to work better as they give you more working room and understand focal length doesn't determine DOF, magnification does, so a short focal length doesn't magically give more DOF in macro use.

 

[Dan Fromm]

A camera with TTL auto flash is very useful with macro. Using an off camera TTL cord allows you to move the flash to where it's needed and you don't have to try to deal with the complex calculations. The flash duration with macro is normally VERY short, which helps with any camera shake. I've had great success even hand holding pretty high magnification macro shots using TTL flash. Just be aware of the shallow DOF and do a bit of focus bracketing for the "best" shot. Also, longer focal lengths tend to work better as they give you more working room and understand focal length doesn't determine DOF, magnification does, so a short focal length doesn't magically give more DOF in macro use.

Funny. I've had no problem getting consistently accurate exposures with manual flash. The trick is to shoot a series of calibration shots at a range of magnifications, make a table of best aperture by magnification. This is equivalent to metering incident, which yields more consistent results than metering reflected, which is what TTL auto flash does. With Vivitar 283s and VP-1s the table also shows the power setting used in the calibration shots. They give full control over aperture.

I don't doubt that your results are good enough, but TTL auto flash isn't the only way ...

 

[Ko.Fe.]

OP, you have a lens which is 1:1 capable, so you can ignore the thought of using extension tubes, unless you shoot HIGHER magnification than that. And at that magnification, every f/stop on the lens transmits less light to the focal plane, so the 'effective aperture' will be about two f/stops smaller than the setting on the lens...f/16 on the lens tranmits the equivalent of f/32 amount of light when shooting 1:1.

Be aware...shooting 1:1 means the image of the object photogphed as AT REAL SIZE on the film. So you can fully fit something as tall/wide as your frame, 24 x 36mm

If you are shooting 1:1, the distance between subject and the focal plane of the camera will be 4*FL, with a non-AF lens, so 400mm. But the distance from front of lens to subject will, of course, be less...and that may cause subject illumination issues because your camera and your body will block much of the light reaching the subject. And that is why the lightcage you set up is important.
However, since the lens is AF, manufacturers play games, and in order to keep AF manageable, they actually shorten the FL of the lens...it is no longer 100mm but some shorter FL. and that reduces lens-to-subject distances even shorter, amplifying the issue of subject illumination.

MF camera will keep you on dead mouse bones limit. If you photograph not live objects, blast them with light to use DOF preview button and check focus. Then measure regular light and take exposure.
For anything live I had success with servo AF. Latest Canon film pro EOS with 105L IS lens and TTL macro ring flash would be my choice.

 

[Dan Fromm]

For anything live I had success with servo AF. Latest Canon film pro EOS with 105L IS lens and TTL macro ring flash would be my choice.

The problem with this approach is that focusing changes magnification. For full control, manual focusing and exposure are essential.

Re focusing, when shooting handheld I set magnification -- all of my MicroNikkors have magnification scales -- as desired and then focus by teetering back and forth. When I shoot preserved specimens in the museum, the DSLR is mounted on a stand, illumination is by hot lights and I use computer driven focus stacking. This approach gives good and consistent results but can't be used with moving subjects.

 

[wiltw]

Funny. I've had no problem getting consistently accurate exposures with manual flash. The trick is to shoot a series of calibration shots at a range of magnifications, make a table of best aperture by magnification. This is equivalent to metering incident, which yields more consistent results than metering reflected, which is what TTL auto flash does. With Vivitar 283s and VP-1s the table also shows the power setting used in the calibration shots. They give full control over aperture.

I don't doubt that your results are good enough, but TTL auto flash isn't the only way ...

Indeed, the shortcoming of TTL is if the overall area seen by the camera averages brighter or darker than mid-tone, the TTL flash will be fooled into underexposure or overexposure, so scientific documentation of natural lifeforms is not depicting reality. Similarly, in document photography, the white page reproduces as a gray tone rather than nearer the upper areas of the sensitometric curve where it belongs. Recognition of the limits inherent to TTL metering may well be warranted more so that 'ordinary scene' exposure.

Incident flash metering will tell you the inherent illumination of the scene with flash, and then the 'effective aperture' adjustment for loss of light is used to record the subject at its inherent brightness.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

The problem with this approach is that focusing changes magnification. For full control, manual focusing and exposure are essential.

Re focusing, when shooting handheld I set magnification -- all of my MicroNikkors have magnification scales -- as desired and then focus by teetering back and forth. When I shoot preserved specimens in the museum, the DSLR is mounted on a stand, illumination is by hot lights and I use computer driven focus stacking. This approach gives good and consistent results but can't be used with moving subjects.

Macro and museums? Ouch. I was referring to moving bugs.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Macro and museums? Ouch. I was referring to moving bugs.

Please read the first sentence in the second paragraph of post #33 above.

I just shot a moving live fish in an aquarium using a pre-calibrated manual flash, camera hand held and focus attained by teetering in and out. This works well too with unconstrained and, sometimes, skittish insects. See this https://1drv.ms/u/s!AggQfcczvHGNgbY5174-ffHBa5w3vg?e=pBTJA2 scan of a KM slide shot in 1977 with a 55/3.5 MicroNikkor @f/13.5, two little pre-calibrated fixed output flashes and focused by teetering in and out. Cincidelid beetles are very skittish.

Crutches like AF are for the handicapped. I don't begrudge handicapped persons who need them their crutches, whatever helps them function better is fine with me, but people who aren't handicapped don't need crutches.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Please read the first sentence in the second paragraph of post #33 above.

I just shot a moving live fish in an aquarium using a pre-calibrated manual flash, camera hand held and focus attained by teetering in and out. This works well too with unconstrained and, sometimes, skittish insects. See this https://1drv.ms/u/s!AggQfcczvHGNgbY5174-ffHBa5w3vg?e=pBTJA2 scan of a KM slide shot in 1977 with a 55/3.5 MicroNikkor @f/13.5, two little pre-calibrated fixed output flashes and focused by teetering in and out. Cincidelid beetles are very skittish.

Crutches like AF are for the handicapped. I don't begrudge handicapped persons who need them their crutches, whatever helps them function better is fine with me, but people who aren't handicapped don't need crutches.

Actually AF can focus more accurately and faster than people, even people who are not handicapped.

 

[StepheKoontz]

Indeed, the shortcoming of TTL is if the overall area seen by the camera averages brighter or darker than mid-tone, the TTL flash will be fooled into underexposure or overexposure, so scientific documentation of natural lifeforms is not depicting reality. Similarly, in document photography, the white page reproduces as a gray tone rather than nearer the upper areas of the sensitometric curve where it belongs. Recognition of the limits inherent to TTL metering may well be warranted more so that 'ordinary scene' exposure.

Incident flash metering will tell you the inherent illumination of the scene with flash, and then the 'effective aperture' adjustment for loss of light is used to record the subject at its inherent brightness.

I have to LOL at these posts bashing TTL flash. Did you read the OP's post, as someone starting out in macro and not wanting to waste a bunch of film? Obviously you can shoot rolls of calibration film and create tables of manual settings (That would require replicating the magnification and the flash to subject distance every time), or if you are shooting a "set up shot" can do incident light measurements and then calculate effective aperture after calculating the magnification etc.

But if someone wants to go out into the field, handheld shooting flower closeups or live insects, a TTL flash on an off camera cord (or even a ring flash) that can be aimed at the subject without requiring the camera or the flash distance to be precise/calculated, is a great way to get some good shots without a lot of headache/waste of film. It also allows using light modifiers/diffusers without having to make test shots and tables for their use. And I would expect someone with a TTL metering camera knows how to use exposure compensation dial when needed as well.

I also don't recall this person asking how to do scientific documentation nor document photography.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I have to LOL at these posts bashing TTL flash. Did you read the OP's post, as someone starting out in macro and not wanting to waste a bunch of film? Obviously you can shoot rolls of calibration film and create tables of manual settings (That would require replicating the magnification and the flash to subject distance every time), or if you are shooting a "set up shot" can do incident light measurements and then calculate effective aperture after calculating the magnification etc.

But if someone wants to go out into the field, handheld shooting flower closeups or live insects, a TTL flash on an off camera cord (or even a ring flash) that can be aimed at the subject without requiring the camera or the flash distance to be precise/calculated, is a great way to get some good shots without a lot of headache/waste of film. It also allows using light modifiers/diffusers without having to make test shots and tables for their use. And I would expect someone with a TTL metering camera knows how to use exposure compensation dial when needed as well.

Stephe, I spent one roll of film to calibrate two flash rigs at a range of magnifications. After that was done I prepared cheat sheets -- magnification vs. best aperture -- printed them and taped them to the flash. Interpolation between the magnifications used for calibration works well. The OP has digital gear, he doesn't even have to use film to take the calibration shots. When I got my D810 I rewrote my old calibration tables, prepared for ISO 25, for ISO 50 and there I was, ready to go.

The key is to use a macro lens with a magnification scale. Remember that for a given flash rig, magnification sets flash-to-subject distance and there you are. No thinking or calculations required after the rig has been calibrated. Set magnification, look up aperture in table and there you go.

George Lepp used to sell very flexible flash rigs for macro work in the field. My wife pressured me into getting one for her. I found it unusable. Duplicating the flash set up from shooting session to shooting session was too difficult.

About light modifiers and diffusers. It isn't widely known, but a flash unit near the subject gives the same effect as a large diffused source far from the subject. Light modifiers and diffusers aren't needed for shooting flowers, insects and such.

I've spent considerable time looking at small preserved fish -- amoung other things, counting teeth in mouths 2 mm wide -- through a stereo microscope. I use orientable point sources very close to the fish. They give better control of specular reflections than do large diffused sources far from the fish.

Your post #38 above is proof that auto-everything cameras rot the mind.

 

[StepheKoontz]

Your post #38 above is proof that auto-everything cameras rot the mind.

Your post #39 above is proof that some folks are incapable of embracing new technology.

Years ago I used an all manual "flash rig" and of course still have to on medium format etc cameras that don't have TTL flash options.

What your all manual "flash rig" technique doesn't allow for is: using different positions for the flash, backlighting or using multiple flash heads at different power levels to change the modeling. (without just trial and error shooting) It's difficult the play with the ratio of ambient vs flash power to control how much of the environment is included working off a static flash power chart. It only works with the light from the flash from one direction. It requires you to compose, look at the mag scale on the lens (and limits you to a lens with a mag scale), look that up on a chart, set the flash power and then take the shot. Using TTL you focus on the composition, light modeling and shoot, instead of focusing on the equipment. It doesn't make you a hero doing it like someone would have to have done it in 1965.

And diffusers absolutely change the appearance of the image. For example I've used the technique of using a white plastic bag as a light tent, with the lens through a hole in it and pointing a TTL flash at the outside of the bag. which would be at ~ the same distance shot without the diffuser. Not being restricted to one specific old school flash gun on a fixed position manual "flash rig" opens up all kinds of creative opportunities. This Nikon system, used in conjunction with an off camera flash, produces results that aren't possible with a single flash "manual rig", but I'm sure you know more than the folks at Nikon...

https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-p...s/r1-wireless-close-up-speedlight-system.html

I don't feel learning new technology and thinking about macro lighting outside the box of a simple one flash gun approach is "mind rot". I actually feel not being willing to do something different than the way you have done it since the 1970's is the definition of mind rot.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have to LOL at these posts bashing TTL flash. Did you read the OP's post, as someone starting out in macro and not wanting to waste a bunch of film? Obviously you can shoot rolls of calibration film and create tables of manual settings (That would require replicating the magnification and the flash to subject distance every time), or if you are shooting a "set up shot" can do incident light measurements and then calculate effective aperture after calculating the magnification etc.

But if someone wants to go out into the field, handheld shooting flower closeups or live insects, a TTL flash on an off camera cord (or even a ring flash) that can be aimed at the subject without requiring the camera or the flash distance to be precise/calculated, is a great way to get some good shots without a lot of headache/waste of film. It also allows using light modifiers/diffusers without having to make test shots and tables for their use. And I would expect someone with a TTL metering camera knows how to use exposure compensation dial when needed as well.

I also don't recall this person asking how to do scientific documentation nor document photography.

One can spend lots of time and money going the endless testing for every possible set up .... or one can just go take the macro photographs and enjoy what they get.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Your post #39 above is proof that some folks are incapable of embracing new technology.

Sigh.

What your all manual "flash rig" technique doesn't allow for is: using different positions for the flash, backlighting or using multiple flash heads at different power levels to change the modeling. (without just trial and error shooting) It's difficult the play with the ratio of ambient vs flash power to control how much of the environment is included working off a static flash power chart.

You have no idea what I've tested and rejected or what I use. I settled on a two flash rig because for my purposes more flashes added nothing. This after testing.

I don't feel learning new technology and thinking about macro lighting outside the box of a simple one flash gun approach is "mind rot". I actually feel not being willing to do something different than the way you have done it since the 1970's is the definition of mind rot.

As I was saying, mindless. I've used TTL flash with film, found it couldn't be trusted in macro work. I mentioned the difference between metering incident and reflected earlier in this thread. For closeup work metering incident -- that's effectively what my test shots do -- works better.

Re new technology, thanks for the Nikon link. That rig embodies and old idea that first came to market, I think, in Spiratone's MacroDapter. I have and use a couple of MacroDapters, also the roughly equivalent Jones of Hollywood two flash bracket ever since they were introduced. I went a little deeper into the math of closeup flash, designed and built a modified Jones bracket that has the nice property of wanting the same aperture (+/- 1/4 stop, this is good enough for Kodachrome) to be used at magnifications from 1:5 to 1:1. This verified by initial tests with an incident reading flash meter -- I have two -- and use in the field with film. The rig is very useful for flower and insects.

 

[Wolfram 1]

Now, i think i need to step in and hopefully diffuse your argument because i value both your opinions and there seem to be some misconceptions about me at play also.

First of all i should probably tell you guys exactly what equipment i am working with and what my aims are as my initial question was rather broad.

I was personally fed up with taking pictures with my phone or go-pro as these were the only cameras in my possesion at that time and after looking through some old family photo albums which i enjoyed an awful lot i decided that from now on i was going to invest more time and effort into the pictures i take and what better way than to acctually go back to the roots with film photography. Now i am a student and money is always an issue but i just asked around if some of my relatives had some old equipment they were willing to give me.

That's how i got my Nikon F4 with 4 lenses including the af micro nikkor macro lens, the tc-16a teleconverter, a Nikon sb-24 speedlight, and some other equipment.

so thats what i got, i assume that speedlight is a ttl flash but i would prefer to use fixed led lights and a tripod.

When it comes to things i want to capture its is twofold. For one i just want to learn the basics of macro photography, taking shots of my tarantulas or other insects in studio conditions just for fun. On the other hand i would definitely like to learn how to make scientific captures as i just had a 3 day introductory course that mainly focused on dslrs. It covered the basics but didn't go into too much depth when it comes to macro shots. Now i will be writing my bachelors thesis this year and that includes a photographic documentation. It would be incredible if i could learn how to do this with film but unless i am absolutely certain the photos will be usable i will have to resort to using my phone... .

I will mainly be photographing bones and only need to include actual macro shots if i want to highlight some details.

As money is an issue i cant just go out and buy all the equipment you might recommend.

Now i might have absorbed some knowledge from you tube videos and your input was very helpful as well. I mainly want to avoid too many botched exposures.

Sometimes i still have trouble understanding some of the more complex physics behind the principles but as some of you already pointed out books will be the best help there.

I feel like your personal experiences are the thing that help me out the most and if they clash with each other or contradict themselves that shouldn't be an issue as i will try whats possible with the equipment i have anyways rather than things i would have to buy additional equipment for.

I am really just beginning to understand the basics but that doesn't mean i am not interested in some of the more complex stuff you guys have found to be what works for you but keep in mind that i might need some more detailed explanations.

For example i have 2 fresh rolls of 400 ISO Kodak film but from your input i got the feeling that lower ISO is preferable. I understand the basic differences but i do not have any actual experience so i might have some misconceptions about this but aren't newer films still pretty good at that kind of ISO range or is the light sensitivity already too much for macro work.

Its basics like this i still struggle with but now i also want to get such a calibration cheat sheet like dan mentioned if it means i don't have to calibrate my setup every time...

thanks again everyone and pls keep things civil

 

[Pieter12]

You might look into a used digital Nikon body, such as the D800 if you can afford it. You will be able to experiment with lighting, white balance and ISO and see the results immediately and not have the expense of film. You can use the lenses you already have. For your purposes, film is not the answer.

 

[Wolfram 1]

You might look into a used digital Nikon body, such as the D800 if you can afford it. You will be able to experiment with lighting, white balance and ISO and see the results immediately and not have the expense of film. You can use the lenses you already have. For your purposes, film is not the answer.

Thanks Pieter, that would be the case if i wanted to make digital photographs and you are right for experimentation digital cameras might be the better/easier option but as i said before i am mainly interested in film, and its fun to learn anyway just harder but that didn't stop people 20 years ago ...

I might have a way to borrow a digital Nikon from a friend to experiment with lighting, the histograms would be oh so helpful too but i would much rather do my research ask for all the help i can get and then do it with film, its what i am interested in anyways.

I know i am contradicting myself when i say that money is an issue and then use film, but that's just what i want to do so that expense is something i can live with i am sure anyone here has their own reasons for the way they enjoy to do things.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Wolfram, thanks for explaining your situation more fully.

If you're going to work in a studio situation with full control of lighting, my reasons for preferring slow film are irrelevant.

Since you're going to photograph bones, which don't move, and shoot from tripod, there's no need to use flash to stop motion. Continuous lighting will do perfectly well. If you don't have access to an adjustable microscope illuminator to use with fine details, IKEA used to make an inexpensive orientable desk lamp JAMSJO, two of them will do what you need. I believe it has been discontinued in the US, might not be available in AT. The replacement in the US is, I think, NAVLINGE. Slightly more expensive.

Your macro lens will do perfectly well, but you might want to use manual focus.

Your F4 meters TTL. Use the camera's meter. Metering TTL eliminates the need to adjust exposure for magnification.

Its up to you, but I think b/w film will be better for your purposes than color.

If you can use your friend's digital Nikon to take your serious bone pictures, do. I have an appointment in our local natural history museum's fish department, we use digital Nikons and hot lights to photograph dead fish of all sizes. They work very well, produce publication quality photos.

Remember that your task as a student is to complete your thesis, not to play with photographic equipment.

Which organism's bones are you going to photograph?

 

[Sirius Glass]

The problem is doing macro work is illumination. How to get the light coming from the space occupied by the camera? I suggest you look for a ring light around the lens or small strobes on each side of the lens.

 

[Wolfram 1]

Thanks for your response Dan.
i will check out your suggestions, thanks.
I prefer manual mode anyway, and yes of course my thesis will be my main objective this semester but there needs to be some time for my hobbies as well. And if i can somehow combine them it would be nice but work comes first ofc.
First i need to do some experimentation anyway but hopefully without too much wasted film.
It will be human bones from archaeological digs, mainly the long-bones of the extremities for body-height reconstruction but maybe there will be some fractures or other pathological anomalies like signs of tuberculosis etc. were i need to document the surface structures.
For this purpose b&w film would be my first choice also, like you said.
In case of my spiders i do want to get those fine hairs in colour as they are stunning , a friend of mine also breeds jewel wasps, i'd love to get a good picture of one of those, they are incredibly gorgeous

 

[Wolfram 1]

The problem is doing macro work is illumination. How to get the light coming from the space occupied by the camera? I suggest you look for a ring light around the lens or small strobes on each side of the lens.

Hey thanks for the reply.
I agree and its also the hardest part to get a good feel for. I want to try using my current equipment but if i ever plan on going out and shooting macro in the field i will heed your suggestion. Moving targets will be a project for the future.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. If you're shooting whole bones its hardly macro. I mean, my femurs and tibias are around 38-39 cm long. If you need to photography an entire bone and want good detail, look into using a 4x5 or larger camera. 35 mm or digital for details of small sections.

Consider getting a copy of A. A. Blaker's Handbook For Scientific Photography.