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?
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.
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.
The problem with this approach is that focusing changes magnification. For full control, manual focusing and exposure are essential.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.
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 ...
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.
Please read the first sentence in the second paragraph of post #33 above.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.
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.
Your post #38 above is proof that auto-everything cameras rot the mind.
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.
Your post #39 above is proof that some folks are incapable of embracing new technology.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?