First steps in Macro Photography, Mistakes to Avoid?

[Wolfram 1]

I am fairly new to Photography in general but i want to try my luck with one or two rolls of Macro shots. My equipment consists of a Nikon F4, with a dedicated AF MICRO 105mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro lens. I think its the MK1 version and its kind of weird as the normal Nikon lens caps don't fit on it making it impractical to take outside sadly. Anyway i also have a AF 1.6X teleconverter which should make it possible to get an even greater magnification but i am unsure if that is something that is recommended?
I plan on shooting indoors and setting up a diy-lightcage but as i have basically no experience with lighting all i know is that its good to have glancing, diffused light from preferably 2 or more sources. I expect the only thing i will be able to really mess up will be the lighting as ISO and presumably focal distance will be fixed. Or am i wrong here and the apperature makes all the difference here? I am under the assumtion that i will have to choose the apperature based on the most opportune focal plane/distance. Is there anything that i need to pay special attention too? Any common mistakes to avoid? I am watching a lot of Allan Walls on this topic but if you have any recommendations in regards to great explanatory videos in regards to macro photography i would be interested to check them out.


The scary part is that with film focus stacking isn't an option and i am scared i will waste a lot of film if i don't consider everything.


I would appreciate any input, thanks in advance.

 

[MattKing]

These are interesting questions!
When you get into true macro range - near life-size or larger - it helps to talk about magnification. So my question is: "What are you seeking to photograph, and what sort of magnification are you seeking to achieve?"
Teleconverters are usually not the first choice, if you otherwise have a good true macro lens to work with. Extension tubes are a more commonly used option.
You may find that auto focus won't work as well as manual focusing.

 

[Wolfram 1]

Thanks for the quick response Matt. I plan to photograph different things that i have at hand. Insects, Animal bones and their surface structures, maybe a coin etc. since these have all drastically different properties i will probably have to adjust the lighting for each one individually. I would like to start with something light in front of a dark background like a black paper. so maybe the mouse bones i found a couple of years ago.

I have heard about extension tubes and bellows and its something i might want to try out as well but i want to avoid buying any extra equipment for now. Except maybe some inexpensive led lights.

Yea, i was planning on using manual focus anyway, that is the great part about the F4 actually, that it sits right at the edge of AF while still offering all the manual options.

 

[wiltw]

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.

 

[Wolfram 1]

Thank you for the response wiltw.
I had feared that lighting would be the most important part to get right as it seems to be the most difficult as well.

I had no idea that the AF lenses have different effective focal length to the equivalent non-AF lenses. but shouldn't it be possible to basically crop the image by using the teleconverter but not using it to get past the 1:1 ratio but to use it to be able to position the object at a greater distance while keeping the 1:1 ratio? Now i have no idea if that will be necessary yet, as i still have some research and acquisition of lights to do but it is something i was pondering about.

 

[Pieter12]

Your F4 meters through the lens and would show the correct reading. I'm not sure about using a teleconverter (or even why, for that matter) for a macro lens--be aware that at large magnifications and close distances you will have very little depth of field, the teleconverter will make that even less. Try it all out first and see what you can get straight out of the box. And don't be afraid of taking your lens outdoors without a lens cap. It won't get harmed unless you drop it. And then even a lens cap might not be enough protection--the AF is pretty complex. And a 52mm lens cap should fit. There is a 62mm thread for the lens hood, maybe that's what's throwing you..

 

[Wolfram 1]

Thanks Pieter, you are right i was thinking that all lens caps are the same as my other lenses each have a dedicated cap that are larger than 52mm and assumed it didn't exist. I will try to get a hold of one. The 62mm thread for the lens hood threw me off too since its just out of reach for the normal caps.

You are right i should definitely try to use it normally first. I guess i was trying to find a use for all the different parts i do have at hand even if i didn't really need them.

 

[Dan Fromm]

OP, you really need a book. I don't know what's available in German, here's an annotated list of books in English that were written before digital came in. They can all be found at reasonable prices from used booksellers who post on abebooks.com, alibris.com, amazon.com, barnesandnoble.com, ...

Angel, Heather. 1987 (revised, originally published in 1983). Book of Close-Up
Photography. Originally published by Ebury, London. Revised edition published by A.
A. Knopf Inc. 168 pp. ISBN 0394532325. A much better book than John Shaw's
Closeups In Nature. If nothing else, she uses and discusses more than Nikons. Angel
does the John Shaw thing better than he does.

Blaker, Alfred A. 1976. Field Photography. W. H. Freeman & Co. San Francisco, CA.
451 pp. ISBN 0-7167-0518-4. A deep discussion of all aspects of photography, with
considerable emphasis on close-up. Discusses getting the magnification, lighting, and
exposure. Weaker than Lefkowitz on working above 1:1, stronger on lighting, especially
flash. Extensive bibliography.

Bracegirdle, Brian. 1995. Scientific PhotoMACROgraphy. Bios Scientific Publishers.
Oxford. 105 pp. ISBN 1 872748 49 X. A terse drier updated version of Lefkowitz. Very
useful bibliography, unfortunately scattered into small sections after most chapters.

Gibson, H. Lou. Close-Up Photography and Photomacrography. 1970. Publication N-
16. Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY. 98+95+6 pp. The two sections were published
separately as Kodak Publications N-12A and N-12B respectively. Republished in 1977
with changes and without the 6 page analytic supplement, which was published
separately as Kodak Publication N-15. 1977 edition is ISBN 0-87985-206-2. Gibson is
very strong on lighting, exposure, and on what can and cannot be accomplished. His
books, although relatively weak on getting the magnification with lenses made for
modern SLR cameras, provide a very useful foundation for thinking about working at
magnifications above 1:10 and especially above 1:1. Extensive bibliography.

Lefkowitz, Lester. 1979. The Manual of Close-Up Photography. Amphoto. Garden
City, NY. 272 pp. ISBN 0-8174-2456-3 (hardbound) and 0-8174-2130-0 (softbound). A
thorough discussion of getting the magnification, lighting, and exposure. Especially good
on working above 1:1. Extensive bibliography.

I recommend books because you asked a question than needs a book length answer. Short answers such as you'll get on bulletin boards like this one are usually incomplete, often misleading and sometimes mistaken.

 

[MattKing]

The only reason to use the tele-converter would be to give you more working room between your subject and your lens.
That in turn can make it easier to deal with the lighting.
That being said, a 105mm macro lens for 35mm film should give you a decent amount of working room all on its own.
You might find it useful to practice a bit with a subject that will work well at or near life size - something like a coin that is just under 24mm across. With that coin filling the screen, you will be at or near 1:1 life-size. Then go from there.
One technique that it is important to learn is that at that magnification, with the depth of field being that slim, it often makes sense to focus by moving either the camera or the subject.
If you are using flash, and don't have a camera that meters flash off the film plane, you will need to understand how much working at high magnification affects effective f/stops.

 

[Wolfram 1]

Thank you Dan,
u are right it is unreasonable to expect an answer that covers all the areas that i still feel unconfident about as well as all the possible different setups. I will check out your suggestions. I actually prefer to read english books over german ones but first i should probably check out the library. In retrospect it is shocking that wasn't the first thing that came to my mind but that just goes to show how much the internet dominates other forms of media nowadays. Once i have some more concrete questions that a book can't answer i will post them on photrio again.

 

[Wolfram 1]

Thank's Matt,
i will try your suggestion when i finally get to make my first pictures. I have made a simple cardboard box around 3x3x3cm that i can stick the handles of my insects into. That should make it easy to move back and forth while my camera remains in the tripod. Its just a simple one so it doesn't have a rail sadly.

Yea, i think i am just lacking experience in that area to be honest. I understand the principles fairly well, at least i think so, but i have absolutely no feel or any meaningful real world experience with it yet as i have simply trusted the cameras metering so far and haven gotten so see the results yet.
I have a flash but i don't really understand how to use it yet, this is something i haven't got around to take into consideration as i was under the assumption that permanent lighting is easier to use.

 

[MattKing]

i was under the assumption that permanent lighting is easier to use.

It is - excluding concerns about colour temperature of your light source.
I believe that the F4 offers depth of field preview. You will want to familiarize yourself with that, remembering always that depth of field preview gives you, at best, an approximation.

 

[Wolfram 1]

I will look into it Matt, thanks.

 

[Pieter12]

Macro with flash.

 

[wiltw]

Thank you for the response wiltw.
I had feared that lighting would be the most important part to get right as it seems to be the most difficult as well.

I had no idea that the AF lenses have different effective focal length to the equivalent non-AF lenses. but shouldn't it be possible to basically crop the image by using the teleconverter but not using it to get past the 1:1 ratio but to use it to be able to position the object at a greater distance while keeping the 1:1 ratio? Now i have no idea if that will be necessary yet, as i still have some research and acquisition of lights to do but it is something i was pondering about.

Your lens has a 1:1 reproduction distance indicated. If you used a 1.4x teleconverter and moved back precisely 1.4x, you could accomplish what you indicate...but then, if your goal is 1:1 capture, how do you know you are at the proper distance...you cannot set 1:1 on the lens and then move in until the subject is in focus.

I guess you could mount a 2X teleconvertor and set the lens to 1:2 reproduction, and then move in until your subject is in focus!

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Characterizing depth of field at a given magnification is important. For example, a 105mm Micro-Nikkor @ f32 focused to a 1:1 magnification at distance of 314mm has an effective depth of field of ~11mm. I often refer to this calculator: https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator

35mm cameras typically don't offer movements to maximize DoF, but you can tilt the camera to best align the plane of focus for a given circumstance/subject.

Edit: for reference, this was shot hand-held with the aforementioned 105mm Micro-nikkor, a 1.4x teleconverter, and full set of extension tubes at f5.3.

 

[Wolfram 1]

Thank you all for your help.

Thats an awesome picture Pieter. I had no idea the shiny carapace made it possible to shoot a beetle like that on an equally dark background.


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?


Awesome fly Bronson. I guess in film-photography effective depth of field matters much more than it does ehen post processing is an option but isnt this only realy useful if i had to choose between lenses or do you always calculate DoF and minFL before even setting it all up? Thanks for the link.


and one last question, is there a mechanical/phisics reason why 1.4x and 2x seem to be the more prevalent options when it comes to teleconverters?

 

[MattKing]

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?

When you are doing close-focus/macro work, all the calculations you use are based on magnification - depth of field and exposure adjustment being the main ones.
In addition, when you evaluate the results, you are often interested in the size relationship between the subject, the image on the slide or negative, and the image as it is enlarged/printed or projected. If you don't know the on-film magnification to start, it is relatively tough to report the rest.

is there a mechanical/phisics reason why 1.4x and 2x seem to be the more prevalent options when it comes to teleconverters?

With the exception of a couple of variable teleconverters, in most cases the designers needed to pick a certain conversion, and then design to that target.
With photography, many systems work well if they work in terms of f/stops.
A 1.4x teleconverter results in light that is one stop less bright hitting the film or sensor. A 2x teleconverter results in light that is two stops less bright hitting the film or sensor.

 

[Wolfram 1]

Thanks for the explenations Matt, that makes sense.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Thank you all for your help.
...
do you always calculate DoF and minFL before even setting it all up?

Once you know your rig's DoF and magnification at given subject distance, it may influence what you chose to photograph, and how. e.g. you may decide your 'DoF budget' to be better applied to a top-down view of large butterfly, something smaller with less inherent depth at a more oblique angle, or something else entirely.

Those considerations are balanced against the lighting conditions (studio lighting, outdoor, flash) and the stillness of the subject & camera. I would recommend shooting at least some frames outdoors in available light, hand-held if possible. Even just as comparison for more carefully composed and lit studio exposures. Try it on a windy day

 

[Wolfram 1]

I see how that would be incredibly important when shooting outdoors and especially handheld. I always thought i would choose my subject first and figure the rest out later but knowing ones options first does make it possible to consider ones ideas first and not run into that metaphorical wall once everything is set up. And it can't be to difficult to remember the few f stops on my single lens with their respective DoF.
Not sure if i will try handheld anytime soon but i see your point and the experience might indeed be handy, thank you Bronson.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Not sure if i will try handheld anytime soon but i see your point and the experience might indeed be handy, thank you Bronson.

I've been shooting macro handheld since 1971, originally with ISO 25 Kodachrome and more recently with a DSLR. Usually with flash illumination. Learn to use flash. Oh, and by the way, with a digital camera it helps to set the ISO as low as it will go when shooting out-of-doors.

 

[baachitraka]

I use reverse rings to take macro shots.

When using 24mm zuiko to go beyond 1:1 magnification, then I may need to close down the lens completely to get a bit more dof. With this focal length distance to the subject is small even the direct flash gives a kind of diffused look.

 

[Wolfram 1]

Wow Dan, since 1971, that's a long time, why do you recommend a low ISO? i know that the film should be less affected by stray light but i had always considered the ability to change the ISO in digital cameras a plus as it makes you more flexible. Not that i have a digital camera....
I'm kind of fed up with the whole social media photography and people trying to just shoot the coolest thing and show off. Film Photography is great because i make those photographs just for myself and always like it when i can understand how things work. At least that's how i see it right now.

I have seen a lot of interesting applications for those reversed lenses but i would have to buy reverse rings, etc. which the normal macro lens makes unnecessary, still maybe i will try that with my lenses someday.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Why low ISO? Because it is often bright out-of-doors. Think it through. I use electronic flash with SLRs that have focal plane shutters, highest flash sync speed 1/250. I can't use too small an aperture because diffraction is a killer. I want full control of lighting, i.e., to overpower ambient light with flash. Do the calculations and you'll see that low ISO -- I used to use ISO 25 Kodachrome -- really helps.

Reversing lenses? People spout a lot of nonsense about this. Most lenses are optimized for shooting subjects at some distance. Large subject in front of the lens, small sensitized surface behind it. When shooting at magnifications > 1:1, we have small subject in front of the lens and a relatively large sensitized surface behind it. In this situation, reversing the lens makes the best use of the lens' optimizations. Unfortunately, it also kills diaphragm automation.

baachitraka, in post E8 above I recommended H. Lou Gibson on photomacrography. He makes the point that stopping down can reduce DoF and shows example shots that drive it home Buy the book, read the book. It is really scary