MSA O/N - September 2023 - "Macro"

[Ivo Stunga]

Thanks, @Daniela for picking my work and passing the torch to me. I was thinking a while back what I would set as the theme if I happen to be in this situation, and browsing the forums I haven't seen Macro shots that much - probably due to the fact that it requires additional lens and/or equipment. But it doesn't, actually so everyone can participate - therefore the theme for this month is Macro!

If you have Macro lens or Bellows/Extension tube, you're golden and you know this. But if you don't have this, don't worry - just take your Prime or Zoom lens and hold/mount it reversed - that's it!
Here's additional info on this in video format.


One rule:
No "close-ups" with standard lenses mounted the correct way - strive instead for the largest magnification / Functioning Macro composition you can muster.


Remember to point out if the work is New or Old, according to The Guidelines
Have fun!

 

[Don_ih]

Old - from 2021. Some Minolta slr with a macro lens. The film was not panchromatic - so the yellow flower looks the same as the green leaves (it was a copy film of some sort). This is very close to 1:1. .... I think it's wild mustard.... Not sure.

 

[peter k.]

Interesting challenge ...

Got a question, ... were confused, it seems that this monthly shooting assignment would limit one to shoot only, with a 35mm camera, with a macro lens, or using an attachment to connect another standard lens in reverse, ... to the body of the 35mm camera.
For any other format, there becomes a greater difficulty with DOF, so if one had a macro lens for say a 6x7 camera, good images would tend to be much harder to take, and almost impossible with a 4x5.

Hmmm ...

noun
noun: macro-photography

1. photography producing photographs of small items larger than life size.

As we don't believe there were any macro lens for say a 2x3 or 4x5 larger format camera, yet one could still shoot with a wide angle lens and be able to focus on, and create an image that would meet the above definition.

So what do ya dink?

 

[Don_ih]

You can use extension tubes to take macro photos. I have extension tubes for my Bronica ETR. I'm pretty sure you can get them for Mamiya RB67, also. And any view camera is capable of macro photography if there is enough bellows extension.

 

[peter k.]

You can use extension tubes to take macro photos

With a regular lens?
If so, ... then your just using the extension to get closer to the subject, which allows you to focus?
Is this correct?

 

[MattKing]

With a regular lens?
If so, ... then your just using the extension to get closer to the subject, which allows you to focus?
Is this correct?

Yes.
As a matter of fact, for many systems the "macro" lenses alone won't satisfy that particular definition - the "greater than life size" part. In order to achieve that with those systems, you need to use the lens in conjunction with extension tubes or bellows or reversing adapters. The Mamiya 645 80mm macro lens and RB67 140mm macro lens are both examples of that.
The reason they are called macro lenses is because, when they are used in those circumstances, they give better results than "normal" lenses. In particular, they offer better flat field performance.
"macro" is a term that is used in several slightly different ways.
I'm going to suggest that the OP - @Ivo Stunga - specify which criteria he intends.
If it were me, I would specify:
1) at least 1/3 life size; and
2) using either a macro lens alone; or
3) using a macro lens or a non-macro lens, in conjunction with additional equipment such as:
a) a reversing ring,
b) extension tube(s),
c) close focusing bellows, and/or
d) close focusing diopter filters.
But that is just what I would do - let's hear from @Ivo Stunga .
We should probably also make it a requirement that at least some of the details of our approach be shared - things like which lens and which accessory equipment.

 

[MattKing]

I've done my moderator things with making this a Sticky thread and updating the list of MSA themes.

 

[peter k.]

Ah thankyou Matt that clarifies.
Will see what Ivo wishes as its his theme and go with that.

 

[Don_ih]

That's all swell and nice, but the more limited the scope, the less participation. The last month had 2 pages of posts. Let's not make this a single page. Relaxed is better.

 

[NedL]

....

So what do ya dink?

Hi Peter!

I've got a 5x7 macro pinhole camera that makes images quite a bit larger than life! It's got a problem at the moment ( something obscuring the ridiculously tiny pinhole ) but if I can get it fixed in the next week or two, I'll try to enter something from it

So... no lens even needed!

 

[MattKing]

That's all swell and nice, but the more limited the scope, the less participation. The last month had 2 pages of posts. Let's not make this a single page. Relaxed is better.

Good point.
A "focus" on working close-up would encourage more participation.
And as a submission, from many years ago, using an RB67 and the 140mm macro lens on Portra (160 I think):

I can't recall what the likely magnification was, but it was fairly high.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Good point about large formats, but optics are optics and should work the same when used reversed or extended - regardless the format

1) at least 1/3 life size; and
2) using either a macro lens alone; or
3) using a macro lens or a non-macro lens, in conjunction with additional equipment

Thanks, this about covers what I intended and let's share magnification too, if possible.

I'll add that if I focus with reversed 50mm lens on a coin and measure resulting projection in my viewfinder that covers 98% of the 135 film area, I can see that I get stupid close to 1:1 projection.
When I do this with reversed 24mm, I get in the ballpark of 2:1 - precise measurements would require taking the picture with this layman method (that could help understand magnification in a practical sense), which is currently unnecessary.
Considering that I don't know how that would play out IRL with larger formats and not wanting this already challenging assignment to become even more challenging, 1:3 could be the threshold - it's also close to the "Macro" setting of my 80-200 Zoom lens, so this should be plenty accessible.

That's all swell and nice, but the more limited the scope, the less participation.

I understand this and therein lies the challenge. But I also want this to be a fun and reasonably accessible experience that you could learn something from.

I've got a 5x7 macro pinhole camera that makes images quite a bit larger than life!

Excellent - would love to see what this camera does

 

[peter k.]

But I also want this to be a fun and reasonably accessible experience that you could learn something from.

Ok, where off to make an extension tube for de ole baby 2x3 speed, and shoot macro in a view camera
Hehawww ride em cowboy

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Ok, where off to make an extension tube for de ole baby 2x3 speed, and shoot macro in a view camera
Hehawww ride em cowboy

Maybe, just maybe this helps?
Sorry for not knowing the nuances and (standard) possibilities of each and every format you guys use out there
There exist threaded macro adapters/filters too

 

[markjwyatt]

Older photograph. Zeiss Icarex 35S w/ 50mm f1.8 Ultron. K25. Taken with the first roll of film I pout through the Icarex when I bought it used from my dad.


flowers by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

 

[Don_ih]

Genuinely new. Today, in fact. scan of an 8x10 print from a 4x5 negative exposed in the mighty Polaroid MP-4. I went next door and swiped a leaf from my neighbour's gigantic pot plant -- actually, I didn't have to go next door, I just reached over the fence. Here we see Sir John A peeking out from between two fresh leaves (that were curling upward under the heat from the lights). This is on Kodak Contrast Process film - 16 second exposure - developed in dektol. Magnification? About 200%.

 

[mapjon]

Genuinely new. Today, in fact. scan of an 8x10 print from a 4x5 negative exposed in the mighty Polaroid MP-4. I went next door and swiped a leaf from my neighbour's gigantic pot plant -- actually, I didn't have to go next door, I just reached over the fence. Here we see Sir John A peeking out from between two fresh leaves (that were curling upward under the heat from the lights). This is on Kodak Contrast Process film - 16 second exposure - developed in dektol. Magnification? About 200%.

View attachment 348054

This is very creative -- cool shot.

 

[Sirius Glass]

This is very creative -- cool shot.

Welcome to APUG Photrio!!​

 

[Don_ih]

This is very creative -- cool shot.

Thank-you, I appreciate it.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Just half a month left - how are things progressing?

 

[russljames]

NEW (Taken and developed on 9/13/23)

Early 1960’s MacGregor Tourney golf irons.

• Mamiya 645 and 120mm f4 Macro lens
• 1999 dated Tmax 400
• Developed in HC-110 (dilution B)
• Unenhanced negative scans

 

[markjwyatt]

I realize after the fact that you specified 'No "close-ups" with standard lenses mounted the correct way - strive instead for the largest magnification / Functioning Macro composition you can muster.'. I accept if that disqualifies my picture, but would argue that many do consider the Zeiss 50mm f1.8 Ultron as having macro capabilities due to the really long helicoids in it (e.g., close focus). I leave one explicit commentary to support my point:

"...With a minimum focusing distance of 45cm, the Ultron is also a good macro performer, which can also be useful for portraiture."

Carl Zeiss Ultron 50mm 1.8 | Vintage Camera Lenses

The Carl Zeiss Ultron 50mm 1.8 lens was manufactured by Carl Zeiss from West Germany for the Zeiss Ikon Icarex and SL 706 cameras. The Carl Zeiss Ultron 50mm 1.8 is one of the very few lenses with a concave front element.

vintage-camera-lenses.com

 

[Ivo Stunga]

I agree with 2 things, @markjwyatt :
1) it's not a macro lens and therefore won't produce Macro result, therefore
2) your pic doesn't match the criteria set.

I use Zuiko 50mm 1.4 lens daily and it too can focus at 45cm
I also have Zuiko 24mm 2.8 and it can make focus at mere 25cm away from subject.
BUT
They don't project tiny objects 1:1 or even 1:4, making them useless for macro, mounted the correct way. But you can fix it - I'd urge you to hold reversed in front of camera and making true macro submission

Here's an easy how-to:
- have a strong light source and a tiny subject, meter the scene and note the value;
- remove lens, set and fix the aperture to your liking and hold the lens reversed in front of camera;
- rate 1 step slower than metered and give shutter priority in your mind - shouldn't be lower than lens focal length +1 stop. Meaning that with a 50mm lens you don't want to be slower than 1/125 to have a chance to capture sharp handheld macro;
- adjust focus by moving/leaning physically against something
- bracket
- WIN!

 

[Ivo Stunga]

And to make things clearer, let's just stick to this definition:
"By the original definition, a macro photograph is one in which the size of the subject on the negative or image sensor is life size or greater.[6] In some senses, however, it refers to a finished photograph of a subject that is greater than life size.[7]"

In other words - tiny must be made big

Macro photography - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Don_ih]

New (today). This shell was outside - not sure where it came from (I'm not near the ocean). This is an 8x10 print from a 4x5 negative. It's about 200% magnification.

I took several photos and made several prints. This scan is terrible.