Macro and Close-up Technique in need of Critique Please

[Katherine Lihou]

I’m posting these in this section as I need advice most of all. I’ll post in the macro section when I’ve learned enough from you to be able take photos to be proud of

Most of these are out of focus. More DOF would definitely help. I daren’t take the ISO higher than 400. I know that I used to keep the aperture too open at f5.6 but if I close it down too much my shutter speed will be so low that I’ll get motion blur. I want to stick with natural light and monopod for a while yet, and looking at what Glen and others can do under similar conditions I know I must be missing something.

I know there’s nothing wrong with the equipment I have. I also know that a tripod and flash with diffuser would help but tripods just get tangled up in the undergrowth and for now I really like the subtleties of natural light. So I’m hoping that I can do the best I can this way.

These are old macros as I haven’t worked out how to post the latest from the new Mac via LR yet, so I apologise for the lack of data. I was mostly on manual, f5.6, ISO from 100 – 400, shutter speed probably too low in general. The fly’s rear end was taken with a compact and was the first macro I ever did that I liked The rest with the 450D and a Sigma 105. Crude tuning with free apps. Composition non-existent (will work on this in future).

Any pointers would be very much appreciated

This poor darling had been chased up a grass blade by a very aggressive peacock caterpillar (have you ever noticed how they look just like Goa'uld when they're startled ? (the larvae, not the woodlouse, of course ). Woodlice always remind me of Dürer's Rhinoceros. He was frozen with fear because that caterpillar was waiting for him lower down, which kept him nice and still for his photo.

There's still no concensus on why they do this but it's great for macro photographers as they seem to go into a kind of trance when they're doing it and you can sneak up really close...

My favourite true bugs. Been on the island for many years but only just spreading in the land of the Perfidious Albions. Gentle little things but don't forget to lock up your mallow seeds

Still haven't got around to ID'ing this one yet. Would anyone know what it is offhand?

Taking this one made me realise just how interesting fly's rear ends can be. I now have a folder full of examples that no one ever seems to want to look at...

Slainte,

Kate

 

[Hamish Gill]

there might be some useful info to get out of this post!

http://www.realphotographersforum.c...MP-E-65mm-Macro-Lens-Advice?p=11520#post11520

im not really one to comment on this sort of thing as im awful at it ... these look like pretty good efforts to me... the first one is a little noisy... other than that ... they are certainly a lot better than anything i could come up with!!

 

[Katherine Lihou]

Thanks for the link Hamish.

I've got two email friends who are in Alistair's stratospheric league, both with MP-e 65's and one who's practically built a scanning electron microscope in his studio. They do quite amazing stuff and I know I'll probably be going that route one day (so I've already saved Alistair's sage advice for a future time). But there's a part of me that doesn't want to just get closer and closer. I worked for three years looking down a microscope and I have three in the house, so maybe I'm getting tired of extreme levels of magnification. I may end up going the other way and concentrate on narrative and recording their behaviour. It's all great fun though, and my friends do say that the MP-e 65 is a dream lens.........so hard to know which way to go

Why do you say that you're awful at it, by the way? Just curious.

Off to bed now as I rise even earlier than usual in summer

Cheers,

Kate

 

[Mike Milton]

Katherine, I have the mpe65 with the mt24. This is a great pair but it *only* focuses to 1:1 and, while that is essentially the definition of macro, it is surprisingly limiting as many things are actually bigger than your sensor. So I also have the 100macro with IS. It goes down to 1:1 (and does so with very good stabilization) and is a generally useful lens as well. If I had to have just one of the two it would be the 100.

cheers, m

 

[Glen Roberts]

As Hamish has said, one or two look be a little noisy but the focus looks pretty good to me.
I think when you get a bit more practice with your macro kit and editing software things will soon improve.

Taking this one made me realise just how interesting fly's rear ends can be.

I must admit I don't think I've taken much notice of a flies abdomen from underneath but looking at the pattern on that one I think I'll have to start looking.

 

[Hamish Gill]

Thanks for the link Hamish.

I've got two email friends who are in Alistair's stratospheric league, both with MP-e 65's and one who's practically built a scanning electron microscope in his studio. They do quite amazing stuff and I know I'll probably be going that route one day (so I've already saved Alistair's sage advice for a future time). But there's a part of me that doesn't want to just get closer and closer. I worked for three years looking down a microscope and I have three in the house, so maybe I'm getting tired of extreme levels of magnification. I may end up going the other way and concentrate on narrative and recording their behaviour. It's all great fun though, and my friends do say that the MP-e 65 is a dream lens.........so hard to know which way to go

its mainly the bit about using flash to freeze the subject yet retain dof that i though might be useful!

Why do you say that you're awful at it, by the way? Just curious.

Off to bed now as I rise even earlier than usual in summer

Cheers,

Kate

i just cant get on with it! to be honest ... i know Alistair fairly well and whilst normally inspired by those arround me ... he just makes me think "why bother...."

 

[Katherine Lihou]

Katherine, I have the mpe65 with the mt24. This is a great pair but it *only* focuses to 1:1 and, while that is essentially the definition of macro, it is surprisingly limiting as many things are actually bigger than your sensor. So I also have the 100macro with IS. It goes down to 1:1 (and does so with very good stabilization) and is a generally useful lens as well. If I had to have just one of the two it would be the 100.

Hello Mike

I’ve noticed that a lot of macro photographers seem to be split between using the mt24 and making their own rig, but one of my favourites uses the former and produces some lovely work. I’ve even seen good photos of living creatures under natural light with an MP-e 65 but usually the ISO has to be set very high.

I’ve tried to be careful when labelling my photos as I do much more in the way of close-ups than true macro.

The 100 macro is a lovely lens judging by the results I’ve seen. I’ve often wondered just how well any kind of IS would work for macro. Some people seem very sceptical. It would be brilliant if it could help me up my shutter speeds so I’m very pleased to hear you say it works well. Could you give a rough estimate of the advantage of IS when working 1:1 ?

I really enjoyed that shot you took of the spider with the coppery-golden light on the web, but haven’t seen any MP-e 65 shots from you here. If you have any I’d love to see them

Cheers,

Kate

 

[Katherine Lihou]

As Hamish has said, one or two look be a little noisy but the focus looks pretty good to me.
I think when you get a bit more practice with your macro kit and editing software things will soon improve.

Glen,
I completely agree with you and Hamish about the noise. It comes of being too far away and cropping too closely. I doubt that any noise reduction techniques can work at that scale but would be happy to be proved wrong on that point. Getting in closer is the best remedy, I suppose, or a 180

I must admit I don't think I've taken much notice of a flies abdomen from underneath but looking at the pattern on that one I think I'll have to start looking.

I think we get used to only seeing subjects from conventional angles and stop wondering about what’s underneath. I’ll be fascinated to see what you discover.

Looking underneath things in general is a great tip for finding subjects too. I'm sure you already know this but it’s amazing what you can find under rocks on land or shore. I’m such a softy though that it takes me an age to put the rock back without hurting anything

I know you’re on holiday now and look forward to seeing what you saw on your return. Hope you took your Tammy too

Cheers,

Kate

 

[Katherine Lihou]

its mainly the bit about using flash to freeze the subject yet retain dof that i though might be useful!

That part was really useful. It’s just me being stubborn. I know how a flash would help tremendously with DOF and shutter speeds but I keep putting off cobbling a proper macro flash rig together for all kinds of other reasons...

i just cant get on with it! to be honest ... i know Alistair fairly well and whilst normally inspired by those arround me ... he just makes me think "why bother...."

I know the feeling! I’m having one of my frequent ‘crisis of confidence’ days today. I’ve just come in from trying to deal with rain and a really fitful breeze, and will be trying to make myself feel better doing macros indoors on non-moving subjects instead. It feels so good to be able to just keep that shutter open for as long as I like

Last year (when I first started DSLR and macro),in a moment of totally unrealistic hubris, I bet a brilliant macro photographer that I'd catch up with him in two years' time. I've been hiding from him ever since . I had no idea how hard it was. And anyway, he just gets better and better so it's like Zeno's Arrow. So yes, he sometimes makes me want to give up too; until I feel strong again...

Hope you’re enjoying your holiday

Cheers,

Kate

 

[Mike Milton]

Hello Mike

I’ve noticed that a lot of macro photographers seem to be split between using the mt24 and making their own rig, but one of my favourites uses the former and produces some lovely work. I’ve even seen good photos of living creatures under natural light with an MP-e 65 but usually the ISO has to be set very high.

For me, the MT-24 is simply more convenient. I've used a pair of 550s with the ST-E2 but that is much less agile.

I’ve tried to be careful when labelling my photos as I do much more in the way of close-ups than true macro.

I think that is quite important... many are quite loose with the term macro. So far I've got about 150 shots with the 100, and only a few are technically macro. I find the jumping off point of these two lenses at 1:1 a bit cumbersome as many subjects could be better covered with a lens that spanned from closeup-to-modest-macro. Wouldn't it be nice if the MPE did, say 2:1 to 1:2?

The 100 macro is a lovely lens judging by the results I’ve seen. I’ve often wondered just how well any kind of IS would work for macro. Some people seem very sceptical. It would be brilliant if it could help me up my shutter speeds so I’m very pleased to hear you say it works well. Could you give a rough estimate of the advantage of IS when working 1:1 ?

The IS on this lens is a different technology. Other canon IS lenses address a rotation of the lens only. This lS also addresses transitional movement without rotation as is more typical of macro shooting. At macro it certainly works. They claim 2 stops and that seems about right. In other situations they claim 4 stops and I can say that the lens has the best IS I've used. Of course, the issue is that, at macro, one typically needs the DOF anyway so the advantage is mostly about agility and handheld mobility rather than opening up the f-stop.

I really enjoyed that shot you took of the spider with the coppery-golden light on the web, but haven’t seen any MP-e 65 shots from you here. If you have any I’d love to see them

Cheers,

Kate

Thanks! I'll find a couple

 

[Mike Milton]

Here is a shot with the 65+MT24 handheld at 2:1 1/200 F16 ISO 100 EOS10D

Mite by mikemilton, on Flickr

And here is some pollen at 5:1 handheld, natural light 1/125 F16 ISO100 EOSD30

Pollen by mikemilton, on Flickr

 

[Paul Lange]

I use 2 methods for quick shots of moving insects. 1st one is to set the focus distance as required and then move the camera back and forth to focus. If I seem to be having difficulty with that I use the 2nd method which is to use continuous focus. Either method I try to keep ISO 200 or below, IS on and shoot continous with settings so you can at least get a few shoots per second. Usually I find the middle shots out of a blast of 5 or 6 to have the best focus.

 

[Katherine Lihou]

Here is a shot with the 65+MT24 handheld at 2:1 1/200 F16 ISO 100 EOS10D

And here is some pollen at 5:1 handheld, natural light 1/125 F16 ISO100 EOSD30
on Flickr

Thanks for posting those First of all I'm really impressed that you did the pollen handheld in natural light at 5:1. Many people would claim that to be impossible, but you've proved them wrong...

That frog’s eye is fabulous and I keep wondering if the mite is there as a kind of eyelid housekeeper

Your flower is lovely too. At school they made the reproductive organs of flowers deadly boring. Macro photography gives an entirely different view. Yours is luscious and a touch Daliesque and reminds me of an alien landscape

I also enjoyed looking at your Flickr macros. (Love what you did with the Pixie cups.They’re my favourite kind of lichen and have a home in my garden). I also very much liked the bark scroll, the dog’s eye, the jaguar, the beautiful watch face and mechanism, the fabulous pocket knife, and the other lichens and fungi, especially the puffballs. (I’ve never seen that kind over here but did you know that puffball spores were once used to create stage lightning?).

I’m looking forward to seeing more of your photos here. (Got here much too late to comment but fond of the Dam too )

Cheers,

Kate

 

[Katherine Lihou]

For me, the MT-24 is simply more convenient. I've used a pair of 550s with the ST-E2 but that is much less agile.

I can understand that. Some of the homemade rigs remind me of early sci-fi movies and I fear that they’ll remind my insects of a super-predator…

So is it only the price that keeps all macro photographers from using the MT-24 or is there some other reason why so many make their own rigs?

I think that is quite important... many are quite loose with the term macro. So far I've got about 150 shots with the 100, and only a few are technically macro.

I think its partly a problem with classification on forums. Most people don't know the technical definition so Macro forums are also generally full of close-ups. But where to put them when most 'animal' photographers go running when they see invertebrates at close quarters

I find the jumping off point of these two lenses at 1:1 a bit cumbersome as many subjects could be better covered with a lens that spanned from closeup-to-modest-macro. Wouldn't it be nice if the MPE did, say 2:1 to 1:2?

That would be just about perfect

The IS on this lens is a different technology. Other canon IS lenses address a rotation of the lens only. This lS also addresses transitional movement without rotation as is more typical of macro shooting. At macro it certainly works.

Now that was really interesting. I had no idea how IS works. There’s certainly a good deal of transitional movement evident in my photos

I’ve noticed that the Mpe-65 doesn’t have IS. Did they just leave it out or is it impossible to provide IS when working at higher mags than 1:1?

They claim 2 stops and that seems about right. In other situations they claim 4 stops and I can say that the lens has the best IS I've used. Of course, the issue is that, at macro, one typically needs the DOF anyway so the advantage is mostly about agility and handheld mobility rather than opening up the f-stop.

I’d be extremely grateful for an extra two stops when working with natural light. It was dismal first thing. The sun rose straight into a drizzle bank and I didn’t get a decent shot all morning. I’d be interested to see how your lens would have helped me up my shutter speed as I was already up to ISO 400 and trying to make do with 5.6…

Just going to put your lens on my Amazon wish list and hope the price continues to fall

Cheers and thanks again for all the info.

Kate

 

[Katherine Lihou]

I use 2 methods for quick shots of moving insects. 1st one is to set the focus distance as required and then move the camera back and forth to focus.

Hello Paul, and thank you very much for sharing your methods

From what I’ve read most macro photographers use the first method but I often go for really small beasties and find it easier to steady my hand on the monopod and use the focusing ring. My fingers are better at slight adjustments using rotational movement than my whole body is at zooming in and out

If I seem to be having difficulty with that I use the 2nd method which is to use continuous focus. Either method I try to keep ISO 200 or below, IS on and shoot continous with settings so you can at least get a few shoots per second. Usually I find the middle shots out of a blast of 5 or 6 to have the best focus.

I do try to keep to ISO 200 or below but when the light is low or things are moving I find 400 is just about OK.

I find your mention of continuous shooting intriguing. I’d never thought of using that in macro but it makes sense. I haven’t used the technique in any kind of photography so I’ll get the manual out and give it a go tomorrow

Cheers,

Kate

 

[Mike Milton]

Thank you for all your kind comments.

I'm certain that the issue with the MT24 is basically price... I doubt many would find much to complain about technically and it is very convenient and flexible.

The IS technology in the 100 is newer than the 65 but it is likely also true that getting useful results at anything much past 1:1 is a hurdle for some future IS developments as well. The 65 is manual focus as well (I use a set of manfrotto rails or the already mentioned technique of moving the camera).

I've found the 1DmIV to be a real asset as really is the best I've used at high ISO. Quite a bit of progress really since the original 30D (which suffered even at 200). I also find the 5DmII poor in shadow areas at any ISO and rarely use it unless I really need to go wide

 

[Katherine Lihou]

The IS technology in the 100 is newer than the 65 but it is likely also true that getting useful results at anything much past 1:1 is a hurdle for some future IS developments as well.

I didn't know that the 65 had IS at all, so thanks for that. I'm thinking that miniaturised portable scanning electron microscopes will be the next step, and then we'll all be hand-colouring at home in PP

The 65 is manual focus as well (I use a set of manfrotto rails or the already mentioned technique of moving the camera).

I'd dearly miss a focusing ring. I don't have any rails but did invest in a very nice manfrotto geared head. It's too slow and fussy for outdoor work but is perfect for macro indoors.

I've found the 1DmIV to be a real asset as really is the best I've used at high ISO. Quite a bit of progress really since the original 30D (which suffered even at 200).

I'll be a good long seven years paying off the loan I took out for the last lot of stuff, and will be envying you from afar until then Should have learned how to use a camera properly by then and will feel I've deserved whatever upgrade is around in 2018

I also find the 5DmII poor in shadow areas at any ISO and rarely use it unless I really need to go wide

I've noticed that recently but thought it was just poor technique on my part or pushing the cropping too far.

Thanks so much for clueing me up on so many things.

Cheers,

Kate

 

[Mike Milton]

oh, my poor wording got the better of me. The IS for macro technology in the 100 was developed after the mpe-65 was made. The 65 has no IS at all.

In general, boosting the shadows on a 5DmII image is problematic. It does have a few more bits of latitude than older models (a LOT more than my original 30d) it is just that they are not always that useable. In lightroom, you can always cover this by turning up the blacks and still be better of that many cameras. I just find it frustrating to be teased by shadow detail that isn't useable

cheers, m

 

[Katherine Lihou]

Thanks Mike,

I'll have a play with the blacks slider.

Cheers,

Kate