"IMHO": Getting More With Macro

dilettante wrote: Excellent summary chthoniid. I question one part: The on-board camera flash is typically too weak. I don't think this is the case. On board flashes are typically GN12, good enough for a portrait or to fill a small room, so lighting a spider at 30cm should be no problem. The issue is directing and diffusing the light to the subject, as the pop-up flash is not well placed for illuminating something very close to the lens.

Thanks for the response- it can be hard deciding what to leave out in such pieces.

I found that taking side-by-side shots with the on-board flash vs an external, the camera would (often) double the ISO with the on-board. It may be sufficient to illuminate the subject, but it didn't seem comparable to the external in perfomance. For night-time arthropod shots (which I'll concede aren't typical!) the on-board flash was even more disappointing.

I agree that the position the flash doesn't help- you have a very restrictive zone to illuminate and this is pretty frustrating. This low angle can also accentuate dark shadow areas. You've got no options to change the flash angle.

So I'm a strong advocate for using an external flash for macro-photography .

I was surprised that you didn't mention the use of TCs, sometimes in combination with extension tubes, in the magnification discussion. I don't have a lot of experience with this kind of set up, but I know some do use it.

Dinostrich wrote: Worth bearing in mind the benefits that can accrue from using either the AngleFinder Vn or the Magnifier Vn in certain circumstances.

Yes, fwiw I have a magnifier. It's a great tool to have when you really want to hit your chosen focus point with more precision. Sometimes it can make a shot.

The angle-finder is also quite handy if you're doing shots from angles close to the ground.

I did ponder discussing them in the article . But felt that keeping the opening post 'tightly themed' was better.

BackToSlr wrote: ... I would add some sample pictures using the recommended techniques. That would let newbies gauge for themselves, the advantages for each one of them. Ideally the same picture is shot using different techniques, but just adding existing samples will do too. Another interesting aspect would be adding the tripod choice related section. Thanks for the work. Cheers, N

Thanks- I had pondered including test shots. The problem though is that I've been 'cajoled' since January to write something up , and test shots would have postponed (probably indefinitely) the piece.

Plus a lot depends on context. A bellows shot should surpass many of the other techniques in IQ but it may be impractical (or just not feasible) in many cases. Setting up a bellows in the middle of the night in NZ bush to get a spider moving around in her web, presents some logistical challenges I'm not sure could handle. Of course, some people used to use bellows for spider shots in the bush, so it's not impossible.

If the technique requires getting really close to the subject, (coupled lenses, some reversed lenses), then again- irrespective of image quality- this may not be practical for the subjects.

Not that I'd want to discourage people posting such test shots , just that there's a lot more to selecting a macro-method than the image quality.

Tripod choice is alo intersting- all I can say is that I'd look for something that can support a lot of weight (once you add macro racks and hang things off the end of your lens, it pressures the head-performance.
Going low is good- how parralel can you get the legs to the ground. And some macro tripods have the added feature you can mount the camera on the bottom of the centre-mount rather than the top.

So far I've been well served by the Cullmann 3350, but I wish it had a rotating mechanism to move the centre column up or down. It works with a release switch to pull it up or down in a less than smooth 'jerk'. Other than that- it's been pretty good.

chthoniid wrote: <snip> ... just that there's a lot more to selecting a macro-method than the image quality.

Well put :)

momech wrote: I was surprised that you didn't mention the use of TCs, sometimes in combination with extension tubes, in the magnification discussion. I don't have a lot of experience with this kind of set up, but I know some do use it.

I guess the reason being that adding TC's to the setup still isn't very common. Obviously the optical quality of the TC would have to be taken into account, and I'm not sure what the gain is compared say, to just getting a longer extension tube.

That said, I'd be interested to learn of other people's experience with this setup . I've never attempted using a TC to increase magnification.

Yep, a 1.4 TC on a 200 macro is actually very sharp. Manual focus, but worth trying. Happy to provide examples if it's helpful