Post by: Paddy on July 18, 2006, 09:27:37 PM
I'd ordered a Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro lens from B&H on the weekend, and I dropped everything to try it out on my Digital Rebel. No bug is safe now!
More photos here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/paddyd/
Post by: Al on July 18, 2006, 10:13:49 PM
that dragonfly's eyes are as big as it's head....
Post by: krissel on July 19, 2006, 01:06:29 AM
Post by: PussEFoote on July 19, 2006, 06:30:09 AM
What a great toy - I'm
!BarbZ
Post by: sandyman on July 19, 2006, 07:31:59 AM
And I'm still stuck with extension tubes
Great shot though
Post by: jcarter on July 19, 2006, 03:06:29 PM
Jane
Post by: Al on July 21, 2006, 07:44:51 PM
Post by: MamaMoose on July 21, 2006, 11:39:53 PM
of your wonderful macro shots. I tried taking closeups of my wife's beaded jewelry with my 50mm macro for my Digital rebel but had real trouble keeping everything in focus. I reall need some advice on using the macro lrns. Can you suggest any books?I tried increasing the f-stop and increasing the light intensity. I have had success, in the pat, in taking wildfloweres but no luck wih jewelry. Any advice would be appreciated.
Anyone else please jump in.
Thanks much,
MamaMoose
Post by: D76 on July 22, 2006, 08:03:59 AM
QUOTE(MamaMoose @ Jul 22 2006, 12:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I tried taking closeups of my wife's beaded jewelry with my 50mm macro for my Digital rebel but had real trouble keeping everything in focus.
Hi, MamaMooseThe depth of field, or the area that's in focus closer and farther from the main point you focus on, is very, very shallow when shooting macros (shooting macros is like using a very long telephoto lens, when the same effect comes into play).
You can increase this focus area only by stopping down the lens, say to ƒ16 or a little bigger, ƒ11. So if you open the aperture to a larger ƒ stop, you're only making the area in focus even shallower.
But by stopping down to ƒ16, you have a new problem. The aperture is so small that little light gets through, so to compensate, the shutter must be set to a slower speed. But the slower the shutter, the more likely you'll move the camera as it's taking the picture. Then the only way to avoid camera movement is to use a tripod.
But if you're shooting jewely placed on a table, the tripod must allow you to hang the camera beneath it, pointing down.
High-end cameras get around this hassle with ring lights, circular flash units that attach to the lens, not the camera, so the flash isn't on top of the camera, pointing away from the object that's only an inch or so away from the lens. An ordinary flash connected to the camera only with a long wire so it isn't part of the camera or attached to it on top and can be moved around also avoids the problem.
But lacking such flashes or tripod, you can take the jewelry outside into the sunshine, the brighter the better (don't allow your shadow to fall on the object). Assuming the Rebel lets you set the camera on aperture priority, you should stop it down to ƒ16 or smaller so the shutter will slow automatically to the required speed. If the camera tells you the shutter speed it will use, and that speed is 1/60th of a second or faster with a non-telephoto lens (and you've a fairly steady hand), you're good to go.
If you can change the camera's ISO speed, set it to 400 or 800. The higher the ISO speed, the faster the shutter can work, but at the expense of picture "noise." (I'm venturing into an unknown here. I'm still in the Stone Age of film.)
If the picture at 1/60th shows camera movement, open the aperture to ƒ11, doubling the amount of light getting through. This will make the shutter operate at twice the speed, 1/25th of a second, but at the cost of making the area in focus shallower because the aperture is bigger.
When using a table, keep the jewelry, such as a necklace, as flat as possible on it, so the depth of field, the area in focus, is on a single plane and stays the same. Don't let the necklace bunch up.
If you search the net for macro photography primer, a bunch of stuff comes up. You can also search for "macro OR micro AND photography AND primer" — without the quotes — which will haul up more. Micro is an alternative term. Without "primer," one or two of the articles can be really esoteric.
Post by: jcarter on July 22, 2006, 08:09:47 AM
So sometimes, I put a piece of paper behind it. But cant do that with an insect, he would fly away. Birds too.
If you get the subject right in the middle of the picture, it will sometimes focus on it, if the subject is large, but not always. Ive been trying for a week to get a spider with her egg cases and tiny babies in our window, but just can't get her and the babies in focus. I always get the window frame! Very frustrating.
So, I am having trouble with this too. I will also be happy to see how some of you experts do this.
With jewelry, I would think to put it on the table on a plain paper of contrasting color. Then see if it would focus correctly. That should work, because there wont be anything in the background which the camera would focus onto.
I need help with this too.
Jane
Post by: D76 on July 22, 2006, 08:33:27 AM
QUOTE(jcarter @ Jul 22 2006, 09:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Ive been trying for a week to get a spider with her egg cases and tiny babies in our window, but just can't get her and the babies in focus. I always get the window frame!
If you can turn off the auto-focus without turning off the auto exposure, you could focus the lens manually. The auto-focus is picking up whatever is closest.Shooting at zoos through bars does the same thing. The bars are in perfect focus but the animals turn into blobs.
Post by: jcarter on July 22, 2006, 09:07:00 AM
Cant seem to get rid of autofocus in the close up mode, so I better see if I can find the instruction book.
But here are 2,
http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=...VCAbbtnAeoqOEJ0
here is Mom, she and her new egg cases are in focus, and the next photo, just the babies are in focus.
Here are the kids,
http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=...bq2OHJT0EvZ6c8d
Thank you for the instructions, I am doing better.
Jane
Post by: Paddy on July 22, 2006, 09:26:53 AM
Son #2 arrives home from a month at camp later today - and I'll have a month's worth of washing to do in less than 10 hours.Anyway, D76 has pretty much hit the nail on the head with regards to macro lenses. Auto focus sometimes works ok in bright light (particularly if you lock the focus once it's where you want it) but I find I usually put it on manual focus for the little things; otherwise there is just no control over what particular bit of the object is in focus. And your own movement and that of the subject is always an issue - and outdoors, wind becomes enemy numero uno. (flowers move!) Tripods are most helpful for stationary objects and while I've never used one, from what I've read, a flash ring is a wonderful thing for use with macro lenses.
The beauty of digital is that you can take lots of pics and toss them if they're no good. Those 6 photos I posted were the best from MANY more that were out of focus or otherwise flawed, as I learned my way around this lens. With subjects in motion, I expect to have many more that don't make the grade. Many pros used to say that if they got one or two great pics per roll of film, they were doing ok, so I never worry that much - with digital one can just keep on going as long as the light, your patience and the circumstances allow. Big compact flash cards are your friends.
Edit: Jane, which camera are you using? The Canon lenses have the autofocus switch on the lens - it's not on the camera.
Post by: jcarter on July 22, 2006, 09:36:55 AM
Ive got a Nikon Coolpix 4300 and husband has the Coolpix 990. I do better with his camera, but its heavy and big.
Jane
Post by: D76 on July 22, 2006, 09:42:48 AM
The flash is so bright that it stops down the aperture to ƒ22, ƒ16 or ƒ11, so the depth of field, more of the subject matter closer and farther from the primary object focused upon, remains sharp.
The aperture setting for the available-light photo, the one taken without the flash, had to be much larger to compensate for the lesser amount of light. The bigger the aperture, the shallower the focus area closer and farther from the primary object focused on.
You can use this to your advantage if, for instance, you are shooting a single flower in the midst of a bunch of flowers before and behind it.
If you have an aperture-priority setting, open the lens wide to force the shutter to open and close very fast, and focus on the particular flower. Everything before it and after it is thrown out of focus, making the flower stand out. Like macro photos, this can be done to a greater extreme with a telephoto lens.
The flash photo is terrific! I know, because it makes my skin crawl. Actually, they both do.
Post by: jcarter on July 22, 2006, 09:54:01 AM
I am going to study your instructions carefully, as our flower garden is just full of flowers and bugs just begging for close up photos.
Jane
Post by: D76 on July 22, 2006, 10:17:58 AM
QUOTE(Paddy @ Jul 22 2006, 10:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Many pros used to say that if they got one or two great pics per roll of film, they were doing ok
Absolutely right. It was OK when I was shooting pro because I wasn't paying for the film — ha — and it was all black-and-white. But now, shooting 36 pix for one good shot is a real pain in the wallet. And it has to be colour.I'm stuck in a limbo between digital and film. My Nikon, lenses and flash are auto everything, but the camera uses film, so switching to a digital camera would be like switching computer platforms. None of the "peripherals" would work. I don't shoot much, though, so the expense isn't worth it.
But auto everything has its drawbacks. This camera sometimes locks up if I try to shoot into the sun, even obliquely. I think the computer freezes. I have to turn off the camera, then turn it on, and sometimes I have to take the lens off, then put it back on. Rather than this camera, or going digital, I'd rather get Nikon's last all-mechanical. But then the auto-focus telephoto likely wouldn't fit or work correctly. And if I went digital, I'd likely go Canon.
Maybe if I close my eyes, it'll all go away.
Post by: Al on July 22, 2006, 11:54:08 PM
QUOTE(Paddy @ Jul 22 2006, 04:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Al - no, not taking more pics, unfortunately (well, did take a few more...) but rushing around getting ready for our annual trek to Canada. Complicated this year because we have a wedding to attend while there and have to take good clothes with us, and son #1 has grown like topsy (again!) and nothing fits! Shopping with an opinionated 14-year-old; such fun! Son #2 arrives home from a month at camp later today - and I'll have a month's worth of washing to do in less than 10 hours.
Son #2 arrives home from a month at camp later today - and I'll have a month's worth of washing to do in less than 10 hours.There you are!
Post by: krissel on July 23, 2006, 01:02:10 AM
Post by: jcarter on July 23, 2006, 07:52:02 AM
Ma spider will be looking for a loan if I wash that window, and it sure needs it. But I dont want to disturb her, and her brood. She is quite entertaining, and when she catches a bug or mosquito and rapidly wraps it up, its fun to watch.
Jane
Post by: MacHeadCase on July 23, 2006, 08:51:18 AM
QUOTE(Paddy @ Jul 18 2006, 10:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The UPS truck rolled up around 4 this afternoon and I've been having fun ever since...
I'd ordered a Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro lens from B&H on the weekend, and I dropped everything to try it out on my Digital Rebel. No bug is safe now!
More photos here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/paddyd/
I'd ordered a Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro lens from B&H on the weekend, and I dropped everything to try it out on my Digital Rebel. No bug is safe now!
More photos here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/paddyd/
Beautiful photo, Paddy! That lens must have cost an arm and a leg!
And Jane... Spiders...
Brrrrrr!!! Augh! Run for your life!