Not long after I photographed the Weevil to the right my MPE-65mm macro lens started giving me the dreaded "Error 01" message.
Oops...
The least time it happened it set me back about $300 for parts and labor. I'll be sending the MPE back to New Jersey for repairs today. For now it's back to the EF-S 60mm and tubes.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Friday, September 13, 2013
What are You Trying to Accomplish?
I was reading a piece over at Strobist and one of the questions in it is the title of this post. For me the answer isn’t all that simple. Early on I knew that I didn’t want to paint myself into a corner by using a lot of gear. Tripods and focusing rails are slow, and really limit what you can and can’t photograph. I had actually given up on using tripods back when I use to shoot landscapes, because I realized that all a tripod was really doing was forcing me to slow down and evaluate a scene before I set it up –cause there’s just no sense in taking the time to put the camera on one if there isn’t a decent shot to take. So I simply got into the habit of pausing for a moment, evaluate the scene and my surroundings, and then decide if I’m there’s a photo to take and how I’m going to take it. I do the same thing today, often passing on opportunities to take images that I know I won’t keep.
It’s a little tough to chase a honeybee with a tripod...
Keeping the gear to a minimum allows the subject to dictate how I’m going to photograph it, instead of using a lot of equipment and restricting myself to only those subjects that conform to my gear. It can also be said that any serious discussion on hardware is kinda pointless, since my choice in camera equipment might be completely alien to you and counterproductive to your way of shooting. So there’s no right or wrong here, just differences in style.
The other thing I want to do with my photography is to change your perspective of the small world. I want you to see insects as more than “just bugs”. Shooting at their eye level allows you to connect with them, to see some personality. Whether or not you believe insects have a personality isn’t important, but my being able to project the impression of a personality in the way that I photograph them is.
So, what are you trying to accomplish?
It’s a little tough to chase a honeybee with a tripod...
Keeping the gear to a minimum allows the subject to dictate how I’m going to photograph it, instead of using a lot of equipment and restricting myself to only those subjects that conform to my gear. It can also be said that any serious discussion on hardware is kinda pointless, since my choice in camera equipment might be completely alien to you and counterproductive to your way of shooting. So there’s no right or wrong here, just differences in style.
The other thing I want to do with my photography is to change your perspective of the small world. I want you to see insects as more than “just bugs”. Shooting at their eye level allows you to connect with them, to see some personality. Whether or not you believe insects have a personality isn’t important, but my being able to project the impression of a personality in the way that I photograph them is.
So, what are you trying to accomplish?
Saturday, September 7, 2013
High Magnification, High Fstop, and High Detail
Note: If you firmly believe that you have to use a tripod, or focus stack, or both to get a lot of detail at high magnification and Fstops then stop reading this post right now –I’ve got nothing for you.
When I first got into macro back in 2006 there were two prevailing themes: You had to use a tripod to get sharp images, and diffraction is the primary reason why you can't stop a lens down and get those sharp images. But something really odd was happening over at the Fred Miranda Macro Forum: Occasionally someone would post a really sharp image taken at high magnification and high Fstop that wasn’t focus stacked. I remember there being more than one person doing it and they wouldn’t explain how; either they wanted to keep the technique to themselves, or they were afraid of going up against overzealous focus stackers who believed that the only good macro images were those that are razor sharp at 100% pixels (unfortunately even today some still equate sharpness with quality). I was curious to know how they were pulling off such highly detailed images at high Fstops, and I finally figured out part of the puzzle sometime around 2008, but the last piece didn’t come together until several years later.
I wanted to let the subject dictate how I shot it, and to go after moving targets, so I came up with the Left Hand Brace Technique for taking control of the motion in a scene so I could get the compositions that I was looking for without using a tripod (and without cropping in post). I started to realize that the more control I had over the motion in the scene the sharper my images were (the first piece of the puzzle) not because some of them were suffering from noticeable motion blur but because slight motion, as little as the width of half a pixel, can amplify diffraction. I started to think of the phenomenon as “macro motion blur”. To explain how motion blur can mimic diffraction you first have to really understand what diffraction is.
The classic definition of diffraction is light bending as it passes through a small opening, and that's true. But there's a little more to it than that: The rays of light actually expand, like a cone, so that light rays that should hit a single pixel are now bleeding over into adjacent pixels. When that bleeding over reaches half way into those adjacent pixels you'll see a loss in image quality -diffraction has taken your lunch money.
But if you can wrap your head around expanding light rays causing a loss of detail then couldn't slight motion, as little as half a pixel of movement during the exposure, amplify diffraction? My experience has taught me that it can.
Right about now some of you are thinking "But wait a minute Mr. Macro Motion Blur, why do my images get sharper when I decrease my Fstop?!" To answer that question we have to first determine what your actual shutter speed is.
At macro magnification, high Fstops, and low ISOs, the light that your flash is producing is the only significant light source in a scene. To prove it just set your camera to manual mode, F11, 1/200 of a second (or whatever your maximum flash sync speed is for your camera), ISO 100, and go out and take a photo on a bright sunny day with your macro lens set to its minimum focusing distance (life size magnification). You'll have to shoot something really bright or reflective to get anything to show up in the resulting image. Then turn on your flash and take the same shot -there will be a major difference in what you can see in the photo. At higher magnifications, if the flash doesn't fire, you'll just get a completely black image. So your flash duration is really your shutter speed, since it's the major, or only, light source -the actual speed of the shutter doesn't matter...
So you set your camera to manual mode, F11, 1/200, and ISO 100. You've got a rig that will let you shoot at 3x, you take a shot hand held, and the resulting photo isn't very sharp. You then set your camera to F8, take the same shot, and this time the image is a lot sharper. See, no more diffraction! Well there's only one little problem -when you went from F11 to F8 you opened up the aperture in your lens to let about twice as much light into the camera. Through The Lens (TTL) metering compensated for the increase in aperture (decreasing Fstop) by turning the flash on for about half as long -so your shutter speed (the flash) nearly doubled. Did you defeat diffraction or macro motion blur?...
For me the answer is simple, since I can get sharp images at up to three times life size at F13, and four to five times life size at F11 with Canon's MPE-65mm macro lens. The key is to get the flash as close to the subject as possible (to keep the flash duration as short as possible), use a diffuser that really diffuses the light (not one that just blocks the light), and look for ways to take control of the motion in the scene.
Diffraction does exist, but it's not the monster that most macro photographers make it out to be.
The second piece of the puzzle is to use a well diffused light source. If your flash produces really strong specular highlights you’ll end up with high “micro contrast” (a term coined by SteB). Those little bright areas will make an image look sharper than it really is, and you might think at first that high micro contrast is a good thing. But those same bright areas will limit how much sharpening you can apply during post processing. So what you really want are “soft” specular highlights where you can actually see texture and possibly even a little color behind them. The softer the light the more sharpening you can apply during post without making your images look over sharpened. Getting your flash as close as possible to the subject won't just help you to keep your flash duration short, it will also make your light look more diffused.
Since you're getting the flash close to the subject you don't need a long focal length lens -you don't need more working distance if the flash is close to the subject anyway, and short focal length lenses will give you more magnification when you start shooting with extension tubes. There's no such thing as a "bug lens" -all you have to do is learn a little about the habits and quirks of the subjects you want to photograph.
With this post I’ve pretty much given you the keys to the candy store…
Footnote: When I first published the Left Hand Brace Technique I got several hate emails and angry private messages on a few forums. It seems that quite a few macro photographers had been using the technique, but were keeping it quiet, and were really pissed off at me for writing about it.
Last but not least: I do lose some texture detail to diffraction –I can’t cheat physics. But there is so much depth and detail in my photos that people frequently ask me if I focus stack. I do not focus stack, and although there is nothing wrong with the technique (it’s just one tool of many) I’ve pretty much proven that it’s not necessary...
When I first got into macro back in 2006 there were two prevailing themes: You had to use a tripod to get sharp images, and diffraction is the primary reason why you can't stop a lens down and get those sharp images. But something really odd was happening over at the Fred Miranda Macro Forum: Occasionally someone would post a really sharp image taken at high magnification and high Fstop that wasn’t focus stacked. I remember there being more than one person doing it and they wouldn’t explain how; either they wanted to keep the technique to themselves, or they were afraid of going up against overzealous focus stackers who believed that the only good macro images were those that are razor sharp at 100% pixels (unfortunately even today some still equate sharpness with quality). I was curious to know how they were pulling off such highly detailed images at high Fstops, and I finally figured out part of the puzzle sometime around 2008, but the last piece didn’t come together until several years later.
I wanted to let the subject dictate how I shot it, and to go after moving targets, so I came up with the Left Hand Brace Technique for taking control of the motion in a scene so I could get the compositions that I was looking for without using a tripod (and without cropping in post). I started to realize that the more control I had over the motion in the scene the sharper my images were (the first piece of the puzzle) not because some of them were suffering from noticeable motion blur but because slight motion, as little as the width of half a pixel, can amplify diffraction. I started to think of the phenomenon as “macro motion blur”. To explain how motion blur can mimic diffraction you first have to really understand what diffraction is.
The classic definition of diffraction is light bending as it passes through a small opening, and that's true. But there's a little more to it than that: The rays of light actually expand, like a cone, so that light rays that should hit a single pixel are now bleeding over into adjacent pixels. When that bleeding over reaches half way into those adjacent pixels you'll see a loss in image quality -diffraction has taken your lunch money.
But if you can wrap your head around expanding light rays causing a loss of detail then couldn't slight motion, as little as half a pixel of movement during the exposure, amplify diffraction? My experience has taught me that it can.
Right about now some of you are thinking "But wait a minute Mr. Macro Motion Blur, why do my images get sharper when I decrease my Fstop?!" To answer that question we have to first determine what your actual shutter speed is.
At macro magnification, high Fstops, and low ISOs, the light that your flash is producing is the only significant light source in a scene. To prove it just set your camera to manual mode, F11, 1/200 of a second (or whatever your maximum flash sync speed is for your camera), ISO 100, and go out and take a photo on a bright sunny day with your macro lens set to its minimum focusing distance (life size magnification). You'll have to shoot something really bright or reflective to get anything to show up in the resulting image. Then turn on your flash and take the same shot -there will be a major difference in what you can see in the photo. At higher magnifications, if the flash doesn't fire, you'll just get a completely black image. So your flash duration is really your shutter speed, since it's the major, or only, light source -the actual speed of the shutter doesn't matter...
So you set your camera to manual mode, F11, 1/200, and ISO 100. You've got a rig that will let you shoot at 3x, you take a shot hand held, and the resulting photo isn't very sharp. You then set your camera to F8, take the same shot, and this time the image is a lot sharper. See, no more diffraction! Well there's only one little problem -when you went from F11 to F8 you opened up the aperture in your lens to let about twice as much light into the camera. Through The Lens (TTL) metering compensated for the increase in aperture (decreasing Fstop) by turning the flash on for about half as long -so your shutter speed (the flash) nearly doubled. Did you defeat diffraction or macro motion blur?...
For me the answer is simple, since I can get sharp images at up to three times life size at F13, and four to five times life size at F11 with Canon's MPE-65mm macro lens. The key is to get the flash as close to the subject as possible (to keep the flash duration as short as possible), use a diffuser that really diffuses the light (not one that just blocks the light), and look for ways to take control of the motion in the scene.
Diffraction does exist, but it's not the monster that most macro photographers make it out to be.
The second piece of the puzzle is to use a well diffused light source. If your flash produces really strong specular highlights you’ll end up with high “micro contrast” (a term coined by SteB). Those little bright areas will make an image look sharper than it really is, and you might think at first that high micro contrast is a good thing. But those same bright areas will limit how much sharpening you can apply during post processing. So what you really want are “soft” specular highlights where you can actually see texture and possibly even a little color behind them. The softer the light the more sharpening you can apply during post without making your images look over sharpened. Getting your flash as close as possible to the subject won't just help you to keep your flash duration short, it will also make your light look more diffused.
Since you're getting the flash close to the subject you don't need a long focal length lens -you don't need more working distance if the flash is close to the subject anyway, and short focal length lenses will give you more magnification when you start shooting with extension tubes. There's no such thing as a "bug lens" -all you have to do is learn a little about the habits and quirks of the subjects you want to photograph.
With this post I’ve pretty much given you the keys to the candy store…
Footnote: When I first published the Left Hand Brace Technique I got several hate emails and angry private messages on a few forums. It seems that quite a few macro photographers had been using the technique, but were keeping it quiet, and were really pissed off at me for writing about it.
Last but not least: I do lose some texture detail to diffraction –I can’t cheat physics. But there is so much depth and detail in my photos that people frequently ask me if I focus stack. I do not focus stack, and although there is nothing wrong with the technique (it’s just one tool of many) I’ve pretty much proven that it’s not necessary...
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Friday, August 30, 2013
Eat Your Vegtables Studio
A short video showing the "studio" that I set up for this shot, and the tools I carry in my camera bag.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
When to Focus Stack
The photo to the right is not mine, it belongs to a very talented macro photographer named Brian Valentine (LordV). Since I don't focus stack, and I wanted to show you an example of an image that really needs to be focus stacked, I asked Brian if I could use one of his images.
Take a close look at that water drop. The surface of the water has a texture to it and it's very fine grained. In order to make that water drop look round you have to record the texture detail on the surface, and that texture can be very easily erased by diffraction. So to get that texture you have to shoot with a small Fstop to avoid as much diffraction as possible. At the same time though you have to get enough depth to get the leading surface of the water drop, and the outside edge, in focus. So for an image like this dew drop refraction you really don't have any choice but to focus stack it
Edit: Brian reminded me that there's another reason to focus stack a dew drop refraction -the focus point of the flower is actually in front of the dew drop itself (the drop is acting as a lens).
There are a lot of really small subjects that, in my humble opinion, also need to be stacked to retain the texture detail in them. But is it really necessary to focus stack a large subject? For me the answer is no, I don't mind losing some extremely fine detail for more depth and it's one of the reasons why I don't focus stack. I'd rather spend my time getting the compositions and framing that I want, and since I shoot active subjects (or subjects that are going to get active soon) I don't have a lot of time.
Even though I shoot with a lens that's stopped down (usually F11 or higher) I still get a lot of detail in my images, and there are a couple of "tricks" to it: I look for ways to minimize movement, both mine and the subject's, because there are limits to how much motion the flash can freeze. Motion as little as the width of half a pixel while the flash is firing can amplify diffraction. It won't look like traditional motion blur, you'll just lose some fine detail. I'm convinced that macro is a form of flash based stop motion photography. Although it may not be as obvious as photographing a balloon in mid pop, or a bullet going through an apple, the principle is the same.
The other trick is to use a very well diffused light source. If the specular highlights in an image are strong (almost harsh) it can make an image look sharp, so you might think that using a light source that gives you those strong specular highlights is a good thing. But if the specular highlights are too strong the amount of sharpening that you can apply in post processing will be very limited, and it will be easy to over sharpen an image. Soft specular highlights that you can see texture, and even a little color, behind them are actually a lot better because you'll be able to apply a lot more sharpening in post.
Focus stacking a is a very useful tool, but it's not "the tool" for shooting macro. If you are just getting into macro then I'd encourage you not to focus stack. Get use to shooting single frames, and making the most out of what little depth you have by looking for angles that make the most of it (called "magic angles"). Once you have a grip on the mechanics (or muscle memory if you shoot hand held like Brian and I), and you're compositional skills are good, then take a look at focus stacking if you feel that you need it.
The last thing the macro discipline needs is one more photographer taking razor sharp poorly composed images. We're all practically drowning in them. Getting razor sharp images, at the expense of composition, is a prime example of not being able to see the forest because the trees are in the way...
Take a close look at that water drop. The surface of the water has a texture to it and it's very fine grained. In order to make that water drop look round you have to record the texture detail on the surface, and that texture can be very easily erased by diffraction. So to get that texture you have to shoot with a small Fstop to avoid as much diffraction as possible. At the same time though you have to get enough depth to get the leading surface of the water drop, and the outside edge, in focus. So for an image like this dew drop refraction you really don't have any choice but to focus stack it
Edit: Brian reminded me that there's another reason to focus stack a dew drop refraction -the focus point of the flower is actually in front of the dew drop itself (the drop is acting as a lens).
There are a lot of really small subjects that, in my humble opinion, also need to be stacked to retain the texture detail in them. But is it really necessary to focus stack a large subject? For me the answer is no, I don't mind losing some extremely fine detail for more depth and it's one of the reasons why I don't focus stack. I'd rather spend my time getting the compositions and framing that I want, and since I shoot active subjects (or subjects that are going to get active soon) I don't have a lot of time.
Even though I shoot with a lens that's stopped down (usually F11 or higher) I still get a lot of detail in my images, and there are a couple of "tricks" to it: I look for ways to minimize movement, both mine and the subject's, because there are limits to how much motion the flash can freeze. Motion as little as the width of half a pixel while the flash is firing can amplify diffraction. It won't look like traditional motion blur, you'll just lose some fine detail. I'm convinced that macro is a form of flash based stop motion photography. Although it may not be as obvious as photographing a balloon in mid pop, or a bullet going through an apple, the principle is the same.
The other trick is to use a very well diffused light source. If the specular highlights in an image are strong (almost harsh) it can make an image look sharp, so you might think that using a light source that gives you those strong specular highlights is a good thing. But if the specular highlights are too strong the amount of sharpening that you can apply in post processing will be very limited, and it will be easy to over sharpen an image. Soft specular highlights that you can see texture, and even a little color, behind them are actually a lot better because you'll be able to apply a lot more sharpening in post.
Focus stacking a is a very useful tool, but it's not "the tool" for shooting macro. If you are just getting into macro then I'd encourage you not to focus stack. Get use to shooting single frames, and making the most out of what little depth you have by looking for angles that make the most of it (called "magic angles"). Once you have a grip on the mechanics (or muscle memory if you shoot hand held like Brian and I), and you're compositional skills are good, then take a look at focus stacking if you feel that you need it.
The last thing the macro discipline needs is one more photographer taking razor sharp poorly composed images. We're all practically drowning in them. Getting razor sharp images, at the expense of composition, is a prime example of not being able to see the forest because the trees are in the way...
Friday, August 2, 2013
Impersonal Angles
I dialed up the way back machine to 2007 so I could show you an example, from my own gallery, of what you shouldn't do when composing your subjects. The image that I've included isn't necessarily bad -it has a lot going for it from a compositional perspective. But one thing that it's lacking is the connection between the subject and the viewer because you're forced to stare at the top of the critter's head, instead of seeing it at "eye level", and it's almost impossible to connect to it.
You wouldn't photograph the top of a persons head, so why shoot an insect from the top down?...
When composing your subjects try to do it from an angle that's at their level. It's much easier to convey a sense of personality when the viewer can make eye contact with the subject, like this shot:
I recently showed that image to one of my daughter's friends and she laughed because to her it looked like the bee was smiling. Changing people's perceptions of insects is one of the things that I'm trying to do with my photography, to get them to see the critters as more than just "bugs".
Truth be told I think that they do have distinct personalities, but their personality won't show in your work if you're shooting from impersonal angles...
You wouldn't photograph the top of a persons head, so why shoot an insect from the top down?...
When composing your subjects try to do it from an angle that's at their level. It's much easier to convey a sense of personality when the viewer can make eye contact with the subject, like this shot:
I recently showed that image to one of my daughter's friends and she laughed because to her it looked like the bee was smiling. Changing people's perceptions of insects is one of the things that I'm trying to do with my photography, to get them to see the critters as more than just "bugs".
Truth be told I think that they do have distinct personalities, but their personality won't show in your work if you're shooting from impersonal angles...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)