Extreme close-up techniques?

I wonder if anyone could help the rest of us out by giving us a step-by-step description of how you do your very extreme close-ups of the insides of flowers, including how close the lens is. It would be so awesome if anyone can do that. Just in case anyone can, thank you!

Woo hoo, new forum!

Hey Barbara, great topic. I should start this by saying I'm not nearly as skilled as most other photographers on this forum, but I'll mention some things I do and use when I'm shooting close-ups.

The lens you use is certainly a huge factor in your close-up possibilities. If you have a macro lens you'll have much more flexibility. Most macro lenses will get you to almost 1:1 magnification (small objects record life-sized on your sensor), and have a much shorter close focusing distance. For example, I use a 90mm Tamron macro lens, that has a close focusing distance of 11.4 inches. That distance is from the camera sensor, not the end of the lens. So there are times when I'm shooting close-ups that my front lens element is almost touching the object I'm shooting. If you dont have a macro lens, but want a more affordable way to try your hand look at getting a diopter. It works like a magnifying class that mounts on the end of your lens like a standard filter would. Canon makes a great 2 element diopter (500D) which can be purchased for under $100. This is how I started playing around with macro subjects. The diopters are somewhat limited because they affect the focusing distances of your lens.

When shooting close-ups you also have to be extremely attentive to the relation of the plane of your camera sensor to your subject. For most applications you want your camera to be parallel with your subject. For example, if you're shooting a butterfly with open wings you'd want your camera so the sensor lies parallel with the wings. When working up close a very slight difference in distance makes a huge difference in your depth-of-field. If your camera is slightly askew one wing would be tack sharp, and the other soft because it lies outside of the DOF. To do this, I compose my shot and then step back and look at my camera from the side and eyeball my lens in relation to my subject. I've also put a playing card against the front of my lens and looked at it from the side and above to verify everything is lined up how I want it.

I also always use manual focus because I want 100% percent control of exactly where my focus point is. Not much more to say than that.. Play around with different focusing points and different apertures to achieve what you're after.

Another huge hindrance to geting a sharp shot when working at small distances is subject movement. If shooting outside in slight breeze, I employ a Wimberly Plamp (you can look in the marketplace section of this site), which is a flexible arm with a clamp that goes onto tripod leg, and another that gently holds your subject's stem. It also helps with composition because you can turn a flower to almost any angle you like. I also will use a reflector/diffuser to cut harsh lighting, and block wind when necessary. When shooting up close I'll actually hold my breath when I open the shutter to prevent any movement. Also, shooting in mirror-lock up with either your delay, or a cable release is prefered to eliminate mirror slap that might also cause slight movement.

Hopefully this helps some. It's hard to give a step-by-step because every shot is different, but those are just a few of the things that I'm mindful of when doing close-up work.

Happy shooting, and looking forward to seeing some of your shots!

Great topic Barbara, Thanks for the tips Derek. I use my regular lens with extension tubes for now Barbara, saving up for a real macro lens.Also use my Lensbaby with stacked macro lens on that. They work well enough for now but once you start looking at the world close up you want to see deeper in to your subject ,so I will just have to make do for now. Again great topic ,can't wait to see what tips everyone will provide!

Wow Barbara. Big topic. I have read several text books on macro photography and plan to take a weekend seminar with Mike Moats in April. I like the images I see, but have yet to be able to replicate anything close to the really good ones. There is just so much to this, it is hard to figure out where to begin.

Thank you, Derek! You're right, Walt, it is a big topic. What I was thinking was that maybe someone could use one of their images as an illustration and tell us how they shot that particular image, to make it less vague and more specific for those of us like me who need specifics. ;)

Just a couple of thoughts, Barbara, as Derek has done such a great job in working through the process of close-up work.

As he says, each shot is different, and, personally, I generally forget exactly how I got there ( that may be just old age, of course !! ) though I do know it is usually a question of moving the camera around a lot to find what you want in the viewfinder. Contrasts in the light are often a problem with flower centres - parts of the style or stamens may be quite reflective, or perhaps the petals have a shiny texture, while at the base of the centres there is often deep shadow. I therefore try to make sure I have as even a light as possible, to reduce the contrasts ( it is always possible, of course, to bump up the contrast with your software if the even light gives too bland an effect ). I also sometimes find it handy to use a polariser filter to cut down excessive highlights.

The crucial decisions for me concern the point of focus and depth of field. As Derek suggests, there are somewhat subjective, and worth experimenting with. I normally take shots at different apertures and sometimes with different focal points, because I find it helpful to see the results on the screen rather than rely on the camera preview button.

Like a number of other people, I quite often stack a number of images, using Helicon Focus software to blend them. If you are ever interested in that technique, Pat Sampson put a very helpful article on the Digital Imaging Forum not long ago.

Hope this is of some help.

Barbara: Derek makes some very good points and so I'll try to elaborate and offer up some other solutions as well. Getting a dedicated macro lens is truly the ideal way to go and one I'm sure you will pursue eventually. Of course $$$ is involved and I'll be very happy to spend lots of your dollars if you let me . I'm also going to assume that you're interested in what you can do with your DSLR and not so much your S5. Since you have a zoom lens the diopter route is a good first step. It is how I got started with macro and I can still use those lenses with my S2 if I need to get a little closer. The BIG drawback to diopters is that you lose the ability to focus beyond their focal length. The Canon 500D is actually a 2 diopter lens in optical terms and has a focal length of 500mm (not to be confused with a 500mm telephoto!) so you cannot focus beyond 500mm/50cm/18-19 inches. That will work fine for stationary subjects like flowers but is almost useless for butterflies or other critters who may not allow you to approach that closely. A 1 diopter lens will allow you to get out to 1 meter which is a little better.

Another way to get closer is to use extension tubes. You still lose the ability to focus at infinity but the advantage to tubes is that they have no glass so they can't degrade your image. They are also a major pain in the butt to use on zoom lenses as you have to continually adjust focus when you zoom which also makes them impractical for moving subjects. I do use tubes on my 100, 200 and 300mm primes and they work fine.

Another way to get more magnification is the use of telextenders/teleconverters. These usually come in 1.4x and 2x varieties. An advantage of extenders is that you do not lose your ability to focus at infinity so you can shoot from any distance. The disadvantage of extenders is that they introduce more glass between you and the subject and they also reduce the amount of light by 1 stop on a 1.4x and 2 stops on a 2x. What that means is if you are set up to shoot at f5.6 without the extender you will be shooting at f8 with a 1.4x aboard and f11 with a 2x. Most cameras lose autofocus if the minimum aperture is smaller than f5.6. Let's say that you are using your 55-250. If you are zoomed all the way out the minimum aperture is f5.6. With the 1.4x it becomes f8 and with the 2x it becomes fll. You will almost certainly have to manual focus and also be stuck with relatively long shutter speeds. Some converters also will not physically mate with certain zooms so be sure that isn't an issue before you spend any cash. Quality of converters is also a factor. The Canon converters are excellent but also pricey. The Kenko 300 class is a good alternative and less expensive.

Which brings us full circle to macro lenses. We can get into a lively debate about the virtues of 50mm, 100mm, and 200mm macros. My first macro lens was a 100mm. It is an incredible lens that is light, focuses remarkably fast when I'm shooting in AF mode, has a minimum aperture of f2.8 so I can hang a converter, tubes or even a diopter on it and still have autofocus, is far and away the sharpest lens in my bag, and it gets me to 1:1 without any assistance. But if you pay any attention at all to the specs I list on my image posts you'll notice I rarely use it. I have a 200mm macro that practically lives on my camera. It is sharper than every other lens I own besides the 100, has a longer reach, still gets me to 1:1 unassisted, has a minimum aperture of f4 and is almost second nature to use. Of course as focal length goes up so does price but a really good compromise is either the Sigma 150 or 180. Hope this helps and thanks for kicking off the new forum with a fine topic. >=))>

Barbara: Here's a pretty extreme example. This was taken with a 100mm macro with an extension tube and a 2x. This is a bit more than 2:1 magnification and is the inside of a passion flower.

PS: I also had this rig mounted on a macro rail. With a fixed focal length prime you don't have the luxury of zooming to find a good comp but must physically move the camera. A macro rail lets you make precise camera movements. Otherwise you would have to move the entire tripod. Hand holding at high mag is pretty much impossible.

That is a fascinating example Bill. What I don't really understand is the reason you talk about magnification factors.

I assume the 2:1 you have above is with a full frame camera, which I believe would be a different magnification factor with a cropped sensor camera?

Also, what difference does it really make? Don't you really just try to set up such that you have composed what you want in the view finder, or do you actually calculate the magnification factor ahead of time and measure the subject and compare it to your sensor size and then figure out how you want to set up the equipment?

Thanks Bill for the example, now I want a true macro lens even more( my husband will not thank though)!!

That's a really fine macro image Bill.

Don't think I have anything to add to this Barbara that hasn't been covered.

pat

I assume the 2:1 you have above is with a full frame camera, which I believe would be a different magnification factor with a cropped sensor camera?

Also, what difference does it really make? Don't you really just try to set up such that you have composed what you want in the view finder, or do you actually calculate the magnification factor ahead of time and measure the subject and compare it to your sensor size and then figure out how you want to set up the equipment?

Walt: The shot was actually taken with a Sony A100 which has a 1.5 crop factor. I mentioned the magnification to illustrate the size of the image on the sensor. I guess when one figures in the crop factor it may be bigger yet but this was such a difficult rig to maneuver that I just looked through the finder to see what came through. >=))>

To add to what Bill said, the 2:1 magnification refers to how large the image is inside the camera, and has nothing to do with the sensor. For example, at 2:1, if a part of the flower is physically 1/4 inch, the image of that part will be 1/2 inch inside the camera. So the lens has reproduced the object at twice its real size, or 2:1.

Now how much of the image that the lens creates actually gets captured is determined by the sensor. Sometimes that's referred to as magnification, but it's not actually the magnification referred to by the lens reproduction ratios.

When talking about what the sensor actually captures, since it's only some part of the lens image, it's as though the sensor is cropping away the full image - hence crop factor. So for a given lens, reproducing at 2:1, it will be 2:1 no matter what sensor. But a full frame sensor will capture a wider angle of view than a smaller sensor - hence the crop factor.

I am possibly the least technical person on the site, so if you don't have a macro lens here are a couple of simple ideas for both in-focus and soft focus shots.

In focus: I use my 100-400 IS lens, extended fully, and stand back, compose and shoot. Probably the reason I do better with larger flowers. You get great dof, the background is blurred and you can always crop some more in PS.

Soft Focus: Add a 500D diopter to the end of the 100-400 lens and use it as a close up or macro lens by moving in and out until you get the focus points you want.

I am attaching a rose taken with the in-focus technique above.
The equipment list is a steady hand, DSLR with long lens, and a 500D dioper.

Here is a sample showing the flower in focus and the background soft.

Beautiful work Patricia , thanks for the tips!

Yes, so very beautiful, Patricia. Thank you, and thank you to all of you, very much.

The world of macro is alot of fun. I think the most important thing that I can contribute to the conversation is to shoot manual. That way you have total control and when you start to really see into the little world of macro, control becomes more critical. Everyone has offered alot of good advice. Enjoy!

And a BIG thanks to all for starting this flora forum. I'm so excited!

David. Thank you. What you said about the magnification factor makes perfect sense. I do wonder if anyone actually uses this to calculate how to set up a shot though.