Hello photo forum friends. My journey into the fascinating world of macro photography has been well documented on arfcom.

The main thread about that is here for anyone that hasn't seen it.

This thread is intended to pass on some of the stuff I've learned during this little adventure. I've received several IMs asking for tips and tricks, and offering comments and advice and perhaps this thread can serve as a public resource for macro photographers to share advice.

First, I want to address basic equipment. For getting your DSLR set up to do macro photography you generally have 3 options. A true macro lens, extension tubes, and close up filters.

It's not too far a leap to suggest that the overall best choice is a true macro lens. They are also the most expensive of the choices. Acquiring a proper macro lens truly revolutionized my macro abilities. The extension tubes were useful to learn a bit about it, but the super shallow focus range and depth of field make actual use problematic, especially when trying to chase live subjects. True macro lenses are available in a range of focal lengths from something like 40mm to over 200mm.

You might be thinking that the shorter lens will let you get closer easier and get more magnification when used with extension tubes and that's true. However, the problem arises when you start chasing around bugs and things. The short lens means you'll only be within an inch or two of your subject at minimum distance (max magnification) and most critters don't like that. So when choosing a macro lens, it's to your advantage to get the longest one you can afford. Say this with me. Get the longest you can afford.

Both Nikon and Canon (and several of the other third party guys like Sigma, Tamron, etc) make lenses in the 100mm range that are a great compromise of cost and standoff distance. My personal lens is a 105mm D lens. Older generation so it was cheaper, but still incredibly effective. I also got it used from KEH, so that knocked a bit more off the cost.



Extension tubes are a worthwhile investment however. They are a decent way to get started in macro, no lie. The image quality is totally dependent upon the lens, as there's no glass in here to degrade the image. The neat part about them is they can be used to modify the function of a true macro lens. The focus range is actually a lot wider than with a normal lens, and you still get the bonus magnification. Nice.

They range from dirt cheap to ridiculously expensive. The cheapest ones don't have the electrical contacts that let information pass between lens and camera. That's actually useful, so I suggest some of the midrange ones.



Lastly, close up filters. I have one that I use on my gopro to decent effect, and it also happens to be the right filter size to thread onto a few of my DSLR lenses with an inexpensive adapter. Worth trying, I thought. Nope. While it works great on the gopro, it introduces all sorts of strange artifacts and oddities when used on the DSLR. I can't speak to the other diopters, I hear good things about the one canon makes, but overall my impression of those is soured.


To summarize basic equipment:
1) True macro lens, longer is better, ~100mm is a good compromise and widely available.
2) Extension tubes are OK to start, but you'll want a full lens eventually but even then the tubes are still useful.
3) Close up filters are bleh - skip them entirely (unless you find one super cheap and aren't concerned too much with image quality).


I'm going to split this up into multiple posts to help keep this organized. Next: light!

Okay. Time to talk about your lighting options.

I've tried pretty much everything I can get my hands on to come up with a one size fits all lighting device. I've concluded that such a thing does not exist, however I have found one gadget that's the next best thing. Before I get to that, let's have a look at some of the other stuff.

First, ambient natural light. Sunlight is your friend. It's bright enough and if you catch it at the right time, right angle, right set of circumstances it's all you need. This isn't always possible however, so we have to come up with other ways to light our shots.

The first thing I tried was a LED ring light. This one in particular:

B&H link

It gives a fairly even and neutral light, you can fiddle with the brightness and such. It can work as a flash or a constant on light which is admittedly useful when trying to focus on tiny objects, but overall it SUCKS. Main reason is, it doesn't put out nearly enough light. On a tripod it works well enough but hand held chasing critters around it is utterly useless. Works just fine for tripods though, and they are fairly cheap.

Once I decided that the LED ring light was a bust, I looked around at a couple other things I had available to me. One of the things I tried was this contraption:

IMAG0872 by Zack, on Flickr

Yes, that is a DSLR mounted onto an underwater camera tray using dive video lights for illumination.

It's a bit unwieldy, but if you have a set like this laying around, it works great for static subjects. You can position the lights however you want and adjust the brightness to suit. Not really a good choice for hand holding and chasing stuff around however.

In a similar vein, I also tried remote firing my flashes since Nikons allow you to do this. Not sure if Canon stuff has that ability built in. Set up a few flashes pointed the right way, manual power settings, trigger them. Works great, but again only on static subjects.

I decided that I wanted to be able to chase critters around. That led to me doing stuff like this:



That's a SB-910 with a flexible bouncer on it. It actually works pretty good, but tends to create strong shadows since the light's coming from above. Overall though, there's not much wrong with doing it this way. In most cases it gets the job done and it's a remarkably cost effective way to light for macro, assuming you already own a flash of some kind.


The best light source I've found for macro light so far is something I tried on a gamble. I found this thing on clearance and got it for next to nothing, retail is well over a hundred bucks. It's called a RayFlash adapter. It's really geared towards modeling photo shoots but I figured that it would provide a pleasing quality of light for macro shots. I was right. It works fantastically. It's fairly lightweight, easy to hand hold and lug around, and gives good clean light. Softer than direct flash, and it gives a neat little pattern. Most of my best pics in that thread I linked in the original post were lit with this.





Other options - dedicated macro flash systems. Nikon makes them, Canon has some, there are numerous third party ones. I can't speak to those. I haven't ever used them but I suppose they'd work ok since that's what they're designed for. I'm trying to get the best photos I can with the least investment possible so I don't see one of those entering my collection any time soon.

That's the intro to macro lighting. Next up, other gear!

This will be a pretty short post. Other stuff that can be useful for macro photography.

A good solid tripod. I've got several of them, so long as it is stable and can support the weight of your stuff feel free to pick your favorite.

A monopod can also come in handy when you're shooting on the move. I find it a bit too fiddly when chasing around stuff that moves a lot, but pretty useful on critters that tend to stay pretty still.

Macro rail. This is not a required item, but it can make your life easier. These range from $20 up to several hundred dollars.

I've got this one and it works just fine. The idea with a macro rail is you can focus by moving the camera back and forth rather than fiddling with the lens. This is a great way to do static subjects, especially if you want to use the focus stacking technique to get enhanced depth of field.

Other accessories that might interest you are things like reflectors and light boxes and stuff like that. I don't really mess with them but you might want to consider them.

This post will be a bit more long winded. I'm going to talk about settings and things that I've found to work pretty good for macro shots.

Shutter speed's an easy one. If you're using a flash, it's not a bad idea to shoot at your sync speed which is likely 1/200 or 1/250 on most cameras. If you're not, do whatever you have to in order to get a proper exposure. Keep in mind that shutter speed has a direct effect on how much ambient light affects your picture, particularly background stuff when you're using a flash. Faster shutter speed = less time for the background to be brought up to a bright level.

ISO is another easy one. We want to try and keep ISO to a minimum, but don't be afraid to bump it up a little if you have to. If you're shooting with flash, this is basically a non issue unless you're having trouble getting your background as bright as you want it, in which case bumping up a stop or two of ISO can come in handy. I'd change shutter speed first, but if that would be problematic, I'd go with ISO before I'd open up my aperture for reasons you will soon understand.

Lastly, we come to aperture. This one is the most fiddly when it comes to macro photography. This is mainly due to depth of field. I'm going to assume you understand the basics of how aperture changes depth of field, but in short, the smaller aperture you have (higher f number) the larger your depth of field is. This is also true when shooting at macro distances, but the actual changes are very very tiny. Wide open aperture, your depth of field will be less than the width of a human hair. Proof:

DSC_2808 by Zack, on Flickr

That picture was done at f/8 and the depth of field was less than the thickness of that hair. What does this mean for you as a macro photographer? A couple of things.

First and foremost, accurate focus is an ABSOLUTE. If you're even slightly off you will miss your intended result. Like in this picture:

DSC_3623 by Zack, on Flickr

It's a cool picture, nobody would deny it. However, the focus is on the rear eye rather than the front one.

Compare it to this one:

DSC_4010 by Zack, on Flickr

The eye is in perfect focus which to me adds a lot to the image.


Focusing at macro distances is tricky, even when you're shooting a static subject and you've got a macro rail. It will take tons of practice to get it just right. Live view mode is extremely important when you're shooting from a tripod. Use it, and even zoom in the live view a bit if your camera will let you. It'll let you nail the focus pretty quickly once you've got your head wrapped around it.

Taking the shot on a tripod isn't that hard. A remote is essential although I suppose self timer mode would work as well, and I'd also recommend using mirror lock up mode to give you an extra little touch of stability. Click remote once to raise the mirror, wait a few seconds and then click again to take the shot.


Focusing when shooting handheld is nothing short of a nightmare. What I've found to work best is shooting in manual focus mode and starting out well away from the intended subject. Foot zoom closer towards it while also adjusting the focus. The reason I say this is because if you just crank down to your closest focus distance and then start hunting for your subject, it can be almost impossible to find it, especially if said subject is tiny. Once you're down to your close focus distance and you've got a good line on your subject and your framing is good, time to think about taking the shot.

Your natural breathing and even your heartbeat will be enough to move your subject in and out of focus. Two schools of thought here - one, you can wait it out and try to sync your movements with your shutter button and hope for the best. Sometimes this works and honestly sometimes one shot is all you get. Keep in mind even pressing the shutter button can move you enough to bork your focus. The other method is to use burst mode and click off a few shots. One of them will be focused right. Not all flashes support this, and it's hell on batteries. An external battery pack for my SB-910 is on my list of gadgets I will one day have. At a minimum, you should have an extra set of batteries on you for your flash.


Back to aperture and how it affects depth of field. Most of my shots are between f/8 and f/16. Usually hovering around the f/8-f/13 range. Much above f/16 your flash will have a hard time keeping up with the light, and you'll run into diffraction causing loss of image quality. Use your best judgement here. Keep in mind that even at f/16 your depth of field will still be TINY, only a fraction of an inch. If you find that you're not getting the depth of field you want you can try focus stacking. I've only done it once, and it was an absolutely miserable experience. It did work however. If people want me to explain how it works I will, but there are several good tutorials already out there on the internet that cover that one.

Here's another example of the ridiculously tiny depth of field we're talking about here. This is a stinger from a carpenter bee. You can see that the tip of the stinger is in good focus, but the base is not.

DSC_2759 by Zack, on Flickr

I think that's enough for this post. I've saved another spot for anything else I might want to add later as I think of it.

reserved

Thanks, Zack!  All that is almost enough to scare me away from macro photography.

Thanks Zach. Tagging this. Great guide to get started with.

Here's my first attempt with an actual macro lens. Eye isn't in focus and I don't think I was all the way at 1:1. It's been rainy here so I've been trying to catch some bugs after the rain but haven't had a lot of luck. Tomorrow is supposed to be nice and I don't have work so hopefully I'll get some more shots in.

Nice write up.  

I've never dabbled too much in macro photography, and can't recall ever having a true macro lens.  I did fool around with a Nikon BR-2A reverser ring, a little.  I used it with a 50 f/1.4 AIS manual lens.  It worked, but I seem to remember it being somewhat  difficult to use. The working distance was very small, and focusing was tough at small apertures, due to lack of light.  I don't have any sample pictures, as I lost them all when my computer died, a few years ago.  No backup...shame on me.  For the life of me I don't know where it went, and I may have even sold it.  I really can't remember, but it doesn't matter, because I don't miss it at all.

I do use the Canon 500D close up lens with my Nikon gear.  It is a good piece of equipment, and  even though it is rather pricey, I'm glad to have it in my bag.   It will get you closer to your subject, but is no substitute for a true macro photography lens.

Nonsense. It's supposed to motivate you, prepare you, and make you eager to succeed!

My best handheld so far:

You're heading in the right direction, keep it up!

Sweet shots and good post.


My favorites with the 105mm

I've run into a problem that I'm not quite able to solve just yet.

I haven't figured out how to nail the focus on super tiny critters, particularly when shooting handheld. Burst mode occasionally lands a hit, sure. I'm still not satisfied. Between the tiny subject, miniscule depth of field, subject movement and my own movement, it's a bitch.

Shallow DoF, hand held, and moving subjects are a tough combination.  Throw in some wind and it's almost impossible.  Not sure there is a good answer to problem.

Never really liked bugs, anyway.

So this thread and some macro struggles at work (tripod + zoom lens = looking absolutely retarded) led me to purchase a 60mm f/2.8 Macro.

Holy shit. I consider myself pretty camera/glass savvy flaking only on insignificant details but I was not expecting this to be as much of a challenge as it is.

The DOF, or the lack there of, is pretty nuts. I was shooting indoors so I was already out some light. Tried grabbing some shots of the fish but they moved a little too fast and I wasnt feeling like busting out the speed lights. Any close moving object under f/8 seems to be out of my ability to focus quickly. Then add the fact that, at such small scales, everything is moving and very visible so you want to really crank down the exposure but then that means that your DOF is gone again.

Do you all shoot outside? Or just crank your ISO way up? Or are you just better shooters in general!?

When you can really stabilize the camera, its surprising how much flexibility you have! The aperture on my Macro goes to f/57 (totally new to me)

I covered lighting and aperture and ISO fairly well in my post. In summary, aperture should be between f/8 to f/16. I usually end up around f/11 or f/13 for most stuff. Shutter speed should be whatever you need to get your picture looking right, if shooting flash then sync speed or a little slower, otherwise consider your focal length and set shutter speed accordingly. ISO goes up if it has to go up.

It's really not much different than any other photography if you've got a grasp on the exposure triangle. It's just a bit fiddly.

I do a lot of shots outside in natural light but I still bring a flash. Inside I've got a few more options and a lot more flexibility but there's still usually a flash or two in the mix.

This thread does not need to be archived.

Have you tried focus stacking?

I have done it a few times.

It's a tedious pain in the dick, but on a stationary subject it can produce interesting results.

This is an example of a focus stacked shot that I did the other day. Been stuck inside due to shitty weather, so figured I'd play with it a bit more.

wasp stack by Zack, on Flickr

Tethered? Manual? Its a great shot!

This was done on a tripod, tethered, and with little individual clicks on the focus.

I don't really remember how many images went in there probably 20 or so.

The click focusing is like macro easy mode. No macro rail or manual focusing can beat it.

This is why you don't do stacks on live subjects.

bee stack by Zack, on Flickr

His wings were moving ever so slightly between shots.

I captured the bee and froze it for what I thought would be long enough to do the stack and not harm him.

I was wrong. He started waking up about halfway through the shooting session.

Oh well. Still a cool picture.

This is what you get when stacking goes right.

bee stack 2 small by Zack, on Flickr

I ran a little experiment today. What happens if you use a full set of extension tubes, then a 2x teleconverter, then a 105 macro? What kind of magnification do you get?


....this kind:

10 peso coin from the Philippines:

_DSC6925-Edit by Zack, on Flickr

_DSC6926-Edit by Zack, on Flickr

2008 hawaii state quarter:

_DSC6927-Edit by Zack, on Flickr

_DSC6928-Edit by Zack, on Flickr

dime:

_DSC6929-Edit by Zack, on Flickr

penny:

_DSC6930-Edit by Zack, on Flickr

Yeah, I kinda screwed the focus on a couple of those. Gimme a break. It's manual, and very very very very very very very tedious.

ETA: Forgot to mention, these are not crops, they are downsampled full size images.

What's 'click focusing'?  

I just picked up a used 105MM AF-S VR Nikkor, and even tethered on a tripod I have a hard time manually turning the focus without moving the camera just a tiny bit, when I was playing around with focus stacking.

What program are you using to tether? Most should allow you to adjust focus in tiny little clicks.

I'm using Capture one... I found it, thanks. I was trying it before with my lens in MF and it won't work that way.  (I'm extremely new to all of this)

I've never messed with that. For tethered shooting, I have a few options. qdslrdashboard is on android and there's a windows version so that's nice for compatibility's sake. Nikon also has a tethering program called Camera Control Pro. I've had that one for so long I can't even remember what it cost.

No archive

Bump so I can finish reading when I have a camera handy.

Resurrection!!

I had missed this somehow. Glad to find this thread.
Years ago (probably no longer relevant) I had used a lens reversal ring - basically a lens mount for the filter ring so you used the lens backwards - that yielded decent macro results.
Nowadays, I use a Canon 100 mm macro (predates the L version of that lens), but hope to add the 180mm L macro someday, so I can get further away from the subject. Can anyone tell me if the 180 is going to yield better depth of field/focus than the 100 because of the farther standoff?
I understand that the closer the distance to the lens, the shallower the depth of field. Ergo, the 180 should be able to give more depth of field on the same subject, right?

Then I'll have a new skill to practice.