Probably the best article on macro that I have come across. Especially appreciate your mentioning the “ethics” of macro photography. I don’t know how anyone is unable to hold the insect world in higher regard after spending time studying and photographing them. I find myself carefully wrapping insects and releasing them outside where I used to just squash them! My choice of equipment is minimal. A 13 year old Canon EOS 20D that I purchased used, a kit 18-55 macro lens, a $20 set of extension tubes and a $30 speedlite. I enjoy seeing how far I can push my limits with what I have instead of buying more equipment to increase my abilities…if that makes any sense. Besides, I’m cheap! Again, thank you for a most informative article.
Interesting, I’ve never heard that before. Do you have any sources? It strikes me as surprising that sunlight wouldn’t blind butterflies, while a flash would, but I’m not an expert by any means and want to be sure I’m not harming my subjects. (Regardless, from a purely photographic standpoint, using flash is not a good idea with butterflies because they are so reflective.)
Tomaz
December 5, 2020 2:22 am
An excellent article! I’d just like to add a small comment which reinforces what you say: “As your distance from a light source doubles, the amount of light you receive cuts in four. When your flash (or diffuser) is extremely close to your subject, which is true in macro photography almost by definition, the distant background receives comparatively no light at all. ” Well, if you are using a flash an object at double distance gets a quarter of illumination. But since most objects scatter light diffusively, the light suffers from another factor of 4 when travelling back to the camera. So the combined effect is 16-times fainter at double distance or 81-times fainter for triple distance, i.e. it goes with the fourth power of distance, not with a square. So the background is really dark if illuminated by a flash. That’s why one can speak of a well defined range of a flash: at twice the distance the object is 4 stops darker and at triple distance 6.33 stops darker! My profession is astronomy and we know of this effect when observing bodies at the outer edge of the Solar system: just replace a flash with the Sun and a camera with a telescope and objects at twice the distance are 16-times fainter and so (unfortunately) difficult to discover unless you send a space probe to approach them (as we do in macro photography).
You are incorrect because you have confused luminous flux (unit: lumen) with illuminance (unit: lux) — the latter is relevant to photographic luminous exposure (unit: lux•second); the former is not. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/…quantities
What is correct depends on your intentions: if you want to make an identically looking photo of a person using a built-in flash, then double distance implies zooming-in from e.g. 100 to 200 mm, and you will see a 4 stop difference. But if you keep the same focal distance it would be the usual 2 stops, because the area (= number of pixels) covered by the person will be 4 times smaller.
The sensor area covered by the subject (person) is irrelevant to luminous exposure. Spencer’s article is correct; you are incorrect.
Zooming a lens from 100 to 200 mm makes zero stops of difference to luminous exposure, using the same f-number. That’s the whole point of using f-numbers, aka f-stops.
Agreed. I was not careful enough in formulations, so I did not make myself understood. There’s no point to drag on, perhaps the moderator can delete this exchange.
Dr Nowphal
September 19, 2020 1:10 pm
Very good article and very informative, thank you
Deborah
August 16, 2020 2:03 pm
Best macro video I’ve seen so far! I am 100% a visual learner so went straight for the video, I’m not techy at all so get easily lost if I can’t see what you mean. Even more example photographs for every step (including the bad photos to visualise your warnings) would be really really helpful. Many Thanks
Richardp
August 12, 2020 8:34 am
Good introduction to the subject but I have a couple of comments.
Firstly, macro photography requires lots of patience! It may not be for everyone. I would suggest that before paying out hundreds of £/$/€ for a dedicated macro lens, a beginner should try using close up filters or extension tubes on their existing lens. These may not get you 1:1 magnification, but you can see if macro is for you without spending a fortune. For example, you can get filters second hand on eBay for about 10 £/$/€.
Secondly, focus stacking is a lot simpler these days if you get the right camera. I understand that the Olympus OMD EM1 and EM5 for instance, will take several shots in sequence, each focussed at a slightly different distance, and combine them for you. Other manufacturers probably have similar capabilities but I don’t know the details.
JLW
July 19, 2020 12:29 pm
Best video I’ve seen on Macro photography. You covered everything I was having a problem with. Learned a lot. Now I need to just go out and practice
Carole Lehrman
June 24, 2020 10:50 am
Wonderful video. Clear and easy to follow. Great suggestions! I didn’t read the article yet.
Emil Marius
June 15, 2020 8:32 pm
Thanks for the Guide, it really makes life easy at the beginning of road into Macro. I admire your respect for the little things that give us the pleasure of Macro photography. Mother nature needs our respect and care if we want her to give as reasons to press the shutter button every day
Probably the best article on macro that I have come across. Especially appreciate your mentioning the “ethics” of macro photography. I don’t know how anyone is unable to hold the insect world in higher regard after spending time studying and photographing them. I find myself carefully wrapping insects and releasing them outside where I used to just squash them! My choice of equipment is minimal. A 13 year old Canon EOS 20D that I purchased used, a kit 18-55 macro lens, a $20 set of extension tubes and a $30 speedlite. I enjoy seeing how far I can push my limits with what I have instead of buying more equipment to increase my abilities…if that makes any sense. Besides, I’m cheap! Again, thank you for a most informative article.
I just bought a 30D, which extensions are you using?
I have a decent camera collection, but I don’t have that artistic eye. My wife has that.
William
Very informative and interesting. I’ve been contemplating what’s the best camera for macro photography. Thank you.
Never Use flash when photographing butterflies. They have very sensitive vision and are permanently blinded by flash photography
Interesting, I’ve never heard that before. Do you have any sources? It strikes me as surprising that sunlight wouldn’t blind butterflies, while a flash would, but I’m not an expert by any means and want to be sure I’m not harming my subjects. (Regardless, from a purely photographic standpoint, using flash is not a good idea with butterflies because they are so reflective.)
An excellent article! I’d just like to add a small comment which reinforces what you say: “As your distance from a light source doubles, the amount of light you receive cuts in four. When your flash (or diffuser) is extremely close to your subject, which is true in macro photography almost by definition, the distant background receives comparatively no light at all. ” Well, if you are using a flash an object at double distance gets a quarter of illumination. But since most objects scatter light diffusively, the light suffers from another factor of 4 when travelling back to the camera. So the combined effect is 16-times fainter at double distance or 81-times fainter for triple distance, i.e. it goes with the fourth power of distance, not with a square. So the background is really dark if illuminated by a flash. That’s why one can speak of a well defined range of a flash: at twice the distance the object is 4 stops darker and at triple distance 6.33 stops darker! My profession is astronomy and we know of this effect when observing bodies at the outer edge of the Solar system: just replace a flash with the Sun and a camera with a telescope and objects at twice the distance are 16-times fainter and so (unfortunately) difficult to discover unless you send a space probe to approach them (as we do in macro photography).
You are incorrect because you have confused luminous flux (unit: lumen) with illuminance (unit: lux) — the latter is relevant to photographic luminous exposure (unit: lux•second); the former is not.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/…quantities
What is correct depends on your intentions: if you want to make an identically looking photo of a person using a built-in flash, then double distance implies zooming-in from e.g. 100 to 200 mm, and you will see a 4 stop difference. But if you keep the same focal distance it would be the usual 2 stops, because the area (= number of pixels) covered by the person will be 4 times smaller.
The sensor area covered by the subject (person) is irrelevant to luminous exposure. Spencer’s article is correct; you are incorrect.
Zooming a lens from 100 to 200 mm makes zero stops of difference to luminous exposure, using the same f-number. That’s the whole point of using f-numbers, aka f-stops.
See “Inverse Square Law” by Wayne Fulton:
www.scantips.com/light…sics1.html
Agreed. I was not careful enough in formulations, so I did not make myself understood. There’s no point to drag on, perhaps the moderator can delete this exchange.
Very good article and very informative, thank you
Best macro video I’ve seen so far! I am 100% a visual learner so went straight for the video, I’m not techy at all so get easily lost if I can’t see what you mean. Even more example photographs for every step (including the bad photos to visualise your warnings) would be really really helpful. Many Thanks
Good introduction to the subject but I have a couple of comments.
Firstly, macro photography requires lots of patience! It may not be for everyone. I would suggest that before paying out hundreds of £/$/€ for a dedicated macro lens, a beginner should try using close up filters or extension tubes on their existing lens. These may not get you 1:1 magnification, but you can see if macro is for you without spending a fortune. For example, you can get filters second hand on eBay for about 10 £/$/€.
Secondly, focus stacking is a lot simpler these days if you get the right camera. I understand that the Olympus OMD EM1 and EM5 for instance, will take several shots in sequence, each focussed at a slightly different distance, and combine them for you. Other manufacturers probably have similar capabilities but I don’t know the details.
Best video I’ve seen on Macro photography. You covered everything I was having a problem with. Learned a lot. Now I need to just go out and practice
Wonderful video. Clear and easy to follow. Great suggestions! I didn’t read the article yet.
Thanks for the Guide, it really makes life easy at the beginning of road into Macro. I admire your respect for the little things that give us the pleasure of Macro photography. Mother nature needs our respect and care if we want her to give as reasons to press the shutter button every day