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.)
Alan White
April 13, 2020 3:55 pm
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.
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
Some bad examples would further reinforce the excellent points being made.
Eve
July 21, 2020 12:30 am
Very informative and interesting. I’ve been contemplating what’s the best camera for macro photography. Thank you.
Daniel Krell
March 14, 2021 5:57 pm
I’ve always been impressed by the influence, on balancing, of reading from left to right (would expect similar effect in cultures that read text from right to left.). A schematic in a photo class demonstrated this: a clear path starting in the foreground, diminishing in size to just above image center, then veering off to the side, continuing to get smaller. Three schematic figures (think bowling pins) were on the path, just below the point it started to curve. In the image in which the path veered to the left, we all had the impression the figures were walking toward us; veering to the right, the figures were walking away from us.
I am conscious of this when driving on a road without distracting cues. If the road curves to the left, I have the feeling of the road coming at me; when curving to the right, I feel drawn forward, to the right. Check out that feeling the next time you’re driving, especially in situations of lower light. Another way to learn about this: flip asymmetric photographic images horizontally, and experience the feeling. Sometimes, doing this, everything instantly comes together and the feeling is “yes,” or “no!” Of course, pics involving landscapes, landmarks, people, etc., should not be flipped, without compromising the photo’s and photographer’s credibility.
Thoughts?
Dan Krell
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
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.
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.)
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
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
Some bad examples would further reinforce the excellent points being made.
Very informative and interesting. I’ve been contemplating what’s the best camera for macro photography. Thank you.
I’ve always been impressed by the influence, on balancing, of reading from left to right (would expect similar effect in cultures that read text from right to left.). A schematic in a photo class demonstrated this: a clear path starting in the foreground, diminishing in size to just above image center, then veering off to the side, continuing to get smaller. Three schematic figures (think bowling pins) were on the path, just below the point it started to curve. In the image in which the path veered to the left, we all had the impression the figures were walking toward us; veering to the right, the figures were walking away from us.
I am conscious of this when driving on a road without distracting cues. If the road curves to the left, I have the feeling of the road coming at me; when curving to the right, I feel drawn forward, to the right. Check out that feeling the next time you’re driving, especially in situations of lower light. Another way to learn about this: flip asymmetric photographic images horizontally, and experience the feeling. Sometimes, doing this, everything instantly comes together and the feeling is “yes,” or “no!” Of course, pics involving landscapes, landmarks, people, etc., should not be flipped, without compromising the photo’s and photographer’s credibility.
Thoughts?
Dan Krell
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
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.