It does look like many people think that to make a good macro a photogrpahy must lack DOF. Is it just me or are there other people who think like me? I just don't find appealing a photography where the part of the subject in focus is so small that you barely recognize it.
In my experience, it is really hard to have deep dof in macro shots, especially when it is super close up.
I think somewhere in a definition I read about shallow dof, it explicitly used macrfotography as an example of shallow/wide dof.
I read a book about macro photography
and almost all sample pics were shot at f22
with long exposure
so you need a tripod and plenty of time to experiment
:))))
I read a book about macro photography
and almost all sample pics were shot at f22
with long exposure
so you need a tripod and plenty of time to experiment
:))))
Cool, what kind of subjects did they show in their examples?
I read a book about macro photography
and almost all sample pics were shot at f22
with long exposure
so you need a tripod and plenty of time to experiment
:))))
Cool, what kind of subjects did they show in their examples?
Let me think. Lots of light. Small lens opening. Long exposure ... subjects must have been DEAD bugs!
dumb question but even on macro setting, is it advisable to zoom
or not to zoom?
From my (very, very limited) experience this is like everything else -- it depends. You will be able to get in closer image wise, but will have to back up to be able to focus (may not gain much on magnification because of this). Also, by backing up and zooming in you will reduce the DOF (which may or may not be what you want).
It does look like many people think that to make a good macro a photogrpahy must lack DOF.
No it does not have to lack DOF to be a good macro, I would love to have some more DOF, I am just forced into a shallow DOF by circumstances.
When shooting a live animal, which is moving around, which is only a few mm large I have to use maxium zoom with add-on lens, I have to use 1/125 s or faster, which then forces an aperture of F5.6 or larger (=more open towards F2), even when I use flash. My DOF in that case is 1 mm or so.
If the animal is stationary it gets easier, but how many are really ? And I am certainly not going to kill an animal in order to take a picture of it.
When taking a macro with my Sony, I am about 1 1/2 inches away from the subject.
When Jacko takes a macro, he is 12 inches away from his subject.
Long aperture NOT!
You just need good lighting. That is why they sell macro rings, which is a light that is circler in shape and goes around your lens.
I prefer a long DOF for macros because it generally makes the subject more interesting.
But it is difficult to achieve, especially with P&S cameras. I don't know how Jacko makes his macros so good, but extreme telephoto could be the answer.
I did an enormous amount of experimenting for the macro challenge, and finally managed both extreme magnification and good DOF without a specialized macro lens or fancy lighting equipment.
What I learned:
A wide angle lens worked better for me because it (obviously) allowed a wider field of view. Unless you own some serious lighting equipment, you have to shoot outdoors with a tripod. Use manual focus and aim for the center depth (between foreground and background). Crank the aperture down as small as you can (I think I was using f/36). Set your camera to use the self-timer or a remote shutter release because the smallest vibration will result in a blurry image. Practice!
Crank the aperture down as small as you can (I think I was using f/36).
This is actually counter-productive to sharpness. Once you get past about ƒ/16 or maybe ƒ/22 on the 10D/Digital Rebel, your images will start to lose sharpness because of diffraction. For more information on the effects of diffraction as your stop down, you can read here, quoting:
Now here's the rub. If it weren't for diffraction, you could stop down a lens as much as you needed to get the depth of field you desired. But in the real world you reach a point where diffraction starts degrading the image more than misfocus.
