Macro and Flora Photography

Looking through a macro lens you will discover a whole new world of weird, colorful and fascinating creatures, that you often miss by naked eye: it is like exploring another planet! Macro photography is not particularly difficult, but you need to master the technique and a lot of patience!

The camera and accessories 

You don't need a particularly advanced camera for macro photography. The essential features are: mirror lock up, the possibility to use a remote release, and good image quality, at least ot low ISO. Of course, if the camera is good even at high ISO it is better - the majority of my macro photos had been taken at ISO 100, but sometimes I use even 400 or 800 to avoid motion blur. 6-8 megapixels are already enough: usually you can get the desidered framing directly in the field, so there is not much need to crop, and 6-8 mp are enough even for very large prints.

Macro lenses 

There are many ways to take macro photos. The easiest solution is to buy a dedicated lens: a "macro" lens can focus much closer than a "non-macro" lens, and usually it reaches 1:1 reproduction ratio. The majority of macro lenses offer a very good image quality, they have high contrast, great sharpness and few or none optical aberrations; often you can get very good results even with 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters.

Currently, all macros have autofocus, and some have even ultrasonic AF motors (as the Canon 180 Macro USM, the Sigma 180 HSM, the Nikkor 105 VR AF-S), but the AF is relatively slow because the AF has to search the focus between a very wide range of distances; you can get a slightly faster AF using the Focus Limiter, that reduces the AF range, or pre-focusing manually (thanks to Full Time Manual Focus you can switch from AF to MF in every moment). That said, the 99% of my macro photos is taken in manual focus, so I really don't care about AF in a macro lens.

The focal length is very important. Even though both a 50 Macro and a 180 Macro reach the same magnification (1:1), the longer lens gives a much more out-of-focus background and more working distance. When you look at the specifications of a macro lens, you have to pay attention both to the focusing distance and the working distance. The focusing distance, as you already know, if the shortest distance where you can focus: but this is not the actual distance between you and the subject, it is just the distance between the focus plane (the sensor) and the subject. In macro photography, it is very important to know the working distance - that is the distance between the front element of the lens and the subject. For example, with a 50mm Macro you have a minimum focussing distance of 19 centimters, but actually the distance between the front element and the subject is just 7 centimeters, and if you mount the lens hood, this distance is further reduced to 4-5 centimeters. As you can imagine, it is not easy to get close to a butterfly or another animal: this is one of the reasons to prefer a long lens to a short lens for macro photo. The following table list the focussing distance and the working distance for the most common macro focal lengths.

A third advantage of long lenses is the tripod collar: when the lens is mounted on the tripod, the collar offers a fourth axis of movement, it is an huge help, in particular for vertical photos.

The majority of macro lenses have an aperture between f/2.8 and f/4. In my opinion, the widest aperture does not have much importance in a macro lens, since at these magnifications you will often stop down at least to f/8 to get a good depth of field.

Teleconverters

I've begun experimenting with macro and teleconverters in the spring of 2007, and since them I use extensively the TCs for macro work - my Sigma 180 is almost always mated with the 2x TC. The TCs increase focal length, and they don't affect the minimum focussing distance: for example, if you put a 2x on the 180 Macro (that reaches 1:1 magnification and has a minimum focusssing distance of 46cm), you get a 360mm macro with 2:1 macro capability at the same min. distance of 46cm. But the main advantages of teleconverters in macro work are not just the higher magnification (if you like extreme close-up, a dedicate lens as the Canon MPE-E 1x-5x is a better choice, it gives better image quality and extreme magnifications that you can reach even with TCs). The two big advantages are increased background blur and working distance. With a 360mm, it is easier to get a nice uniform background than with a 180; the narrower angle of view frames a smaller portion of background behind the subject. The working distance, even though it is not doubled as you might think, is greatly improved, so it is easier to approach the subject without scaring it.

Sigma 180 Macro with Sigma 2.0x teleconverter

What are the downsides of TCs? Teleconverters always degrade image quality, but if you use them with an high-quality lens as the 180mm, the image quality is still very very good, if you stop down at least to f/8 (with 1.4x TC) or f/11 (with 2x TC). I'm really happy with the image quality that I get with my Sigma 180+2x - so image quality is really not an issue for me. The only real downside, in my opinion, is the dark viewfinder: at f/7.1 it is not easy to focus precisely, in particular at high magnification and in low light. The Angle-finder helps a little, but you need a very good sight to judge the focus.

Macro photos with tele lenses and extension tubes

Even though I prefer to use a dedicate macro lens, there are various solutions to photograph small subject. Some tele lenses have quite good reproduction ratios: both the Canon and the Nikon 300mm f/4 have a RR of 1:4 at the minimum focussing distance of 1.5 meters. You can reduce the min focussing distance, to increase the magnification, with extension tubes: they are simple empty tubes that you place between the lens and the camera. They don't have any optical element - their purpose is just to increase the lens-sensor distance: you lose the possibility to focus at infinity, but you can focus closer than normal. Ronnie Gaubert, one of the best macro photographers of the worlds, uses a 300 f/4 with up to 68mm of extension tubes for its close up photos (http://www.pbase.com/ronnie_14187/macro_its_a_small_world), and the results are simply amazing! The long leng gives an huge working distance and a great separation between subject and background.

The extension tubes are relatively cheap (Kenko offers a set of three tubes, 12, 20 and 36mm, at US$170); while I prefer a true macro lens, the tubes are a good alternative if you don't want to buy a real macro or if you want to use telephoto and super-telephoto lenses for macro work. You can even add both extension tubes and TCs to the lens, to further increase magnification - a 300 f/4 is pretty sharp even with 1.4x TC.

Tripod and head for macro 

A good tripod for macro photography must be stable and well built, but you don't need an huge tripod as those for big lenses: even the heaviest macro lenses (180 f/3.5, 200 f/4) don't weight more than 1kg, so a tripod that supports 4-5 kg is already fine. You don't need a great maximum height - the majority of macro subject is pretty low on the ground - while it is essential a short minimum height: the lower, the better.

Another advantage of the Manfrotto 410 head is the large lens plate. If you mount the (included) 3/8" screw in reversed position, you can make it ever more solid, avoiding rotation of the lens foot.

After trying various tripod, I've bought the Manfrotto 190MF4 for my macro work. It weights just 3.5 lb (1.6 kg), it is 18.1" (46 cm) long and it has a load capacity of 8.8 lb (4 kg), moreover, it can get flat on the ground, that is very useful for macro photography. Since it is made of magnesium fiber to reduce the weight, it is relatively expensive ($290), but if you want the top it is well worth the price. I prefer the 190MF4 to similar Gitzo tripod - the Manfrotto has a better leg locking system, and it costs less than Gitzo tripods (that, in my opinion, are quite overpriced).  A cheaper option is the Manfrotto 190PROB ($120), that offers similar features, but it is a bit larger and heavier (it weight 1.8 kg and it is 57 cm long). Otherwise, you can consider the Manfrotto 055MF4 or 055PROB - these models are more sturdy than the 190, even though they are not as small and light. Wich head? If macro photography is your passion, I'd recommend a gear head, as the excellent Manfrotto 410. This head offers great precision, it allows to compose carefully the photo, even at the hightest magnifications. It is quite slow to use, it is not an all-around head - I use it exclusively for macro, while I prefer a ball head or the Wimberley for other kinds of nature photography.

Depth of field, aperture and shutter speed

The depth of field is one of the main issues in macro photography. You need small apertures to have enough depth, but if the aperture is too small you get bad photos due to slow shutter speed, busy background and diffraction. 

Usually, I take my macro photos using apertures between f/8 and f/16; I use f/22 only when I really need the maximum DOF. It is better to avoid apertures smaller than f/16, because they led to a big loss of sharpness and contrast, due to diffraction. The higher the magnification, to more you see the effect of diffraction: at 1:1 or 2:1 there is already a strong diffraction even at f/16 (but the photos are still useable), while at 3:1 you have to use f/8 or max f/11 to get a decent sharpness. At 5:1, the sharpness if ok at 5.6, and the photos are barely usable at f/8. Remember that all lenses suffers of diffraction at small apertures,and it can not be avoided, since the diffraction is a physical phenomenon and not a defect of the lens.

As you have understood, you have to fight with two contrasting needs: you may want to use wide apertures to avoid diffraction and to get fast shutter speed and clean background, but you also need to use small apertures to get a good depth of field. There are various "workarounds" to get the desidered results. Whenever possible, try yo photograph the subject from a low angle, to frame it against a distant background: a close background tends to be distracting, while a distant background is more uniform and it does not steal the attention from the subject. Other than that, using a long lens helps to get a clean background even at f/11 or f/16: the same photo has a more uniform background if it is taken with a 180mm instead of a 50mm. Remember that the depth of field is the same for every lens - at f/16, you have the same DOF both with a 50mm or a 360mm (the combo that I use, 180+2x) - but the 360mm has a narrower angle of view, so it frames a smaller portion of background against the subject, and you get a more uniform BG.

To optimize the depth of field, usually I try to have to place the camera as much parallel to the subject as possible. When I have taken the exposure, I check the sharpness and the focus on the LCD of the camera, using the magnification tool - while it does not give a very accurate preview, it is enough to understand if the photo is in focus and it is not blurred by the wind or by subject movements.

Sometimes, placing the camera perfectly parallel to the subject is not possible, or it is not enough to get the entire subject in focus, even at f/16. There are two possibilities. The easiest choice is to use selective DOF: instead of stopping down to try getting the entire subejct in focus, you choose the most important portion (usually the eyes for bugs), and you shoot with a relatively wide aperture to blur everything, except the area that you have selected. If, instead, you are determined to get everything in focus, you can use the technique of merged photos for extended DOF, described in this article: Merged photos for extended DOF (Jun 15, 2007). Of course, the aperture does not influence just DOF - it determines also the shutter speed. Whenever possible, I try to use ISO 100, because it gives the best image quality. At such low sensitivity, usually the shutter speeds range between 1" and 1/20 with apertures as f/11 and f/16, since I photograph in dim light, in the first hours of the morning. To avoid motion blur, the camera is mounted on the tripod, and I use both mirror lock up and remote release; the movement of the subject are not a problem, because in early morning the bugs stay quite still. The wind, instead, is a serious problem: even a slight breeze is enough to move the subject and to blur the photo. To get the best result, I photograph in the short pauses between the wind breaths, and I take many identical exposures of the same scene to increase the probabilities to get al least one sharp photo.  If the wind doesn't allow to get sharp photos at the chosen shutter speed, I raise the ISO by one or two stops. If the shutter speed is still too slow even at ISO 400 or ISO 800, I open the aperture to increase the amount of light that reaches the sensor. The DOF becomes shallow, and it is essential to selectively focus on the most important elements of the subject.

Selective depth of field.

The flash, when it is used as main light, allows to freeze the movements, but personally I prefer to use exclusively natural light: usually, it gives a softer contrast and better colors than flash. If you master the flash you can get very good results, it is difficult to equal the beauty of soft, warm sunrise light.

The first hours of the morning and the light

The first hours of the morning are the "magic moment" for macro photography. Butterflies and other insects are very covered by dew and they stay still, waiting for the first rays of sun to dry their wings. It is quite easy to get close without scaring your subject, and you have a lot of time to compose carefully the photo and to repeat the exposure if you are not satisfied by the results. I take the majority of my macro photos from 30 minutes before sunrise to 1-2 hours after sunrise. Other than that, the light at sunrise is warm and soft; it creates very pleasing colors and light shadows. During the day, instead, the light becomes progressively harsher, and at midday there are strong dark shadows and excessive contrast. If I find an interesting subject harsh light, I try to shade it with my own shadow, but it works only if the subject is a flower or a tame bug (don't try to shade a butterfly - it will flew away). Moreover, you have to put in shade both the subject and the background: if you photograph a subject in shade against a bright background, you get very poor results. Many amateur photographers think that sunny days are ideal for photos, but actually cloudy days are much better for macro and flora photography: the clouds acts as an immense diffuser, and you get a soft light, without excessive contrast and deep shadows. The soft light gives less contrast and very pleasing colors - sometimes you may have a blue cast, but it can be easily removed with Photoshop, and after a little of post processing you get a great photo, with intense, rich colors, that you wouldn't have got in direct sunlight. Another way to get great photos is to photograph the subject in backlight. The backlight "outlines" the borders of the subject; water drops and dew shine when photographed in backlight. On the other hand, you have to be careful with the exposure, otherwise the subject may be overexposed or underexposed. Always check the histogram and the highlight screen; sometimes, a slight fill flash may help to brighten up a little the subject.

Flash and macro 

The composition

The composition of a macro photo depends by the subject; usually you have to follow the same "rules" that applies also for fauna photography: avoid centered or tight compositions, leave some room in front of the subject, place the focal points in the thirds of the frame. Other than that, you can use diagonal lines and graphic elements to create stronger compositions.

The examples above shows the same subject with different composition. The first example show the difference between a centered photo and closer, well balanced composition. The second photo has much less empty room (without being tight); there is more room in front of the subject than behind it.

The second examples shows another common error of beginners: sometimes with a macro lens and a collaborative subject you are temped to take a very tight photo, but as result the subject looks "trapped" and the tips are clipped. In the second, better, photo, I placed the subject diagonally, leaving more room all around. If you want to get really close, I'd suggest to make a portrait: if the crop is clearly "deliberate", it often results in a pleasing composition.

Asymmetric composition	Symmetric composition	Diagonal composition

Of course, there are many other ways to compose successfully a photo. If the subject has a symmetric shape (as many flowers), a centered composition works well; while for asymmetric subjects you can follow the rule of thirds. The first image is an example of asymmetric composition: there is more room "behind" the flower (in this case, on the right side) than "in front" of it (left side). This is by far the most common composition for flowers and plants. In the second photo, instead, the flower has a very symmetric shape and the axis of symmetry is placed in the center of the frame.

The diagonal composition is another way to get a pleasing, balanced photo. The diagonal lines are a powerful compositional element; you can use evident (e.g. a diagonal stem) or implied (e.g. a series of objects placed diagonally) lines to achieve various effects. The diagonals can draw the attention on a particular element that you want to highlight; they can create a "compositional flow"; they can intersect with horizontal and vertical lines to create contrasts and graphical elements.

The background

The background is an essential element of the photos - it may really make the difference between a good photo and an awesome photos. Usually, a good background must not distract the attention from the subject: for this reason, I always try to get uniform, out of focus background. A "busy" background instead distracts the viewer and detracts from the subject.

Distracting background	Pleasing background

The two photos above show the difference between a photo with a busy BG and a photo with a clean BG: the subject is the same, but the second photo is more pleasing. There are mainly three things that determine the look of background: the focal length, the aperture and the distance from subject. Both the photos had been taken at f/11, but one has been taken with a 50mm, while the other is taken at 360mm: the long lenses allow to be very selective on background thanks to the narrow angle of view. In other words, if you take two photos with the same aperture, the one taken with the longer focal has the cleaner background.

Using a relatively wide aperture also helps to avoid busy backgrounds. That said, small subject like flowers or bugs require more depth of field than large subjects, so you can't shoot wide open, you need al lest f/5.6 or f/8. The distance subject-background is the third variable. A distant background is more out of focus than a closer background: when possible, I recommend to use a low angle of view to frame the subject against a distant background.

Do you have comments or questions?

If you have comments or questions about this article, feel free to ask in the Juza Nature Photography Discussion Forum!