Macro and Flora Photography |
|
Macro photography allows
to discover a whole new world of weird,
colorful and fascinating creatures, that
you often miss by naked eye: it is like
exploring another planet! Subjects for
macro photography can be found nearly
everywhere, and you don't need a
particularly advanced camera for macro
photography: all SLRs currently in
production have enough resolution and
relatively low noise (at least at low
ISO; the majority of my macro photos had
been taken between 50 and 400 ISO). That
said, to get good results it is
necessary to master the techniques, and
to have a lot of patience.
|
Marbled White
- Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III, Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L USM, 2"
f/16, iso 100, tripod. Sesto Fiorentino, Italy.
|
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 very
good image quality, 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 focus 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. Macro
lenses range from 50mm to 200mm; 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, is
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 focusing distance of 19 centimeters,
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 so close to a butterfly or another
animal: this is one of the reasons to prefer
a long lens for macro photo.
The following table lists the focusing
distance and the working distance for the
most common macro focal lengths.
|
Focal Length
|
Focusing distance at 1:1
|
Working distance at 1:1 (without hood)
|
|
50 mm
|
19.0 centimeters
|
7.0 centimeters
|
|
60 mm
|
22.0 centimeters
|
9.1 centimeters
|
|
70 mm
|
25.7 centimeters
|
10.7 centimeters
|
|
90 mm
|
29.0 centimeters
|
12.0 centimeters
|
|
100/105 mm
|
31.0 centimeters
|
14.0 centimeters
|
|
150 mm
|
38.0 centimeters
|
18.8 centimeters
|
|
180 mm
|
46.0 centimeters
|
23.8 centimeters
|
|
200 mm
|
50.0 centimeters
|
25.2 centimeters
|
|
250mm (180 + 1.4x)
|
54.0 centimeters
|
30.1 centimeters
|
|
360mm (180 + 2.0x)
|
64.5 centimeters
|
37.3 centimeters
|
Another 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
in macro photography
Sigma 180mm f/3.5
Macro EX with Sigma 2.0x teleconverter,
mounted on the old Canon 20D.
In the past I have used a lot the
TCs for macro work; nowadays, I rarely use
teleconverters for my macro, but in some
situations they can be useful. The
teleconverters increase focal length, and
they don't affect the minimum focusing
distance: for example, if you put a 2x on
the 180 Macro (that reaches 1:1
magnification and has a minimum focusing
distance of 46cm), you get a 360mm macro
with 2:1 macro capability at the same
minimum distance of 46cm.
The higher
magnification is not the only advantage of
teleconverters (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). Two other 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.
What are the downsides of TCs? You lose
autofocus (but it is not a problem for
macro) and 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 have tried the Sigma 180
Macro with 2x TC for several months and I
have been pretty happy with image quality,
this combo is impressively sharp!
Unusual choices: tele lenses with
extension tubes and wide-angles
There are various solutions to
photograph small subjects. 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 focusing distance of
1.5 meters. You can reduce the minimum focusing
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
(www.pbase.com/ronnie_14187), 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, and
the results are simply amazing! The long
lens 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 $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.
A completely
different approach is to use wide angles.
While the majority of Canon and Nikon
wide-angles have poor macro capabilities,
Sigma offers some wide-angles 1:4 or 1:3
reproduction ratio, as the Sigma 15mm f/2.8
Fisheye, the Sigma 10mm f/2.8 Fisheye and
the Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Macro. With these
lenses, instead of separating the subject
from the background, you portray the subject
into its environment: it is an original
approach, and it is more difficult than the
classic "long lens macro", but in some
situations it gives fantastic results. Fabio
Pupin (www.herpfolio.net)
is one of the masters of this technique;
visit his website to admire some truly great
macro photos taken with the Sigma 15mm
Fisheye.
Tripod and head for macro
A good tripod for macro photography must
be stable and well built; you don't need a
great maximum height - the majority of macro
subject is pretty low on the ground - while
it is essential a low 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 055XWNB
for my macro work. It weights 2.3 kg, it is
61 cm long and it has a load capacity of 7
kg, moreover, it can get flat on the ground,
that is very useful for macro photography.
It has retractable rubber feet, that are
ideal for use in the field, and it is not
too expensive (it costs $ 190). I prefer the
055XWNB to similar Gitzo tripods - 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 smaller and
lighter (it weights 1.8 kg and it is 57 cm
long). Sometimes I still use even the super
small 190 MF4 as main tripod, but I
recommend this model only if you really need
to reduce at minimum the weight and size.
Which 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
highest 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 WH-200 for other kinds
of nature photography.
For more
information about support, I recommend to
read the article
Tripods and
heads.
Accessories
Even though I always try to reduce at
minimum the accessories that I carry with
me, there are some things that I consider
very useful and I recommend.
The
Wimberley Plamp is an articulated arm
that can be used for various purposes. As
Wimberley says, "one end of the Plamp clamps
to your tripod while the other grasps the
object. Use the Plamp to stabilize windblown
subjects, adjust the position or angle of
your subject, or move obstructing foliage.
You can also use the Plamp to hold
reflectors and lens shades. One day in the
field with a Plamp and you will begin to
realize its full potential." I often use the
Plamp to position and to stabilize my macro
subjects, and sometimes it is really useful,
and it allows to take photos that otherwise
would be impossible due to wind or due to
the position of the subject!
The only
drawback of the plamp is that if you clamp
it on the main tripod, as shown on the
Wimberley website, and you use it to hold
the subject, it transmits every small
vibration to the subject, and it is
difficult to make precise adjustments of the
camera-subject distance. The solution is to
clamp the Plamp to another tripod: whenever
possible, I carry with me a super small 190
MF4 tripod (another option is the Manfrotto
715 SHB), that I use exclusively for the
plamp. In this way, framing your subject is
really easy, and you don't have any problem
of vibrations created by the camera!
1DsIII with 180 Macro
mounted on Manfrotto 055XWNB, while
photographing a butterfly on a grass stem,
placed in the perfect position thanks to the
Plamp. The plamp is mounted on my small, but
sturdy, 190 MF4 customized tripod.
Another accessory that I keep in my
bag during macro trips is a small scissor
to cut grass stems: sometimes I find
butterflies and other bugs that sleep between
the bushes or between high grass. In this
case, instead of flattening all the grass
behind the subject to get a clean
background, I simply cut the grass stem
where the bug is perched and I move it in a
convenient location, where I can take the
photo against a distant, clean background.
Of course, this technique has some
limitations: you can use it only in early
morning, when the bugs don't fly away, and
you can use it only if the subject is posed
on a grass stem - don't even thing of
cutting an orchid or a rare plant! (no, I
don't feel guilty when I cut poor grass
stems ;-) Do you feel guilty when you cut
grass in your garden?)
I use the
scissor, instead of breaking the stem with
my hands, because it allows to cut the stem
much more gently than breaking it, so there
are less chances to scare away the bug.
I no longer use the angle finder and the
remote release. In the past I used a lot the
angle finder because it helped to frame the
photo from weird angle and to focus
carefully, but nowadays with live view it is
not longer needed. Live view allows to frame
comfortably the photo from every angle, and
you can magnify the image by 10x or even
more (while the angle finder had just a 2.5x
magnification) for a very precise focusing.
Considering that the angle finder was
expensive, slow and cumbersome to use, I am
really happy to have live view! :-) Other
than that, in some cameras the live view
replaces mirror lock up: since these
features are essential for macro
photography, I recommend to give a look to
the article
Live
View and Mirror Lock Up, that explains
in detail how live view works and how to use
it.
Remote release is still an useful
accessory, but it has a big drawback: it is
way too long, and when I walk around with my
camera, it easily get caught in branches and
bushes. After having lost my remote release,
I decided to use the 2 seconds self timer,
instead of buying another release.
Some accessories that I don't use,
but you may find interesting, are:
reflectors and diffusers (they help to
soften the light, but I take all my macro
photos in early morning so I already have
soft natural light), colored cards as
backgrounds (I have tried in the past, but
unless you create hundreds of "artificial
backgrounds", all your photos will have
identical backgrounds! I prefer to create a
pleasing background using a long lens that
blurs the background), spray bottles filled
with water to create "artificial dew" (they
are not necessary...you just need to go out
in early morning and you will often find
bugs covered by dew; and if you don't find
dew...no problem! It is not necessary to
have always a subject covered by dew!).
Flash and macro
|
Water Drops - Canon EOS 20D, Sigma 180mm f/3.5 EX APO Macro HSM, 1/200 f/11,
iso 400, tripod, Canon 580 EX flash.
|
Sometimes, shooting in natural light is
not possible, or it does not give the
desired results. If you are photographing a
very active subject and you have not time to
set up the tripod, and you need some system
to freeze both your movements and the
subject movement. The solution is the flash.
The light of the flash is very, very
fast; it may last from 1/2,000 to 1/50,000,
and it allows freeze the motion, but you
have to use it as main light. In other
words, you have to exclude completely the
ambient light, otherwise you get a "ghost"
effect: the photo becomes a kind of double
exposure, with a sharp image of the subject
(created by the flash) and a blurred one
(created by ambient light). To use the flash
as main light, set the
camera in M mode, set the ISO on the lowest
value and stop down the aperture to f/11 or
f/16. To reduce the amount of natural light
that hits the sensor, choose the fastest
shutter speed that you can use with the
flash at full power (the x-sync speed, that
usually is 1/200 or 1/250).
To get an
uniform illumination, it is necessary to use
an off-shoe flash, and the Canon 580 EX II
or the Nikon SB900: the in-camera flash
usually gives harsh light and deep shadows.
Ideally, you should place two flash, one on
each side of the camera: one flash acts as
main light, the second one brighten up the
shadows created by the main flash. If this
setup is not possible, you can get good
results even with only one flash: place it
at an angle of nearly 30-45 degrees with the
subject.
A common problem of flash
photography is the black background. Since
the flash is set to expose properly the
subject, the background becomes
underexposed, and if the background is very
distant it might be so underexposed that it
becomes completely black. Someone like this
effect; personally, I don't like it - with
few exceptions - because in my opinion it
gives a "nocturne" and artificial look to
the images. There are mainly three ways to
avoid black background. You can try to frame
the subject against a close background, the
reduce the underexposure; you can frame it
against a naturally bright background (as a
grass field in direct sunlight); you can
direct a second or third flash on the
background to even the exposure.
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 is
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 desired results. Whenever possible,
try to 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 180mm - but the 180mm has a narrower
angle of view, so it frames a smaller
portion of background behind 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 subject 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 depth of field.
Of course,
the aperture does not influence just DOF -
it determines also the shutter speed.
Whenever possible, I try to use ISO 50 or
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 self timer; 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.
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, but it is difficult to
equal the beauty of soft, warm sunrise
light.
The first hours of
the morning and the light
|
Dragonfly -
Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III, Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L USM, 1/20
f/11, iso 800, tripod. Florida, USA.
|
The first hours of the morning are the
"magic moment" for macro photography.
Butterflies and other insects are
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 fly 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.
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.
A centered subject
gives a static composition. Usually, it is
better to leave more room in front of the
subject than behind.
You must never clip
the tips of wings, tails, flowers: the
composition should not be excessively tight.
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 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.
From left to right:
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 (for example a diagonal
stem) or implied (as 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.
It
is difficult to get the perfect composition
at your first try. Often, I take many photos
of the subject from different angles, and
when I am at home I watch them on my
computer and I choose the best one. Other
than that, it takes some time, and a lot of
practice, to develop a good eye for
composition! A good way to improve is to
watch the photos of skilled and
inspirational photographers; other than the
already mentioned Ronnie Gaubert and Fabio
Pupin, I highly recommend to visit the
website of my friend Daniela Pipitone (www.fotografainerba.com)- she
has a great eye, and many times when we go
take photos of the same subject I am amazed
by the compositions she finds. You never
cease to learn! :-)
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.
A comparison between
the same subject photographed with a
distracting background (left) and a pleasing
background (right).
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 300mm: 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 least
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!
|
|
