Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Camera mounted light for macro
Page <<first <prev 4 of 4
Apr 10, 2020 21:05:05   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
Ed Commons wrote:
Many years ago when I first started playing around with macro, I purchased a ring light that mounts on the front of the lens. This provides an even, shadow less light and I can adjust the intensity of the light. I still use my 55mm Nikkor Macro, although now in manual mode, since I have now switched to digital cameras.


You want shadows with flowers. Shadowless is great for stamps documents. Anything with texture is best shot with light that provides shadows. Large diffusers like the Rogue Flashbenders will give you flatteringly soft shadows.

Howard Pyle was a late 1800s artist and teacher who was very insightful and creative when it came to lighting. My favorite quote is "Paint your picture by means of the lights. Lights define texture and color – shadows define form." and with just a little creativity you can apply the same principles to photography.

https://www.pototschnik.com/howard-pyles-teachings/

Reply
Apr 10, 2020 21:07:10   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
Exactly! there have been many suggestions regarding lighting equipment but very little about LIGHTING TECHNIQUE.

On camera lighting, flash or LED will usually produce FLAT lighting because the light source is striking the subject from the same angle as the lens so that DIRECTION of light does not yield light and shadow so there is a lack of modeling, texture, and dimensionality. A RING LIGHT is even FLATTER because the light source is coaxial to the lens.

Flat light, however, has a function as a FILL LIGHT source which is used in conjunction with a directional natural light source (sunlight, diffused daylight, hazy skylight, open shade, etc.) or another off-camera light
The Speedlight or LED source where the off-camera light becomes the main light that produces modeling. The flat of fill lig is set a weaker output so it does not overpower the main source.

Modifying the lig with commercially available or improvised accessories is to soften, spread, or diffuse the light but will not necessarily change the DIRECTION of the light unless it is bounced for an off-camera surface.

The ring light was originally designed for a special light technique where shadows would be detrimental to the image. Coaxial light is needed for photography subjects lie printed circuit boards, surgical fields, intraoral (dentistry) photography and certain kids of forensic or evidence photography where shadows cast from one component or detail in the subject would obscure important details. There are specialized ring lights with multiple flash tubes whereby half the tunes can be shut off enabling better modeling fr a coaxial source.

If you are shoot flower out-of-doors, in a greenhouse, or with window lighting, fill light can be supplied by an on-camera Speedlight or a simple reflector to serve as a fill source. If you are working indoors and are depending on your flash or LED system to supply adequate light for exposure and good aesthetics, a 2-light system is recommended. If you need the system to be attached to the camera, there are some specialized units with 2 heads.

To achieve good modeling, texture, and dimensionality, the main direction of light, whatever source is used, should be anywhere from 20 to 135 degrees off the camera/subject axis- this would be difficult to achieve with the mounted atop the camera. Funny thing is, even that complex "system" with all those light shown in another post pretty much all FLAT lighting. Quantity does not necessarily yield quality.

Before investing in any gear do a little experiment. Take a flower out in the sunlight in the morning or late in the afternoon and move it around so that the sunlight strikes it from various angles and observe the effect. Sometimes the lig for the back will transilluminate leaves and petals. A slightly flatter angle will illuminate the insides of flowers. When you get the FEELING of the light you will be able to replicate the effect with flash or LED lights. In natural light, a simple reflector made of cardboard and aluminum foil can yield excellent results.
Exactly! there have been many suggestions regardi... (show quote)



Reply
Apr 10, 2020 21:07:57   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
augieg27 wrote:
I use a Sigma 105mm macro with a Neewer macro ring light
Settings: manual, f/22, 200 shutter speed and 100 ISO, which gives me an isolated black background unless
I place a different background.
No need for diffusers, etc.


Please post a sample . . .

Reply
 
 
Apr 10, 2020 21:43:31   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
Gene51 wrote:
Thanks!

Sorry for the double post - it happens sometimes. I find that simple lighting often produces the most dramatic images, and careful placement will reveal textures and contours that are difficult to achieve with other lighting approaches.

Incidentally, these were shot hand held, in the field, either at Longwood Gardens or NY Botanical Gardens, with a speed light using a DIY reflector/diffuser held about 12"-14" from the flower. Using a high shutter speed minimized ambient light intrusion, carefully angling the light minimized light spill on the background, and using lower power (1/16) on the speedlight minimized any camera movement - the length of the burst was about 1/15000 second. I use a Yongnuo simple flash trigger, and an old Sunpak speedlight used in manual mode (buy these on eBay - and I pay anywhere from $5 to $25 for them). It works great for crowded indoor flower displays, where there are a gazillion people likely to get in your way. It never fails - I take this stuff out, and people watch, some open-mouthed, as I hold the light where I want it, focus, compose and shoot - it never takes me more than 10 secs to set up and snap the shutter. Then I move on. I encounter people with tripods, ringlights, assistants, etc that I am certain will try what I do the next time they go out.

I am frugal at heart, so I usually go the DIY route when it comes to stuff like this. But if you want to get similar results and not go DIY, you can purchase a Better Bounce Card the biggest size he offers, or a Rogue Flash Bender XL.

https://petergregg.com/a-better-bounce-card-flash-diffuser/
https://rogueflash.com/collections/rogue-flashbenders

Both of these will provide a nice, large reflective surface for smooth even lighting.

Lighting on axis with the lens and sensor is a newbie move, IMHO.

Keeping it simple and light has its benefits!
Thanks! br br Sorry for the double post - it happ... (show quote)


Great pointers Gene - thank you!

Reply
Apr 10, 2020 22:12:25   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
TriX wrote:
Great pointers Gene - thank you!


My pleasure to share!

Reply
Apr 11, 2020 12:02:25   #
haze63 Loc: Tiffin Ohio
 
Great site thank you for sharing!!

Reply
Apr 11, 2020 12:34:25   #
haze63 Loc: Tiffin Ohio
 
bleirer wrote:
Here is a nice article with lots of Macro calculators. To use extension you take the extension length in mm and divide by the lens focal length, then add back any native magnification the lens originally had. So to use a 200mm lens at 1:1 magnification you need 200 mm of extension. Thats going on 8 inches. This will make the aperture 2 stops darker. So a ring flash can be useful.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-extension-tubes-closeup.htm
Here is a nice article with lots of Macro calculat... (show quote)


Great site's thank you for sharing!!!

Reply
 
 
Apr 11, 2020 23:55:30   #
amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
 
lsaguy wrote:
I've done a bit of research on doing macro photography and I'm looking for recommendations for camera mounted lights. Prefer something I can get used from KEH if possible.
So far I have the following (or coming in the mail);
Camera; Nikon D300
Lenses; 135 f3.5 and 200 f3.8 (both in M42 mount with adapter for the D300) I was looking at buying either an 85 mm or 105mm with macro capability but I was surprised to find that Ken Rockwell recommends a 200mm for macro. With that in mind I figured I could start with the two thrift store lenses I already own and use an extension bellows (had an extension ring get stuck on my Pentax and shied away from them, hence the bellows)
Extension bellows (coming)
Tripod

Most of what I want to do right off is get some good pics of my wife's amaryllis flowers and her other plants. the image attached was taken with my 55-200 Nikon w/VR hand held.
I've done a bit of research on doing macro photogr... (show quote)


First of all, learn to ignore much of what Ken Rockwell says... He's wrong almost as often as he's right. The difficulty is determining when he's right and when he's wrong. 200mm may be HIS choice of macro lens, but it's more difficult to use, renders a shallower depth of field and is more susceptible to shake blur... Plus, when used on an APS-C crop camera like yours, 200mm is even more difficult to get a steady shot and the Micro Nikkor 200mm doesn't have image stabilization... Not that stabilization helps a great deal at higher magnification. Still, it can be helpful when working at lower magnifications, such as you'll be using for most flowers.

With Ken R., I also sense a bit of snobbery since the Nikkor 200mm is by far their most expensive macro lens (putting aside the PC lenses with macro capabilities). In fact it's one of the most expensive anyone makes. The 200mm, which is one of the few "D" lenses Nikon still makes (i..e, it doesn't have built in focus motor, so requires D7000-series or higher camera body to be able to autofocus), costs around twice what the excellent Micro-Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/2.8 VR does. That 105mm (or 100mm or 90mm) is a better choice. Even 60mm or 70mm might be an alternative if a more compact lens is wanted.

Amaryllis hardly need a macro lens... Even though I used my Canon EF 100mm Macro for this one:



...unless you're shooting tight details within flowers:



Still, a macro lens can be a great deal of fun. And it will work well for more than just macro shots:




And it will give you the option to shoot small details if you wish:




At around $400 or less, one of the "most affordable" macro lenses is the Tokina AT-X 100mm f/2.8... but in the Nikon version it's a "D" type lens (see above...no built in focusing motor, so it would be manual focus only on D3000-series or D5000-series cameras... able to AF on a D300 though). Also, Tokina uses an unusual "focus clutch" mechanism in their lenses. The entire focus ring is slid forward or backward to engage or disengage autofocus. When it's set to AF, the focus ring doesn't do anything when rotated. This is done to protect the micro motor focus drive they use from damage when it's overridden by manual focus. It forces you to shift the lens into MF mode first.

On the bright side, this might not matter to many macro shooters who prefer to only use manual focus anyway. They can simply shift the lens to MF and are all set. But it can be a problem for shooters wanting to use AF, but also needing to "tweak" or fine tune focus manually. Can't do that on a Tokina lens... you have to first shift it to MF.

Nikon AF-S & AF-P, Canon USM & STM, Sigma HSM, Tamron USD and many other lenses allow "full time manual override" of autofocus, without having to turn off AF and with no risk of any damage being done to the lens' focusing mechanism. This allows for quick, easy manual fine tuning of focus that's often needed with macro... As well as quick de-focus/re-focus technique with AF.... and possibly some other things that simply can't be done with the Tokina lenses. There is a new Tokina ATXi 100mm f/2.8... but it appears to be identical to the AT-X version, aside from some cosmetic changes.

The Sigma 105mm f/2.8 OS HSM lens is a virtual copy of the Micro-Nikkor 105mm..... That Sigma used to be more expensive too. But has been on sale lately, discounted to around $450, which is less than half it's previous price!

There are two different Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro lenses... a more affordable one (around $500) with a slower micro motor focus drive and a more expensive one (around $650) with faster ultrasonic focus and image stabilization. The lower prices lens also isn't internal focusing (neither are the Tokina 100mm lenses). This means it grows in length considerably as the lens is focus closer. that reduces available working space between the front of the lens and your subject. It can be as little as 4 or 5" at full 1:1 magnification, with lenses in the 90mm, 100mm and 105mm focal lengths. The pricier Tamron, the Nikkor 105mm and the Sigma 105mm are all IF or "internal focusing" lenses that don't increase in length when focused to their closest.

There also is a nice Tamron SP 60mm f/2 Macro that's crop-only and would be fine on your camera. It's a full stop faster (f/2) than most macro lenses. That makes it nicer for portraiture too. Around $500, it doesn't have image stabilization and uses a micro motor focus drive that's fine for macro and protraits, but not an "action" lens. It is an IF lens, which is good since a shorter focal length like this naturally has less working distance at it's highest magnification.

There's a Sigma 70mm f/2.8 Macro, too. It's relatively new and am not all that familiar with it. I know they made one some years ago, so apparently have decided to bring it back again.

Nikon themselves makes a number of different macro lenses (they call them "Micro", though). They are reportedly mostly quite good, but I can't say from experience because I use a different system. I'd encourage looking at 90mm, 100mm, 105mm primarily.... maybe 60mm or 70mm, if you want a somewhat more compact lens and don't plan to sneak up on shy insects.

Reply
Apr 12, 2020 17:14:50   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
amfoto1 wrote:
First of all, learn to ignore much of what Ken Rockwell says... He's wrong almost as often as he's right. The difficulty is determining when he's right and when he's wrong. 200mm may be HIS choice of macro lens, but it's more difficult to use, renders a shallower depth of field and is more susceptible to shake blur... Plus, when used on an APS-C crop camera like yours, 200mm is even more difficult to get a steady shot and the Micro Nikkor 200mm doesn't have image stabilization... Not that stabilization helps a great deal at higher magnification. Still, it can be helpful when working at lower magnifications, such as you'll be using for most flowers.

With Ken R., I also sense a bit of snobbery since the Nikkor 200mm is by far their most expensive macro lens (putting aside the PC lenses with macro capabilities). In fact it's one of the most expensive anyone makes. The 200mm, which is one of the few "D" lenses Nikon still makes (i..e, it doesn't have built in focus motor, so requires D7000-series or higher camera body to be able to autofocus), costs around twice what the excellent Micro-Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/2.8 VR does. That 105mm (or 100mm or 90mm) is a better choice. Even 60mm or 70mm might be an alternative if a more compact lens is wanted.

Amaryllis hardly need a macro lens... Even though I used my Canon EF 100mm Macro for this one:



...unless you're shooting tight details within flowers:



Still, a macro lens can be a great deal of fun. And it will work well for more than just macro shots:




And it will give you the option to shoot small details if you wish:




At around $400 or less, one of the "most affordable" macro lenses is the Tokina AT-X 100mm f/2.8... but in the Nikon version it's a "D" type lens (see above...no built in focusing motor, so it would be manual focus only on D3000-series or D5000-series cameras... able to AF on a D300 though). Also, Tokina uses an unusual "focus clutch" mechanism in their lenses. The entire focus ring is slid forward or backward to engage or disengage autofocus. When it's set to AF, the focus ring doesn't do anything when rotated. This is done to protect the micro motor focus drive they use from damage when it's overridden by manual focus. It forces you to shift the lens into MF mode first.

On the bright side, this might not matter to many macro shooters who prefer to only use manual focus anyway. They can simply shift the lens to MF and are all set. But it can be a problem for shooters wanting to use AF, but also needing to "tweak" or fine tune focus manually. Can't do that on a Tokina lens... you have to first shift it to MF.

Nikon AF-S & AF-P, Canon USM & STM, Sigma HSM, Tamron USD and many other lenses allow "full time manual override" of autofocus, without having to turn off AF and with no risk of any damage being done to the lens' focusing mechanism. This allows for quick, easy manual fine tuning of focus that's often needed with macro... As well as quick de-focus/re-focus technique with AF.... and possibly some other things that simply can't be done with the Tokina lenses. There is a new Tokina ATXi 100mm f/2.8... but it appears to be identical to the AT-X version, aside from some cosmetic changes.

The Sigma 105mm f/2.8 OS HSM lens is a virtual copy of the Micro-Nikkor 105mm..... That Sigma used to be more expensive too. But has been on sale lately, discounted to around $450, which is less than half it's previous price!

There are two different Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro lenses... a more affordable one (around $500) with a slower micro motor focus drive and a more expensive one (around $650) with faster ultrasonic focus and image stabilization. The lower prices lens also isn't internal focusing (neither are the Tokina 100mm lenses). This means it grows in length considerably as the lens is focus closer. that reduces available working space between the front of the lens and your subject. It can be as little as 4 or 5" at full 1:1 magnification, with lenses in the 90mm, 100mm and 105mm focal lengths. The pricier Tamron, the Nikkor 105mm and the Sigma 105mm are all IF or "internal focusing" lenses that don't increase in length when focused to their closest.

There also is a nice Tamron SP 60mm f/2 Macro that's crop-only and would be fine on your camera. It's a full stop faster (f/2) than most macro lenses. That makes it nicer for portraiture too. Around $500, it doesn't have image stabilization and uses a micro motor focus drive that's fine for macro and protraits, but not an "action" lens. It is an IF lens, which is good since a shorter focal length like this naturally has less working distance at it's highest magnification.

There's a Sigma 70mm f/2.8 Macro, too. It's relatively new and am not all that familiar with it. I know they made one some years ago, so apparently have decided to bring it back again.

Nikon themselves makes a number of different macro lenses (they call them "Micro", though). They are reportedly mostly quite good, but I can't say from experience because I use a different system. I'd encourage looking at 90mm, 100mm, 105mm primarily.... maybe 60mm or 70mm, if you want a somewhat more compact lens and don't plan to sneak up on shy insects.
First of all, learn to ignore much of what Ken Roc... (show quote)


I agree most of the time with what you say, but your first paragraph sounds like you are trying to outdo KR.

Depth of field has nothing to do with focal length. It is all about magnification and distance from subject to sensor. At 1:1 a 200mm lens will have the same depth of field as a 60mm lens. The difference will be the focus distance, or the more commonly used working distance.

The same goes for shake - at the same magnification, you will have the same amount of shake.

A cropped sensor will give you an "effective" 300mm, with an effective higher magnifcation. If you increase the distance to the subject to approximate the same composition and framing, there will be no more shake with a 300mm used at a 1:1 magnification as there would be using a 100mm lens.

Otherwise the pictures are oustanding as always, and your comments on the other gear are excellent - also as usual!

Reply
Apr 13, 2020 10:45:17   #
dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia
 
rmalarz wrote:
No, I'm sure he means beach. Those are the ones you can find on the beach after a large party. Why do you think he alluded to no cost other than time. It takes a few minutes to find just the right bottle.
--Bob


And a trip to the Beach! Have you priced out beach parking lately? EXPENSIVE!!!

Reply
Apr 15, 2020 02:17:32   #
Ephstarp Loc: Coventry, RI
 
Use a ring light for the
best lighting. You are on top of the subject and need light from all around.

Reply
 
 
Apr 15, 2020 03:25:43   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
Ephstarp wrote:
Use a ring light for the
best lighting. You are on top of the subject and need light from all around.


Flat and harsh, but well-lit. May not be ideal for many subjects.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 4
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.