Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nonmacro macro  (Read 1657 times)
sdwilsonsct
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724


« on: July 29, 2013, 10:21:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Something that has puzzled me for a while is how to make an interesting image of a small (10 cm high) plant, along with its habitat.

I see lots of this type of image (a subject in context) for big stuff like trees in fields, models on beaches, people on the street, etc, but not so many for small subjects.

Here I used a 100 mm lens, shallow depth of field and lots of time trying to find a composition. I have a square crop that is ok but not very different.

I guess a macro lens would make the subject bigger, but they seem to have rather long focal lengths. I gather there's no such thing as a 24 mm macro.

Any suggestions? Thanks!
« Last Edit: July 29, 2013, 11:38:20 AM by sdwilsonsct » Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3911


« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2013, 02:07:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I guess a macro lens would make the subject bigger, but they seem to have rather long focal lengths. I gather there's no such thing as a 24 mm macro.

Any suggestions? Thanks!

Hi Scott,

A macro lens only makes things bigger because it allows to focus from much closer. They often have normal to longer focal lengths, because those are easier to optically correct (also for flatness of field, in case reproductions are the goal), and because that leaves some working space in front of the lens (also useful for more frontal lighting).

I've found that the Canon TS-E 24mm II also allows to be used very close-up and personal (although leaving very little working space). The interesting thing about a wide-angle macro lens is that it allows to show a subject in its natural surroundings. The short focal length forces to shoot from a short distance to get enough magnification of the main subject, and it also has the effect to shrink the size of background features and the larger DOF retains some more background detail instead of total blur. The Tilt functionality is obviously very useful to gain more control over placement of the plane of optimal focus.

Attached 4 small examples, just a test to show the effect and detail/DOF. First an overview that shows how much context can be given to a subject and a crop of the in-focus detail. Next an example of the addition of tilt, and an animated example of the level of detail versus background blur at f/11 and f/16 (which loses some detail to diffraction).

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: July 29, 2013, 02:10:23 PM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
sdwilsonsct
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724


« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2013, 01:16:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Many thanks, Bart. I need to spend some more time seeing how close I can get with my wide t/s lens. Indoors is a good place to start investigations. I have some matchboxes. Smiley

I did try the wide lens on this subject, but it seemed to produce too much of the midground rock in this particular case. But every case is different.
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3911


« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2013, 02:35:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Many thanks, Bart. I need to spend some more time seeing how close I can get with my wide t/s lens. Indoors is a good place to start investigations. I have some matchboxes. Smiley

Hi Scott,

Always handy, as they don't scratch the front lens surface when you bump into the subject at close distance Wink .

Quote
I did try the wide lens on this subject, but it seemed to produce too much of the midground rock in this particular case. But every case is different.

Indeed, it exaggerates perspective because a subject in the center of image is so close and the rest of the world is relatively far away, but still in somewhat of a recognizable focus. Also the subjects at the edge can seem to be apparently stretched, due to projection distortion on a flat sensor plane, but that can help some subjects to draw the attention towards the more central features. Like all lens choices, one has to be selective and 'match' it with the subject.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5807



WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 30, 2013, 03:46:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Scott - have you considered either macro lenses (filters) or extension tubes for your existing 100mm lens?

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
sdwilsonsct
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724


« Reply #5 on: July 30, 2013, 06:01:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Scott - have you considered either macro lenses (filters) or extension tubes for your existing 100mm lens?

Mike.

Hi Mike,

Hmmm... this might work: thank you. The lens is a 24-105 mm zoom. The manual says an extension tube will decrease the minimum focusing distance from 450 to 177 mm at 24 mm focal length.

Anyone tried this? Extension tubes on wide-angle lenses? I know the last time I looked into it there are limits, but going from 450 to 177 mm sounds good.
Logged

framah
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1224



« Reply #6 on: July 31, 2013, 08:50:10 AM »
ReplyReply

How about using a tele photo lens and zoom in on it. Step back about 8 to 10 feet and then fill the lens with the flower. I've done that often when shooting mushrooms.
Logged

"It took a  lifetime of suffering and personal sacrifice to develop my keen aesthetic sense."
Rand47
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 585


« Reply #7 on: July 31, 2013, 04:56:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Any suggestions? Thanks!

Yup!  Leave it alone... lovely image.  The context provided by the framing emphasizes the little flower's tenuous grasp on existence.

Rand
Logged
sdwilsonsct
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724


« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2013, 03:01:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Framah -- yes, that's where I was headed with the posted example shot at around 100 mm. Guess I can try longer as the scene dictates.

Rand: thanks!!
Logged

pluton
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 84


« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2013, 11:38:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Sometimes you can find a wide angle prime lens that focuses unusually close;  the Nikon 28mm/2.8 Ais comes to mind.
Front supplementary plus diopter lenses generally are weak with wide lenses, and tend to wipe out sharpness at the sides of the frame, even with the prime lens stopped down.
Extension tubes work with wide angle prime lenses fairly reliably, but with one caveat: the wider the lens, the thinner the extension tube is required.  When you get  down to 28/24/20mm, the required extension often becomes smaller than any available tube. 
Zooms add an additional issue:  extending a zoom throws off the calculations the designers made to keep zoom and focus controlled, and the result can be a situation where you end up using the zoom ring to set focus...crazy, eh? 
As has been mentioned , the 24mm tilt shift lenses, from both Canon and Nikon(and Samyang?) focus exceptionally close.
Logged
graeme
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 288


« Reply #10 on: August 02, 2013, 09:13:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Yup!  Leave it alone... lovely image.  The context provided by the framing emphasizes the little flower's tenuous grasp on existence.

Rand

+1
Logged
sdwilsonsct
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724


« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2013, 01:48:12 AM »
ReplyReply

As has been mentioned , the 24mm tilt shift lenses, from both Canon and Nikon(and Samyang?) focus exceptionally close.

Yes, this has its place. Here's one from the weekend taken with a 17 mm t-s. I'm reasonably happy with the "plant in its context" result.

And thanks, Graeme.
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3911


« Reply #12 on: August 05, 2013, 05:39:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, this has its place. Here's one from the weekend taken with a 17 mm t-s. I'm reasonably happy with the "plant in its context" result.

Hi Scott,

That's a good example. The main object has prominent magnification, and the angle-of-view and Depth of Field pull in a lot of information about the surroundings.

It must have been scary though, getting so close (~5 inches? at minimum focusing distance) to the subject with the protruding front lens surface ..., although you shot this one from a bit further away, it seems.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad