How to shoot sharp handheld macro/close-ups...

[Spiritmist]

Hi All,

Just thought I'd try to contribute a little by sharing a very effective method for shooting macros and close-ups without a tripod.

I never shoot close-ups/macros of living things with a tripod as I find it too cumbersome, and too likely to startle some of my subjects. But if you have an external ttl flash, you can take wonderful close-up/macro shots *handheld*. Here's how...

You need to get your light onto your subject (obviously). You can use ring flash, twin lights, bouncers, etc to do that. I often use just a Lumiquest pocket bouncer to bounce light down in front of the lens. Now here's what you do- set the camera to manual. Set it to a nice small aperture for good depth of field. Since the camera has TTL metering, you can set your shutter speed to *whatever you want* and still take a great shot. By setting a very short shutter speed, you pretty much guarantee that you will have no blur due to camera shake. Additionally, very short shutter speeds will not allow enough time to "soak up" background light, so all of the light illuminating the scene will be flash light. This is a great way to blacken distracting backgrounds. If you *want* the background visible, simply give your shot a longer shutter time.

Here are a few examples illustrating shots with shutter speeds short enough to turn distracting backgrounds to black:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/spiritmist/Brian_G_Digital_Image_Gallery/images/image088.jpg
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/spiritmist/redrat.jpg
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/spiritmist/whognose2.jpg

And here's an example of using a short enough shutter speed to get your subject sharp, but long enough to give some background:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/spiritmist/Brian_G_Digital_Image_Gallery/images/image109.jpg

Also, if you are using a bouncer for this, one very nice benefit is that sometimes you can make a close working distance work for you- by getting in very close, you can actually bouce light *behind your subject*, which gives a very nice backlighting/translighting to subjects like snow corns, light amels and other more translucent subjects.

Finally, if bouncing the light straight down, it's always a good idea to get something below your subject to use as a reflector. In a pinch, a piece of while paper works just fine for this.

Hope this has been helpful for some. :)

Kind Regards,
Brian

[PssdffJay]

Thats awesome! Wish I had that kinda money for a camera and lights and stuff though... :cry:
I will try and see what i can do in the manual settings of my point and shoot though.

[Traci1]

those are lovely pictures, may I ask please what type of camera you were using?

[Spiritmist]

Thank you Traci and Pssdffj,

I'm glad you enjoyed the post. You've reminded me of a point I had forgotten to bring up earlier. Although I shoot primarily with Canon dSLRs (most often the 20D) and good lenses, the truth is that shots like those I posted can be made with any camera that has a manual setting an allows for an external flash with ttl flash metering. You do not need to spend lots of money. Even the bouncer I mentioned for directing the flash light costs less than $15.00. In fact, because I had meant to make that point, all of the shots I had posted above were taken with so-called point and shoots (I actually dislike that term, since they all had full manual control and can be used more thoughtfully. I prefer calling them "fixed-lens digicams".)

Traci- to answer your question directly- those shots were taken with an Olympus C750 and an Oly 8080, if I remember correctly.

As an aside- the small-sensored digicams have one very great advantage for close-up/macro work over their larger-sensored SLR cousins: greater depth of field. Although this is often seen as a disadvantage compared to the dSLRs (since it makes subject isolation more difficult), it can come in very handy for higher magnification shooting.

Kind Regards,
Brian

[Joejr14]

As an aside- the small-sensored digicams have one very great advantage for close-up/macro work over their larger-sensored SLR cousins: greater depth of field. Although this is often seen as a disadvantage compared to the dSLRs (since it makes subject isolation more difficult), it can come in very handy for higher magnification shooting.

Kind Regards,
Brian

So a digital camera is going to give me better macro shots/depth of field then going into A mode and cranking the f/stop up to 36?

[jzal8]

that first shot is fantastic..i wish i had those fance light bouncers and such to make my shots better...however you comments on shutter speed were very valuable and i think i'll begin playing around with it to see if it helps me at all. thanks for this post.

[Menhir]

So a digital camera is going to give me better macro shots/depth of field then going into A mode and cranking the f/stop up to 36?

No.
But that's not what he was saying.

[Hurley]

LOL, fun with depth of field. Some early shots of non-moving things while I was playing with my camera's settings...


Aperature as dilated as it goes...

http://serpwidgets.com/freepics/Hurley/2006/01/Short.jpg

Aperature as constricted as it goes...

http://serpwidgets.com/freepics/Hurley/2006/01/Long.jpg


And yes, I'm feeling the Large sensor = less depth of field while learning this camera (Canon Rebel XT) vs. the other camera (Fuji Finepix 3800). That is something I'm going to have to get used to and I'll have to get my "favorite settings" figured out.

[Spiritmist]

Hi Joe,

So a digital camera is going to give me better macro shots/depth of field then going into A mode and cranking the f/stop up to 36?

It's not possible to answer your question directly unless I know exactly what two cameras we are comparing. The easiest way to find equivalent apertures among different camera systems is to compare each to 35mm apertures. To do this for any digital camera, first divide the 35mm equivalent focal length by actual focal length to get the equivalence factor. Then simply multiply your aperture value by that factor to get your 35mm equivalent. (or, if you are using an digital SLR with less than a full-frame sensor, you simply multiply your aperture by the "crop factor" of the digital SLR (it's the same really- both are taking into account the fact that the imaging sensor is smaller than a frame of 35mm film).

How about an example? What if we wanted to get equivalent apertures for a Panasonic FZ20 digicam, a Nikon d70 digital SLR and a Canon Elan 35mm film camera.

For the FZ20, the actual lens focal length ranges from 6-72mm, with a 35mm equivalent of 36-432mm. As I wrote, we divide 35mm equivalent focal length by actual focal length to get the factor you need to determine equivalent apertures. So in this case, 36/6 (or 432/72) = 6. Now all you do is multiply your FZ20 aperture number by 6. For example f/2.8 on the FZ20 is closest to f/16 on a 35mm camera system.

What about the Nikon? Nikon's D70 has a 1.5x "crop factor". Therefore, f.2.8 on a D70 is closet to f/4 on a 35mm system.

To get back to your original question, f/36 on a 35mm system would be equivalent to f/6 on that Panasonic FZ20 I used as an example. So if you went to an aperture smaller than that, then yes- you could get greater DOF than using your f/36 on the other system.

It should also be noted, however, that if you are going for the sharpest possible image, you really don't want to stop down that much as diffraction effects will erode image quality. On the 1.5x and 1.6c dSLRS, diffraction effects become noticable after about f/16. And the reason few small-sensored digital cameras have apertures smaller than f/8 is simply because the physical opening through which light passes is already so small at f/8 in these cams that they are already diffraction limited at that aperture.

I hope this has been helpful and not confusing.

Kind Regards,
Brian

[Menhir]

Thanks Brian,

I tried it several times to explain some photography things, but my english seems too bad to create good explanations.

One thing to add - a novice or someone that doesn't want to spend lot's of time with photography theories will find it way more easy to get good Macros (at a limited range of corse) with a prosumer Digicam than with a DSLR. The "good" thing with a higher depth of field is the possibility to isolate objects afterwards by the photo software. The other way round is much harder and so you need much more experience in what you are doing. Experience, that you do not buy together with a DSLR body.

But hey - the more often I say, that a prosumer camera is a good choice for people that do not want to spend lot's of money in lenses and lot's time in photography theorie, the louder the people scream that have a DSLR and can distingush wether a photo was taken by a DSLR and which was taken by a prosumer, because of the significant difference in quality...

:santa:

[Spiritmist]

First off- thanks to everyone who's responded in the thread. I'm glad some have found it useful. :)

Thanks Brian,

But hey - the more often I say, that a prosumer camera is a good choice for people that do not want to spend lot's of money in lenses and lot's time in photography theorie, the louder the people scream that have a DSLR and can distingush wether a photo was taken by a DSLR and which was taken by a prosumer, because of the significant difference in quality...
:santa:

Yes...I think people often want to be able to justify their expensive purchases. I photograph semi-professionally (gallery exhibits/fine art sales as an on-the-side thing) and I've shown images from a 20D that people had sworn had to be medium-format, and images from a lowly S30, for example, that people swore had to be 35mm.

It is definitely true that SLRs are more versatile, and have higher image quality. But it is not always *relevant* for any given image. High-ISO? go dSLR. Less chroma and luminance noise? dSLR again. Large prints? dSLR. Low light shooting? dSLR still. Fast-action shooting? Yep- dSLR again. But the interesting thing is that so many people I know purchase dSLRs and have no intention of ever shooting above ISO100 or printing anything larger than an 8"x10". In fact, I know many people these days who do not print at all, preferring to view on their monitors instead. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but you are correct- for many people, a fixed lens digicam would actually be preferable.

Ultimately, as long as people are happy with what they have, I guess that's really all that's important. :)

Kind Regards,
Brian

[Menhir]

It is definitely true that SLRs are more versatile, and have higher image quality. But it is not always *relevant* for any given image. High-ISO? go dSLR. Less chroma and luminance noise? dSLR again. Large prints? dSLR. Low light shooting? dSLR still. Fast-action shooting? Yep- dSLR again.


Definetly! But - the newer the prosumer camera is, the more you will be able to also fit these situations. I think that about 90% of the "normal job" can be done by a prosumer camera. The other 10% need special possibilities, that a normal prosumer cam doesn't have. I think it's important to explain people, that it's only a low percentage of situations were they can't use their prosumer and that on the other hand, the DSLR won't solve these problems without the user having the right knowledge.

That's why I appreciate your thread, cause it explains how to manage a situation without saying "get a better camera". The better you learn to know what you want to photograph and the more you know about the right techniques, the more you'll be able to decide what you really need.

Greetings
Michael

P.S.: The picture of the gecko was taken with a Sony DSC-S70 (bought in 2000) with the worst AF on earth. The gecko has a body size of 4cm or about 1.5 inch.

http://www.kornnatterlexikon.de/menhir/photos/Geckos/poster_gecko.jpg

[PssdffJay]

WOW! Thats an awesome picture!

[jennrosefx]

Ha. I feel like such an idiot. I bought myself a Nikon D50 a few months back...knowing nothing really about photography, but really wanting to learn and be able to take up close and macro shots. I read your posts...and since they were mostly greek to me, have decided I need to find myself an intro to photography class...or two...or three...LOL.

[Spiritmist]

Hello Jenn,

Ha. I feel like such an idiot. I bought myself a Nikon D50 a few months back...knowing nothing really about photography, but really wanting to learn and be able to take up close and macro shots. I read your posts...and since they were mostly greek to me, have decided I need to find myself an intro to photography class...or two...or three...LOL.

:) No need to feel that way- we were all beginners at one point, right? Whether you take a class, read a book or just decide to learn by doing, make sure you remember to have fun with it. The truth is, there is not a lot of technical knowledge that is *required* to be able to shoot good pictures. It's the artistic side that tends to trip people up. I would highly suggest learning about composition also, and spend *at least* as much time on that as you do on any technical issues.

Just my two cents. Best of luck in your endeavors!

Kind Regards,
Brian