Macro question

I've seen some pictures of extreme microscopic macros of insects and
such around the intertubes and I was wondering if some nice person
could help me understand what it takes to take such a picture.

This is an example of what I'm referring to:

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/vi...=usercritiques

Thanks!

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 08:02:28 +0100, Luttrell wrote:

I've seen some pictures of extreme microscopic macros of insects and
such around the intertubes and I was wondering if some nice person could
help me understand what it takes to take such a picture.

This is an example of what I'm referring to:

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/vi...=usercritiques

As the exif data says, it was taken with Canon MP-E 65mm lens which has
1-5 times lifesize magnification capability. This is a specialist macro
lens for extreme macro (as opposed to microphotograph or photomicrograph
for which one uses a microscope). Almost always a macro-flash is needed
for this type of photography. But the main problem is to get really close
to the life subject. The minimum focusing distance (subject to
sensor/film) of this lens is 24cm,so actual working distance (subject to
front element) is about 10cm. Lots of patience and practice :-).

--
gautam

ImpressMe wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 18:39:47 GMT, Gautam Majumdar
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 08:02:28 +0100, Luttrell wrote:

I've seen some pictures of extreme microscopic macros of insects and
such around the intertubes and I was wondering if some nice person
could help me understand what it takes to take such a picture.

This is an example of what I'm referring to:

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/vi...=usercritiques

As the exif data says, it was taken with Canon MP-E 65mm lens which
has 1-5 times lifesize magnification capability. This is a
specialist macro lens for extreme macro (as opposed to
microphotograph or photomicrograph for which one uses a microscope).
Almost always a macro-flash is needed for this type of photography.
But the main problem is to get really close to the life subject. The
minimum focusing distance (subject to sensor/film) of this lens is
24cm,so actual working distance (subject to front element) is about
10cm. Lots of patience and practice :-).

Unfortunately people that use these techniques produce sterile and
unnatural imagery, no better than if staged in a lab or studio using
sedated or preserved specimens. Instead of having the patience to do
the painstaking work and methods required to use available-light
their images are destroyed by artificial-light sources because they
only know how to take the easy way out. What robs this
macro-photography of its natural appearance can be seen in the
artificial-light reflections in the droplet and eyes. They might just
as well have used some ray-tracing software to recreate this scene
artificially in the computer. Perhaps they did, you really can't
tell.

Many people seem to be impressed when they see such photos. I am not
one of those people. Quite the opposite in fact. I am left totally
unimpressed. Anyone can do photography like this. It's a simple
studio-flash lighting & lens formula photography, recreated by many
commonplace photographers who depend on auto-everything, on
ad-infinauseum.

Take instead these test-shot examples (market-quality photos not
available for net views), both taken with an SLCD (single-lens
digital camera) and handcrafted close-up lens, the main element from
a +10 diopter achromat salvaged from an old surplus 35mm camera's
zoom-lens.:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/118/2...fe8614d1_o.jpg

(The tiger-beetle being about the size of a large fly, ~13-14mm)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/105/2...0be90a9d_o.jpg

(Maidenhair-Fern's fiddlehead tendril.)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1067/...6b49f53b_o.jpg

(The sori approx. 2-3mm in dia.)

The beetle and sunlight backlit fern at about 1/2 the magnification
of the fly, the fiddlehead tendril at about the same magnification as
the fly. Both taken in their natural environment (out in the field,
as they say) with natural lighting. The differences between the
sterile and unnatural lab-lighting of the fly and natural-looking
become quite apparent.

If I see one more unnatural, sterile, and lifeless macro-photo
produced with ring-lights (the absolute worst lighting method ever
invented) or other flash arrangements (as in the duo-head macro-flash
used on the fly) I'd rather poke my own eyes out. 9 times out of 10
you can tell the exact make and model of flash-unit they used by the
image destroying artifacts, reflections, and highlights they leave
behind. They might just as well put the flash manufacturer's
water-mark over their whole image, it would destroy their photos just
as effectively.

I like the idea you have about poking your eyes out. I want to see that.

eg

"ImpressMe" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 08:02:28 +0100,
[...]
If I see one more unnatural, sterile, and lifeless macro-photo produced with
ring-lights (the absolute worst lighting method ever invented) or other flash
arrangements (as in the duo-head macro-flash used on the fly) I'd rather poke my
own eyes out. 9 times out of 10 you can tell the exact make and model of
flash-unit they used by the image destroying artifacts, reflections, and
highlights they leave behind. They might just as well put the flash
manufacturer's water-mark over their whole image, it would destroy their photos
just as effectively.

How 'bout this one (www.donferrario.com/ruether/200mm-as-macro.htm)?
3x magnification, hand-held, using one flash mounted at the end of the lens,
pointed at the subject area (for "soft-box effect"), TTL (no other way to do
this with tiny moving subjects at high magnification and still get good DOF
but to use flash or "drug" the subject...). I agree that dual or ring flashes
produce ugly results, though...
--
David Ruether

http://www.donferrario.com/ruether

On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 09:50:06 GMT, ImpressMe wrote:

If I see one more unnatural, sterile, and lifeless macro-photo produced with
ring-lights (the absolute worst lighting method ever invented) or other flash
arrangements (as in the duo-head macro-flash used on the fly) I'd rather poke
my own eyes out.

That would make it more difficult to take any more award winning
photos BaumBiddy, but it sounds like a plan. Keep on looking!

On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 06:36:21 -0400, Jonathan wrote:

I'd rather poke my own eyes out.
. . .
I like the idea you have about poking your eyes out. I want to see that.

There's not much to see. Sock puppets are quite expendable, and
another would soon take this one's place.

On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:16:51 GMT, ImpressMe wrote:

If I see one more unnatural, sterile, and lifeless macro-photo produced with
ring-lights (the absolute worst lighting method ever invented) or other flash
arrangements (as in the duo-head macro-flash used on the fly) I'd rather poke
my own eyes out.

That would make it more difficult to take any more award winning
photos BaumBiddy, but it sounds like a plan. Keep on looking!

Just another useless attention-whore troll for the filter.

While you're at it you can add to your filter the other sock
puppets in the all new :

**** CHDK / Photoline 32 / anti-DSLR Sock Puppet Troll List ****

Baumbadier, BigBrother, Brad M, Bucky, CharleiD, CoolGuy,
Craig Stevens, DaveB, DOCJohnson, D-Rexter, EdBancroft,
, Fed-Up-With-Corel, FixItMan, FrankLM,
GilfordBrimly, GnomeAlaska, GoKiting, Henry Hank, HokusPokus,
IdiotDetector, ImpressMe, JoeBS, Lurk, NameHere, NameThere,
New2_S3, , OTPolice, Rob Akins, RockyZ,
SayWhat, SelfImporantName, SelfImportantName, Soujourner,
spamless, TryinToHelp, WillyWonka and X-Man.


Bye.

Bye bye, Biddy. g

"ASAAR" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:16:51 GMT, ImpressMe wrote:

If I see one more unnatural, sterile, and lifeless macro-photo
produced with
ring-lights (the absolute worst lighting method ever invented) or
other flash
arrangements (as in the duo-head macro-flash used on the fly) I'd
rather poke
my own eyes out.

That would make it more difficult to take any more award winning
photos BaumBiddy, but it sounds like a plan. Keep on looking!

Just another useless attention-whore troll for the filter.

While you're at it you can add to your filter the other sock
puppets in the all new :

**** CHDK / Photoline 32 / anti-DSLR Sock Puppet Troll List ****

Baumbadier, BigBrother, Brad M, Bucky, CharleiD, CoolGuy,
Craig Stevens, DaveB, DOCJohnson, D-Rexter, EdBancroft,
, Fed-Up-With-Corel, FixItMan, FrankLM,
GilfordBrimly, GnomeAlaska, GoKiting, Henry Hank, HokusPokus,
IdiotDetector, ImpressMe, JoeBS, Lurk, NameHere, NameThere,
New2_S3, , OTPolice, Rob Akins, RockyZ,
SayWhat, SelfImporantName, SelfImportantName, Soujourner,
spamless, TryinToHelp, WillyWonka and X-Man.


Bye.

Bye bye, Biddy. g


I've noticed your wholly immature attention-seeking antics in this
group Asaar. The moment that you post anything even remotely helpful
to anyone I'm sure that all of UseNet will stand up and cheer at long
last. Good luck with that real life that you've never had and don't
know how to get.

As they say in the other groups that I sometimes visit,

plonk

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 06:15:28 GMT, the Gaile S. Sock Symp. wrote:

Bye bye, Biddy. g


I've noticed your wholly immature attention-seeking antics in this
group Asaar. The moment that you post anything even remotely helpful
to anyone I'm sure that all of UseNet will stand up and cheer at long
last. Good luck with that real life that you've never had and don't
know how to get.

The Sock Puppet Troll list is only one of the many helpful things
I do here. This isn't the first time that one who appears to have
never posted before in this newsgroup suddenly materialized to show
support for their sock puppet brethren, using essentially the same
language.


As they say in the other groups that I sometimes visit,

plonk

Nah, you'll eventually be back with the same sort of reply. Just
with a new name. Give my regards to Biddy. Or rather, I should
say, shake hands with yourself.