Macro Shots for C+C

Nebezpeci Mys

Hi guys,

I recently got a Canon 100mm and had a 3rd go at macro with it today. Can't help but think I'm doing something wrong - I'm not too happy about the shots, but can't really say why. C+C very welcome and any useful suggestions/tips appreciated.

P.S. No snails were hurt during the shoot; model was released to the area where he originally came from.

Borderfox

With the 100mm macro even at f4-f5.6 the depth of field with be very narrow when you approach 1:1 size so open it out more and use some artificial light source.

They are nice shots for test ones, what exactly are you not happy about?

oshead

Borderfox wrote: »

With the 100mm macro even at f4-f5.6 the depth of field with be very narrow when you approach 1:1 size so open it out more and use some artificial light source.

They are nice shots for test ones, what exactly are you not happy about?

I was thinking exactly the same thing. I like them. The only problem is the DoF. Drop your aperture down to about f16 and move back slightly. Take those two measures and you will get the DoF you need. Also, If you get the eyes in focus the rest will take care of itself.

Nebezpeci Mys

Thanks a million, guys. Appreciate your feedback..... I don't really know what exactly it is that makes me look at the shots and think it's not what I wanted to get. Perhaps I expect to be able to come really REALLY close to the subject and get brilliant shots straight away. But as I said, the snail was my 3rd attempt and the previous 2 were quite disastrous.

redto

id be happy if i could get those shots.

As its c +c my few cents worth I find the shots very busy in the background and very bright, might be my eyes or monitor too bright but i found them difficult to look at for any length of time

macnab

I did a bit of Macro recently also, and got the same sound advice. Dept of field is the key. Play around with your F settings, use a static model for practice, I used a dead insect for some recent practice and found it great.

leche solara

oshead wrote: »

I was thinking exactly the same thing. I like them. The only problem is the DoF. Drop your aperture down to about f16 and move back slightly. Take those two measures and you will get the DoF you need. Also, If you get the eyes in focus the rest will take care of itself.

Would the same guidelines apply with the Canon 60mm macro. I got one a few months ago and am so disappointed with the shots that I now hate it and never put it on.

oshead

leche solara wrote: »

Would the same guidelines apply with the Canon 60mm macro. I got one a few months ago and am so disappointed with the shots that I now hate it and never put it on.

Absolutely. I had one and found it to be better than the 100mm 2.8 macro on a 1.6 crop body. The 60mm 2.8 macro is an excellent lens IMO.

leche solara

oshead wrote: »

Absolutely. I had one and found it to be better than the 100mm 2.8 macro on a 1.6 crop body. The 60mm 2.8 macro is an excellent lens IMO.

Thanks David. I have the 60mm 2.8 and a crop body (450D). I will get it out and try it again. I had believed that I should be using it at or near 2.8.

oshead

Try it at around f8. It's sharper than anything I've experienced at that setting. You might want to use a flash to try and decrease camera shake.

FoxT

I like #1 & #3 - #2 doesnt have a focal point of interest - but they are a great start. I occasionally do a bit of semi-macro (ie not 1:1, more like 3:1) and I find that
- Igenerally need a small, small aperture, to get reasonable DOF. At very close range, I work in the f/14 to f/22 range.
- Because of the small aperture you will then generally require an artificial light source. I usually mount my flash on a tripod and shoot handheld, the flash gets fired by a radio trigger. I'll also use an A4 white card as a reflector. (So I shoot with the camera in 1 hand & the card in the other) I believe many macro folks use a ring flash - I have never used one but would definitely buy one if macro was a big thing for me.

- FoxT

Nebezpeci Mys

FoxT wrote: »

I like #1 & #3 - #2 doesnt have a focal point of interest - but they are a great start. I occasionally do a bit of semi-macro (ie not 1:1, more like 3:1) and I find that
- Igenerally need a small, small aperture, to get reasonable DOF. At very close range, I work in the f/14 to f/22 range.
- Because of the small aperture you will then generally require an artificial light source. I usually mount my flash on a tripod and shoot handheld, the flash gets fired by a radio trigger. I'll also use an A4 white card as a reflector. (So I shoot with the camera in 1 hand & the card in the other) I believe many macro folks use a ring flash - I have never used one but would definitely buy one if macro was a big thing for me.

- FoxT

Thank you FoxT - I am actually a proud owner of the LED ring flash and find it good when shooting subjects with 'non-reflective' surface. I tried it on the reflective ones as well but in some cases you can actually count the no. of LED's in the ring.

Also, thanks everybody for your feedback - it's appreciated. I guess I will have to keep trying until I'm happy with the results...and then continue for the pleasure of getting nice shots.