MACRO PHOTOGRAPHY : DIGITAL OR FILM ?

[muddy123]

should i use film or digital for best macro photography ? what's a good book(s) on beginning photography ? thanks

 

[BuS_RiDeR]

IMO, Macro is all in the lens... at least for the most part. I think the Film/Digital thing is more of a personal choice.

 

[WesternGuy]

should i use film or digital for best macro photography ? what's a good book(s) on beginning photography ? thanks

I agree with BuS RiDeR - its really all in the lens. With digital I am going to assume you would do all the post-processing, so the final image quality is all up to you, whereas with film, unless you process it yourself, then it's not. If you are just starting out to try macro photography, you might want to look at acquiring a set of extension tubes like these :kenko extensions . They are cheaper than a macro lens - good lenses are not cheap - and they work fairly well for someone starting out. This is what I did for the first six months or so and they worked fairly well, but then I did break down and buy a lens eventually.

As far as photography books are concerned...let us know a bit more about what you want - general photography, macro photography...perhaps then you will get some suggestions.

Cheers,

WesternGuy

 

[djacobox372]

I prefer digital because of it's ISO abilities. When shooting macro handheld you typically need a fast shutters speed to overcome hand-shake which is also magnified. You also need to shoot at very high apertures (f16 or higher) to achieve a workable DOF. This means shooting at 100iso film is out of the question, and 400iso or higher 35mm film cannot compete with digital.

 

[Overread]

I prefer digital because of it's ISO abilities. When shooting macro handheld you typically need a fast shutters speed to overcome hand-shake which is also magnified. You also need to shoot at very high apertures (f16 or higher) to achieve a workable DOF. This means shooting at 100iso film is out of the question, and 400iso or higher 35mm film cannot compete with digital.

My ISO tends to sit on 200 rather than 100 because I like a little extra speed (for very little cost in quality) for moving subjects, but I've not used a high ISO for macro ever. Film or Digital there is nothing that requires you to use a high ISO for macro work provided that you are able to use lighting to the best effect - furthermore remember macro isn't all about small apertures.
Using flash allows one to boost ambient lighting - good control and diffusion of this allows for fast shutter speeds, small apertures and low ISOs for good depth of field and image quality
Using a tripod and slower shutter speeds on stationary subjects one can easily let the ISO be low whilst still getting good depth of field
And finally one can always use a wider aperture - small depth of field yes, but that can be very creative, just as much as a deep depth of field from a small aperture

 

[pgriz]

Repeat what was said in the posts above. As usual, good advice. For myself, lens quality is probably #1, light quality and direction would be #2, all the little bits and pieces to make sure the camera doesn't move, and the focus is where it should be, #3. Film vs. digital? I prefer digital because I can adjust quickly after each shot. As for books on the subject, google " macro photography" and you will have plenty of information.

 

[Josh66]

Macro with film is more tricky than macro with digital...

With film, you really need to use the 'right' film.


With the fine details you would expect with macro photography, you'll likely want a fairly fine grained film. You wouldn't want all those tiny details obscured by really chunky grain.

For film macro, the best very general advice I can give is lower is better as far as ISO goes. In general, lower ISO = finer grain. By low, I mean like 25 or 50.

edit
Also, if you use the 'right' film, the resolution is still higher than digital. It'll be B&W though - may or may not be an issue for you... Ultimately, the lens and your technique will be the limiting factors.