macros

[iamthepip]

Today in class i went out to do some macros these photos are not touched up in anyway

what do you think?
1

2

3

 

[tbrew]

Those are sweet shots. Where are you in school? What kind of lens do you use for macro? I just started out - got my T1i back in feb along w/kit lens and ef-s 55-255. Thinking my next purchase will be a macro bc i love to take flower/insect shots.

 

[D-B-J]

the first one is my favorite. It seems devoid of contrast though.. A little pp and itll be a great shot

 

[fokker]

A big difficulty with taking macro shots is the short depth of field that you get up close. In #1 this is evident, as not enough of the moss/plant is in focus for it to be interesting to look at.

#2 the focus looks okay, but you need ot either get closer or give it a crop. I'm not a fan of the surface the bug is on, it's bright and colourful whereas the bug is dull and grey - kind of the opposite of what you want to make the subject stand out.

#3 I don't find appealing or interesting at all. If the focus was tack sharp on the water droplets it might be a bit better but it's always going to be hard to make a leaf look interesting. One way is to use some form of backlighting so that you can see the veins (whatever the proper name is) in the leaf. this can be an off-camera strobe or just the sun, you just need to angle the camera right to get the light behind the leaf.

 

[tbrew]

A big difficulty with taking macro shots is the short depth of field that you get up close. In #1 this is evident, as not enough of the moss/plant is in focus for it to be interesting to look at.

How is this remedied? Is it entirely dependent on the lens? I see you have the 100mm macro, how do you like it?

 

[iamthepip]

Those are sweet shots. Where are you in school? What kind of lens do you use for macro? I just started out - got my T1i back in feb along w/kit lens and ef-s 55-255. Thinking my next purchase will be a macro bc i love to take flower/insect shots.

the first one is my favorite. It seems devoid of contrast though.. A little pp and itll be a great shot

A big difficulty with taking macro shots is the short depth of field that you get up close. In #1 this is evident, as not enough of the moss/plant is in focus for it to be interesting to look at.

#2 the focus looks okay, but you need ot either get closer or give it a crop. I'm not a fan of the surface the bug is on, it's bright and colourful whereas the bug is dull and grey - kind of the opposite of what you want to make the subject stand out.

#3 I don't find appealing or interesting at all. If the focus was tack sharp on the water droplets it might be a bit better but it's always going to be hard to make a leaf look interesting. One way is to use some form of backlighting so that you can see the veins (whatever the proper name is) in the leaf. this can be an off-camera strobe or just the sun, you just need to angle the camera right to get the light behind the leaf.

A big difficulty with taking macro shots is the short depth of field that you get up close. In #1 this is evident, as not enough of the moss/plant is in focus for it to be interesting to look at.

How is this remedied? Is it entirely dependent on the lens? I see you have the 100mm macro, how do you like it?

thanks for all your feedback!

yea i was using my canon T2i with an EFS 18-55mm (came with kit)

personally the first shot is the only one i like. but i can see what you mean about the focus.. how can i fix that?

 

[burstintoflame81]

I think the biggest issues are focus and depth of field as others stated. I also think they need some color adjustment/white balance but you stated they are unprocessed.

I just started venturing into Macro and find it easiest to get a good depth of field by using my Flash hand held and then I can stop down the camera as far as I want to achieve the DOF I need, because the flash will give me all the light I need, and I have control of moving the flash closer or further, or lowering its power.

 

[D-B-J]

A big difficulty with taking macro shots is the short depth of field that you get up close. In #1 this is evident, as not enough of the moss/plant is in focus for it to be interesting to look at.

How is this remedied? Is it entirely dependent on the lens? I see you have the 100mm macro, how do you like it?

I shoot a nikon 105mm 2.8 micro, and at 2.8-4, really close, i get a really short depth of field. I went to a massive train show, and took pictures all day at 2.8, and then realized that they were all garbage due to a short dof. The only way to remedy this is a mid-to-closed aperture, anywhere from 8 and up. Most of my macro's are shot at f14-f32, depending on the situation. Or, face your subject head on. So the object is mostly on one plane, if thats possible.

Sorry! Not trying to hijack the thread here.

 

[fokker]

A big difficulty with taking macro shots is the short depth of field that you get up close. In #1 this is evident, as not enough of the moss/plant is in focus for it to be interesting to look at.

How is this remedied? Is it entirely dependent on the lens? I see you have the 100mm macro, how do you like it?

Canon's 100mm macro lens is fantastic, you'll never hear a bad word spoken about its optics. Mine is the old non-USM version (slow and noisy AF) but I only ever use it in manual focus anyway so it doesn't bother me.

It is partly dependent on the lens and partly depenedant on the aperture you use, and partly dependant on how you frame the subject.
A longer focal length lens (say 100mm) will give a shallower depth of field than a shorter on (say 50mm). The advantage is you don't have to get so close (good for bugs). You pretty much always have to stop down to at least f/8 but more usually f/22 territory to get the required depth of field - again it depends on the subject and how you frame it. You might shoot something that is quite flat, allowing you to get away with a much smaller depth of field.