So I want to get into macro photography - do I need flash?

[Overread]

Simply put as the title says, I want to get into macro photography, taking photos of really tiny things; to do this I need a macro lens, but I'm also wondering do I really need flash or I can I just use natural light as I do with the rest of my photography?

 

[Propsguy]

Achieving adequate depth of field in Macro photography is often the biggest hurtle to producing good images.... on my 105mm 1:1 macro, the depth of field at F2 is about 3 millimeters... not enough to get anything but planar subjects in focus. Obviously, using a flash (or multiple flashes) allows me to shoot at much higher apertures and increase the depth of field significantly... without a flash, you will be restricted (generally speaking) to shooting low apertures and sacrificing image quality.

So it depends on your lens, your sensor, the amount of available light you plan to shoot in, and the amount of image quality you are willing to sacrifice to higher ISO ranges.... but for me, I find that the best way to shoot high quality macros is to use a flash (or strobes) so that I can create the image I need without compromising quality. It's by no means mandatory to use a flash, but at some point, you will wish you had one...

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Depends what you are shooting and where you are shooting it. I know many people that shoot outdoors will work with natural light. Thats the beauty of macro sometimes, you can work in harsh midday sun by hand holding a diffuser over the subject to soften the sunlight. I would say that a flash would come in handy many times though when you stop way down. I wouldn't waste money on a ring-flasht though. Many times they can result in the subject looking flat. I actually have heard good things about using a speedlight with one of these ExpoImaging Rogue FlashBender Large Positionable ROGUERELG B&H

You can tilt the flash up and curve the panel and bounce the flash onto the subject. I am going to order one soon to tinker with.

Edit: I should have specified, it depends on what ratio of macro. If shooting strictly 1:1 and better, you will almost DEFINATELY need a flash or lighting of some kind due to having to stop down a lot.

 

[Overread]

So whilst it depends what I take photos of the general view is that I will still need to use flash, esp if I'm taking photos of anything around the maximum magnification that the lens can do - so flash is kind of essential?

 

[o hey tyler]

I thought you were already into macro photography and that you used flash for some of your shots...

 

[Overread]

shhh don't mention that part

So I'm still interested in other views - so far it still seem that to do macro you've pretty much got to be using flash?

 

[2WheelPhoto]

as a nOOB I can do alright with no flash at ISO 100 in the FL sun and a cheap set of kenko extensions

 

[iNick]

photojojo has a ring flash that attaches to a flash unit for pretty cheap... The Ring Flash Adapter

 

[PhotoTish]

Ah! So you know more than you are letting on!

Okay, with the benefit of zilch experience I am going to opine that you do indeed need flash for macro photography although most macro photographers use ring flash

I got that wrong didn't I ???? :er:

 

[PhotoTish]

as a nOOB I can do alright with no flash at ISO 100 in the FL sun and a cheap set of kenko extensions

Okay, I am going to do the noble thing and not edit my post! So you don't need flash of any sort for macro photography? Bang goes my excuse for buying another accessory

 

[gsgary]

If i was into macro i would use flash probably 2 or 3

 

[2WheelPhoto]

as a nOOB I can do alright with no flash at ISO 100 in the FL sun and a cheap set of kenko extensions

Okay, I am going to do the noble thing and not edit my post! So you don't need flash of any sort for macro photography? Bang goes my excuse for buying another accessory

But wait... when i'm not in the FL sun I talk about I use flash, i promise

 

[PhotoTish]

Yaaay! Shopping! :smileys::smileys:

 

[jake337]

Simply put as the title says, I want to get into macro photography, taking photos of really tiny things; to do this I need a macro lens, but I'm also wondering do I really need flash or I can I just use natural light as I do with the rest of my photography?

Tiny things or tiny creatures? Outdoors or indoors? I would say you don't need a flash for any exposure, but definitely want one to get the best exposure and have complete control over it.

This shot is natural daylight too.
I definitely needed more light for this shot, especially 1/30 at f16 with a very close crop . BTW this is a very tight crop. I need extension tubes!

A good example may be that dragonfly shot. How could someone improve that photo with control over light? the dragonfly's underbody and wings could gain some detail and better seperation from the background.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

I thought you were already into macro photography and that you used flash for some of your shots...

Ah! So you know more than you are letting on!

Okay, with the benefit of zilch experience I am going to opine that you do indeed need flash for macro photography although most macro photographers use ring flash

I got that wrong didn't I ???? :er:

Yes, he is being facetious, but no harm in playing a long. I assume he has a good reason, perhaps as a learning experiment for the noobs?