Naim Forum photo al***

I've never figured out what the big deal was with flowers pictures. For example, here are some outside my house a couple of days ago:



Sure the colors are nice, but what's the allure for the photographer? It's not exactly challenging. Usually they're caught in bright daylight conditions, making lighting a breeze. They don't move around much, so you don't have to work hard to "capture the moment". I don't know... maybe I'm missing something obvious.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Nerd info: Canon G3 Digital, Macro Mode, White Balance = "Sunny Day Icon".

I was also wondering about the significance of "macro mode". Does it merely enable you to put the camera closer to the subject? Are the visual results any different than taking the shot from further back and zooming in? Does it make the shot "richer", or give you a "greater sense of depth". If so, why? If the same image fills the viewfinder, what difference would the actual distance from the subject make?

Forgive me if I'm being a bit dim here.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

I just realized that I had taken a second shot of those flowers, not in macro mode:

Here's the macro one again:

I really can't see much difference. BTW, I've stored both of these images as max-quality JPGs. However, they are scaled down and unsharp-masked. If you want to see the originals (Super-Fine JPGs, which from my camera are considered by many reviewers to be virtually indistinguishable from the camera's RAW format):

• Non-Macro
  
• Macro
  

I suppose the Macro one might be a touch sharper, but there are also spots on the Non-Macro shot that seem a bit sharper. Am I missing something obvious?

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

quote:

---

Was it Peach Canyon, by any chance? I have been to both Upper and Lower Antelope Canyons - superb places - but have only seen pictures of other canyons in Bruce Barnbaum's portfolios. Apart from the canyons, some of the most amazing landscape in the world is close to there - Coyote Buttes and the Paria Wave.

---

DJH

No it did'nt have a name I am aware of but it was a spectacular place to photograph so here are a few more.

GEOFF

and another

DJH You mentioned Paria Wave. this was taken near there. I was'nt allowed on the hike they restrict numbers and I was a bit too late

Finally I promise. This is Denali, Alaska. Wotrh a visit?

"Am I missing something obvious?"

Yes. The flowers in the second picture are bigger which is what macro lenses do for you -- allow you to take close up pictures of small objects.

Specfically a macro lens has more travel so that you can move the lens further from the film plane. This means you can get closer to your subject and still focus the lens to take the picture. And because you are closer to the subject the image made on the film (or CCD) will be bigger and you can see more detail (in Amateur Photographer articles this is invariably known as "entering the fascinating microscopic world of marco photography").

This magnification ability is expressed in a ratio of the subject size to the size on the negative -- 1:3, 1:2, 1:1. Hence a 1:1 lens will allow you to focus close enough to expose a 35mm object on a 35mm negative (i.e. so when you print your 1.5 inch beetle its now 10"x8" and looks really big), a 1:2 lens means a 75mm object would fill a 35mm frame, or a 35mm object would half fill it and so be half the size when printed at 10"x8" (These figures are approximate but you get the idea). The macro mode on your G3 is probably 1:3 or 1:2 -- 1:1 is the preserve of specialist macro lenses.

On a proper (that is a dedicated and specialised) macro lens the lens also does some fancy jiggling (my knowledge is a little sketchy on this point) of the the lens elements as one moves through the focusing range. This alters the optical design of the lens so that you get high quality all through the full range of focusing. This is required becuase if you move the lens a long way from the film to focus on a very close subject you have less of the light from the image cast by the lens actually hitting the film -- hence quality is lower.

The zoom macros -- and macro mode on digital cameras -- are something in between where they alter the optical characteristics of the lens through a certain part of the focusing range to optimise its close up ability. Which is why you have a macro switch or mode to set it on or off. I am a little unclear exactly how this works although its quite a big compromise and doesn't compare to a dedicated macro lens. If you want to do a big frame filling picture of a phono cartridge for example you probably need a proper macro lens.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
The flowers in the second picture are bigger which is what macro lenses do for you -- allow you to take close up pictures of small objects.

---

That was pure chance. I could have easily zoomed in a bit more when using the non-macro mode, such that the flowers would have filled up just as much of the frame. Would I still get all the benefits of macro mode (considering that I'm using a digital camera, and not a dedicated macro lens)?

Also, I've got a 70-160 zoom (or something like that) for my Minolta 35mm. It has a marking on the lens near the telephoto setting for "Macro". If I use this, I'm not very close to the subject, but the resulting image fills the viewfinder. Since your definition of macro mode mentions the lens moving away from the film plane, a long telephoto lens should supposedly be able to do an excellent macro shot.

Finally, I was reading some stuff on photo.net regarding the difference between shooting near or far. If you're near to the subject, the depth of field is emphasized, because the things in the picture that are closer are proportionately much closer (in absolute terms) than they would be if the entire subject were further away. Consequently, if you want the object's dimensions to be correctly proportional, then you should be as far away as possible, with a really big lens. Alternatively, you might create an interesting space distortion effect by being too close (i.e. forced perspective).

Does this not paradoxically suggest that for a "realistic" representation of your subject, close-up photography (often mistakenly referred to as "macro photography") should be performed from a long ways away with a telephoto lens, and not close-up with a macro lens? I realize that the photographer/subject interaction wouldn't be as intimate, but if dimensional accuracy is your goal, then the technical theory does allude to this conclusion.

Sorry if I'm getting pedantic, but I'm trying to understand the benefits (other than forced perspective) of being close to your subject using a macro lens.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

"I could have easily zoomed in a bit more when using the non-macro mode, such that the flowers would have filled up just as much of the frame"

Actually you can't and that's rather the point -- in normal mode your G3 can focus down to 1.5ft but in macro mode it goes as close as 5cm (at the wide end) and 15cm (at the telephoto end).

"Would I still get all the benefits of macro mode (considering that I'm using a digital camera, and not a dedicated macro lens)?"

Your camera won't be remotely as good as a dedicated macro lens like one of the Micro-Nikkors. The macro ratio will probably be 1:2 or 1:3 rather than 1:1 and optically it could be anything from terrible to not bad to better than you have a right to expect (given the relatively modest cost and versatility of your lens) but is certainly going to be good enough to experiment with macro pictures.

"If you're near to the subject, the depth of field"

The most important thing about DOF with regard to macro work is that you will have very little of it -- hence to get everythking in focus you often need to stop down so much you need a tripod or lighting to be able to make a good exposure.

"Consequently, if you want the object's dimensions to be correctly proportional, then you should be as far away as possible, with a really big lens"

You get natural perspective (i.e. most like the human eye) with a standard lens which is 50mm in 35mm photogrpahy. Longer lenses and being a long way away compress perpsective with the classic use being in portrait photography where it can be more flaterting to compress things up. i.e. it can hide the fact that your model has an enormous hooter (or in Vuk's case you can use a wide angle lens to emphasise your models, er, hooters). This all applies in macro photgraphy as well so if you want natural perspective use a 50mm lens.

"but I'm trying to understand the benefits (other than forced perspective) of being close to your subject using a macro lens"

If you have a 200mm macro lens you can shoot something a long way away. So a butterfly is probably going to be easier with a 200mm lens than a 50mm lens. Unless it's dead.

In generaly, if you hold your thumb up at arms length and look at your thumbnail. Now move it as close to your face as you can and a) it's much bigger and b) you can see more detail. Keep moving it closer and you go cross-eyed and cannot focus. If your are short-sighted and wear spectacles take them off -- this moves the focal plane relative to your retina giving you a closer focusing ability and you can move it closer and see a bigger thumbnail and more detail. That is an reasonable way to think about macro lenses.

BTW Joe Petrik is the man to speak to about macro photography. Or failing that read John Shaw's book about close up nature photography.

Matthew

quote:

---

Specfically a macro lens has more travel so that you can move the lens further from the film plane

---

Specifically, a macro lens is one which has been designed to produce it's highest quality from subjects at close distance and not infinity. If used for subjects at infinity, it will produce lower quality images.

quote:

---

Sure the colors are nice, but what's the allure for the photographer? It's not exactly challenging

---

Mike,

You state this as if you have posted a good image and it was easy. Your flower image is dull, unimaginative, poorly lit, poorly framed, poorly arranged and has a bad background. Basically crap.

"Specifically, a macro lens is one which has been designed to produce it's highest quality from subjects at close distance and not infinity. If used for subjects at infinity, it will produce lower quality images"

Specifically, a macro lens is one which has had its focusing range extended so that closer focusing, and therefore greater magnification, is possible by moving the lens nodal point significantly further from the film plane. A side effect of this extended range is that optimum picture quality is difficult to achieve at the other end of the focusing range.

Matthew

PS Here is one of Vuk's macro shots from when he had his nature phase. I think I am right in saying that it was done with his e-10 so is roughly indicative of the sort of results Mike can expect from his G3.

Here's one of mine from Japan

quote:

---

Specifically, a macro lens is one which has had its focusing range extended so that closer focusing, and therefore greater magnification, is possible by moving the lens nodal point significantly further from the film plane. A side effect of this extended range is that optimum picture quality is difficult to achieve at the other end of the focusing range.

---

No Matthew, specifically, a macro lens is one which has been designed to produce it's highest quality from subjects at close distance and not infinity. If used for subjects at infinity, it will produce lower quality images.

Including the focusing range in the description of macro is wrong. Including the change of the nodal point of a lens maybe correct, depending on the lens designer, use of Aspheric or ED glass.

P.S. Please post Vuk's picture corrected by 180 degrees.

Macro image coming up...



Nikon D100, 60mm f2.8D AF Micro Nikkor

quote:

---

Originally posted by count.d:
You state this as if you have posted a good image and it was easy. Your flower image is dull, unimaginative, poorly lit, poorly framed, poorly arranged and has a bad background. Basically crap.

---

Sorry for getting your hackles up. I wasn't insinuating that I was an expert (quite the opposite in fact). As to my own "flower image", it was a quick snapshot in two different modes, just as I was about to jump in the car. It was certainly not an attempt at serious photographic art! It was merely a cursory trial to determine whether there were any discernable difference between pictures taken in macro and telephoto modes. Based upon that test, I would have to say "No".

Our ensuing conversation has had only one certain implication for me: a macro lens/mode let you focus closer, so that you can fill more of the image with the intended subject, maximizing detail in the image.

However, I've not been convinced yet that using a good telephoto lens to similarly fill the frame with the subject is inferior to the close-up technique. I suppose one could argue that the additional air/dust/pollen/etc. between the camera and subject would have an inherently deleterious effect. On a dusty, pollen-ridden day, I could certainly agree with this synopsis.

I would merely like to see a comparison shot of telephoto vs. macro of the same subject, framed in the same manner, using similarly commendable equipment. If I could easily discern a difference in quality, then I would gladly accept the benefits of the macro approach without further questions. As it is, I haven't seen that proof yet.

One other thing: I'm still trying to understand the artistic merit of most macro photography. I will admit that Vuk's shot is lovely (upside down or not). However, much (most?) macro photography seems to be mere "pictures of flowers", and not an artistic interpretation of the thing. Perhaps it's simply that many (most?) macro photographers are technicians rather than artists.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

"Including the focusing range in the description of macro is wrong"

I have always understood the point of macro lenses is to take big pictures of small things and that means letting you focus closer to the subject to get higher reproduction ratios. Becuase the lens focuses much closer and this bit is the bit you are intersted in you need a different optical design but the different design follows from the need to focus closer not the other way around.

Your definition rather implies that there should be some types of macro lenses which focus no closer than their non-macro equivalents but just differ in optical design to give better performance close up. I can't say I am familiar with such a lens design.

Still you are the expert so what do I know.

Matthew

Mike,

"I've not been convinced yet that using a good telephoto lens to similarly fill the frame with the subject is inferior to the close-up technique"

The focal length affects how far away you are from your subject not the reproduction ratio so a longer focal length by itself will not allow you to "fill the frame" any more than a non-telelphoto lens.

The bit you are missing is that (all other things being equal) the minimum focusing distance is proportional to the focal length. So roughly speaking where a 50mm lens might focus down to 1.5ft a 105mm lens will only focus down to 3ft and the size of your image on the negative will be about the same.

Matthew

At the moment I'm concentrating on the photography of subjects large enough to fill the frame with a macro lens or telephoto. I realize that some subjects are too small, such that you need a specialty lens to maximize the subject in the frame. Flowers aren't usually that small.

So beyond "getting closer", are there any other benefits of macro photography for taking pictures of moderately small things, versus using a telephoto lens from a greater distance?

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

You gotta love this board to keep with it, the number of times a person asks about something only to be told they are wrong/dont want that and what they really want/mean is something else, is just beyond belief

Mike

When looking at flower pics take a look at Georgia O'Keefe's work - OK they are paintings but they provide good inspiration - the picture by Vuk is very much in the style of GOK, but not only did she get up close but she also painted the image very large so as to present them out of scale to the viewer and so maximise the impact of the image.

Derek

<< >>

Mike said "So beyond "getting closer", are there any other benefits of macro photography for taking pictures of moderately small things, versus using a telephoto lens from a greater distance?"

Macro photographby *is* "getting closer". That's the whole point of it. If you do not want to focus close and take big pictures of small things you can safely forget all about macro photography. It's also not correct to compare macro photography and lenses with taking a picture with a telephoto lens. The two things are unrelated.

Haroon -- I am not sure what you mean. I was trying to help Mike by offering answers to his questions.

Matthew

quote:

---

If you have a 200mm macro lens you can shoot something a long way away. So a butterfly is probably going to be easier with a 200mm lens than a 50mm lens. Unless it's dead.

---

Matthew is right. The main reason for using a long macro lens when photographing little things that frighten easily is to lower the chance that you'll scare them off. (Or if it were, say, a venomous snake, lower the chance you'll be bitten -- a real hazard for professional nature photographers.)

The attached pic was taken with a 200mm macro lens. I can't recall how far I was from the damsel fly, but it was probably about 2 feet. If I had tried taking the same shot with my 55mm macro lens, I would have been four times closer, a distance of about 6 inches.

Although Matthew didn't mention this, another reason for using a long macro is to limit how much of the background appears in the pic. As focal length increases, angle of view decreases, so you can more easily frame in a way as to block out distracting parts of the background.

Joe

Nerd info: Nikon F4, 200mm Micro-Nikkor f/4, Fuji Velvia

Count,

quote:

---

No Matthew, specifically, a macro lens is one which has been designed to produce it's highest quality from subjects at close distance and not infinity. If used for subjects at infinity, it will produce lower quality images.

---

In theory, yes, but in practice it sometimes doesn't work out that way. The 105mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, a very good lens, is actually sharpest at infinity. It's also good close up, as you would expect a dedicated macro lens to be, but for some reason it's better at infinity.

See this review [scroll down to 105 mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor].

Joe

Also....,

macro lenses are designed to have a flat image field (ie: sharper at the edges without stopping down so much)

I use a macro as my standard lens

Julian