Super Wide Macros

[Loupey]

Been thinking lately that my macros have started taking on too "flat" of a look with my 300mm.

So off I went last night with my 17-40mm to try to shake something different loose. Kept the zoom cranked at 17mm setting and my focus jammed at its closest setting. The subjects are all about 5" from the front of the lens.

Does it work? Let me know what you think. Thanks for looking.

BTW, all full-frame (power lines and all).

[terryger]

as a matter of fact. i think it works quite well. looks more "pictureish" than being a direct study or sample if you know what i mean.

i love the macros but they are a different though equal genre to these.

you just are one innovative person and my photgraphic life has been enriched by knowing you. don't get a big head now but keep up the pioneering. :thumbsup:

btw. could you post up another thread on your bellows and how it works with your photos.

my wife saw one in one of our photography books the other day and wants one for her bugs. tell me more, if you could, so i can track down a bargain like you did.

see, i do pay attention don't i?:thumbsup:

[Loupey]

Terry, thanks for such kind words. Glad to be of help. As for the tubes, what kind of additional info/examples are you looking for? Please let me know.

In the meantime, two additional pictures to compare the different perspectives provided by the 17mm and 300mm (with tube). Both of these are full-frames as well.

Y'all didn't think I left the 300mm behind did ya ?

(btw, the second image here is a repost of the same image in the critique forum - sorry for the double post)

[Dylan8i]

loupey, i'm not a fan of the top 2 wide angle butterfly shots. i think its becuase of the bushes and how cluttering they are. The bottom 2 wide angel grasshopper shots i love though. wish the sky was alittle bit better but def has some potential. and i wish the 2nd one had alittle more flash.

the 300mm butterfly shot is much better than the top 2 wide angle ones, while the 300mm grasshopper shot is great as well.

[terryger]

now ya see, i have a different perspective from dylan's. this is what what makes photography great.

i don't see then as the same shot or variations of the same shot. i see them as distinctively different inmages that will appeal to several totaly different crowds.


as for the tube question, didn't i see a post you made on this forum somewhere that showed a type of belows you bought second hand that helps to steady the macro shots or was i dreaming this

[Loupey]

Dylan, thanks for your input! That Katydid (at least I think it's a katydid) stayed reasonably still long enough that I got over 100 shots of it over a short period of time. So you know I got others with little flash, more flash, no flash, ... I'll try to post other examples of this one wide-angle version to show you the different look each one has. Thanks again.

Terry, OK now I understand. Go to post #13 of the following

Extension Tubes - Full Disclosure

to see the focusing rack that I believe you are referring. Just remember that these are not very practical out in the field unless the subject is rock steady (or better yet, literally a rock). Just about every shot I take has wind involved so it's better to move your entire body back-and-forth to keep the focus.

[Loupey]

OK, so here are a few with varying levels of fill-flash with different exposure settings for the background.

For illustration purposes only LOL (those blasted powerlines I know). But I used the same level of post processing on each. As usual, nothing fancy (levels, curves, slight USM) - no selective stuff, no dodging, etc.

Please let me know what you think.

Oh, BTW, from the first to last image spans a period of time of only 6 minutes.

[Dylan8i]

i think the 3rd is my favorite of these 4. kind of surreal though( wish the whole stem of the plant were lit up- is that cut off from the lense?). the 4th one would be my close, next favorite.

and i def agree with terry, that they are different to appeal to different people, and that thats why photography is so great but also so hard. one subject can be taken so many different ways.

[Loupey]

wish the whole stem of the plant were lit up- is that cut off from the lense?

You got it! I knew there was no way I could light up the bottom half at 17mm with my dinky pop-up flash. With my 300mm, I can get away with it as I am far enough away that the shadow doesn't creep in. I like the effect here as it gives it a "spot light" effect.

Thanks for the input, Dylan.

[terryger]

see, now i agree with dylan.

if that stalk was lit it would be the bomb.

[Sushigaijin]

You got it! I knew there was no way I could light up the bottom half at 17mm with my dinky pop-up flash. With my 300mm, I can get away with it as I am far enough away that the shadow doesn't creep in. I like the effect here as it gives it a "spot light" effect.

Thanks for the input, Dylan.

Nonsense!

Cut a quarter of a milk jug to fit snuggly on the lens housing, and use this as a diffuser; the flash point should be moved far enough forward to avoid any shadowing caused by the lens. I've recently shot over 2000 images at the five to ten inch focal length to prove it. If you REALLY need to get close, a half gallon milk jug with a little tape and love will get you through. Here is an image with both creations included, I use the milk jug panel for fill flash situations, and the ketchup squeeze bottle for macro-in-the-dark-at-an-inch-or-so situations.



Erik.

[payn817]

I bet these would be much more appealing at a larger size. It's just my personal preference, but I tend to favor the intimate close ups. However, as I have said many times, I don't think you ever have a bad image.

BTW, thanks for doing all this legwork, so we don't have to.

[scott-devon]

Ok..I'm new to this so I'm a bit leary of commenting but what the heck. I like the butterfly shots with the 300m best. Just a personal preference for less background.

On the Katydid photos I agree that the 3rd one with the flash against the dark background is more dramatic. Also I have to agree that having the stem fully lit would have really made this photo. It makes me wonder if carrying one of those multi light halogen flashlights might be useful for this. They have the ability to vary from a tight spotlight type beam through wider beams to a full light wash over a large area.

[Loupey]

Scott-Devon: we welcome comments, ideas, and images from all. Thanks for commenting. Good idea about the flashlight. Though using a strobe off-camera is the normally "accepted" method for macro illumination. Depending on the camera, one can use a cable or wireless transmitter to fire the strobe(s). You can buy brackets or hire a friend to hold it for you. But I'm a minimalist anymore so I don't carry much out into the field.

Oh, BTW, you can use a flashlight to "paint" a scene. Imagine being in a very dark alley, camera on bulb and mounted on a tripod, then simply shine the flashlight on various parts of the alley.

Payn - thanks for your input. Me too about the 300mm versions. But I think it still may be possible to get really appealing wide angle macros but it will take a fairly large subject, very clean backgrounds, and sweeping vistas. I'm thinking like a coconut on the beach with puffy white clouds and clear waters

Sushi - thanks for the demo - nothing wrong with making something work. With the Canon 10D + 17-40mm lens, it's actually a lot easier to overcome the "shadow" when the pop-up flash is used. I didn't have it at the time but I usually take an unopened white junk mail and hold it at an angle above the flash. That's usually enough.

[Loupey]

OK, last three examples and I'm closing this experiment.

Time to think of something else

Thanks, all, for looking.

[terryger]

don't be so quick to discard the wide angle with background. you have to remember that the overwhelming majority of your audience are not "pixel peepers" and "photography critics"

the biggest mistake i see from writing and speaking students(which i deal with alot) are never "addressing their audience". at the rank and file state employee level our publications are produced at a 6th grade reading level which has decreased from 8th grade just in the last 5 years.

on the legal writing level it is published at freshman college level

i quit going to the photocritique section here as the majority of folks over their had "read too many photography books" and forgot what "pleasing to the eye" really meant, IMO.

critique is very valuable when done on the constructive level but borders on laugable when carried to an extreme few care about.

coconut or not, many photos that will never win any accolades from self important "photographers" are publish and appreciated daily!:thumbsup:

i thought the butteflys were beautiful and actually looked like something i would see while out walking as oppsoed to something i would see in an excyclopedia.

that is why i said they would appeal to different crowds.

now i'm done too! :devil:

:23:

Been thinking lately that my macros have started taking on too "flat" of a look with my 300mm.

So off I went last night with my 17-40mm to try to shake something different loose. Kept the zoom cranked at 17mm setting and my focus jammed at its closest setting. The subjects are all about 5" from the front of the lens.

Does it work? Let me know what you think. Thanks for looking.

BTW, all full-frame (power lines and all).

[Loupey]

Terry, your points are duly noted. I think that these discussions have been great and if I can summarize, it would be simply to photograph an opportunity with a variety of styles and methods if one's goal is to appeal to the most number of people.

Like a chef (which I definitely am NOT), it would be as if the chef only prepared what he/she liked to consume personally. If he has the ability to prepare food that he detests but others like, it would be silly for him not to do so.

It's just that shooting wide angle macros (WAMs) is really HARD Makes shooting with telephotos a walk in the park - literally. But nothing worthwhile comes without some hard work.

I have a meeting with a gallery owner later this month. I will shoot some more WAMs before then. It will be interesting to see the level of interest between "traditional" macros and something like this.

Thanks again for the input!

[starriderrick]

Loupey,
I too am new at all "this" I find #3 to be the most dramatic.I especially like the macro shot were you can see the eyes of the Katydid.
You experiments are quite impressive, I just got a 10-20mm lense.I'll be trying some experiments of my own.Soon
Thanks for the great posts, all the follow up details. Excellent

With regards,
Rick

[Loupey]

Rick, thanks for looking! I thought I read somewhere that you also got a new DSLR recently? Hope to "see" you here with results of your new stuff

The first three are wide angle versions of the critters I put in the "harsh lighting" thread. On the 2nd image, you can just make out the hornet on the second cone. The 4th is a wide angle version of the weeds in the "dem dewy days" thread. All at 17mm.

thanks again, everyone, for your input!