Spider Macros

[Oxford patient]

Originally Posted by Bruce Williams

Hi Oxford patient - Welcome to WAB and to macro photography .

As I said to Acher - Spider-on-web is not an easy subject!

Ok so your spider pic appears to be somewhat blurred - this is probably due more to subject movement rather than to camera shake (as you were using a monopod). Anyway I checked the EXIF data on your posted image and it records that the shot was taken with a shutter speed of 1/25s (not 1/350s) and an aperture of f/22 (not f/5.6). Photographing in available light (ie, not using flash) this very slow speed is pretty much guaranteed to result in subject blur with almost any close-up shot in the field.

I would strongly recommend that until you get more experience with macro you use the camera's pop-up flash on macro subjects. Set your camera on Manual and set the aperture at f/16 or f/18 to give a reasonable depth of field. Set your shutter speed to 1/250s (the D200 syncs at this speed). Set your pop-up flash to manual, 1/4 power (you might need to play with this setting). Do some test shots and use the Flash Compensation button to fine tune to actual subject conditions (start at 0 compensation). Give it a try and see if it works for you.

Bruce

Thanks Bruce for your comments and suggestions. I have never used flash in a macro shot. What do you think the following two with natural light? Faster shutter speed (1/45s and 1/100s) and still small apertures (f13 and f16) to have slightly larger dof.





Cheers,
Oxford patient

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by Oxford patient

Thanks Bruce for your comments and suggestions. I have never used flash in a macro shot. What do you think the following two with natural light? Faster shutter speed (1/45s and 1/100s) and still small apertures (f13 and f16) to have slightly larger dof.





Cheers,
Oxford patient

Oxford Patient - it's a general rule that posting ones own images on a thread that has been started by someone else is bad manners and called 'Thread Hijacking'. It would be different if you had posted an image that was directly relevant to a point you were trying to make about mine by way of constructive criticism.

Idealistically, you should post your own thread for your own criticisms.

However, being an easy going sort of person I really don't mind you hijacking me a (I have other more serious matters on my mind at the moment ) and Bruce can feel free to comment. I can see you're a new member and probably are a novice at this sort of thing - it's hard work at first and I still find it difficult finding my way round sometimes!

I'm only pointing this out as some people may 'take the hump' if you did it to them and I don't want this to happen!

Acher

[matt_xyz]

Hi Acher,

Technique wise those images look pretty good to me. Good exposure, nice detail and DOF, no harsh flash highlights. I also quite like the almost studio look that the white background gives. Not to everyone's tastes but nice to see something a bit different from time to time. The only negative would be the lack of a visible web as already mentioned.

I'm not sure what flash system you're planning to get but a simple, well diffused, external flashgun on a side bracket takes some beating in my opinion. Some prefer the MT-24 but it takes some work to diffuse the light and it's also v. expensive as I'm sure you know. I've never been sufficiently convinced of its benefits to invest in it.

Oxford Patient - those last 2 look OK, but the first would benefit from a bit of fill flash in my opinion.

Matt

[Oxford patient]

Acher,
Apology for breaking 'the general rule'. My intention was to enrich the discussion with more examples and comparisons on the topic. I certainly take your point .
Cheers,
Oxford patient

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

Hi Acher,

Technique wise those images look pretty good to me. Good exposure, nice detail and DOF, no harsh flash highlights. I also quite like the almost studio look that the white background gives. Not to everyone's tastes but nice to see something a bit different from time to time. The only negative would be the lack of a visible web as already mentioned.

I'm not sure what flash system you're planning to get but a simple, well diffused, external flashgun on a side bracket takes some beating in my opinion. Some prefer the MT-24 but it takes some work to diffuse the light and it's also v. expensive as I'm sure you know. I've never been sufficiently convinced of its benefits to invest in it.

Matt

OH has one in the planning stage - two old off board Metz flashes (speed lights) on a widish bracket with one metz on a sync cord and the other with a sensor. The flashes are pretty good ones - I've used them in other situations.
Necessity is the Mother of Invention, eh?
The Sony twin light system has just come down from £730 to about £500 ...... It was nearly as much as my camera body was!

Acher