First Macro Shot - Monochromed Leaf Veins

[graciousness]

Hi there! My first real macro shot and I'm really wanting a critique on this one.

Lens: 50mm f/2.5 macro

I finally took out this lens yesterday and get a feel and experience on macro photography, as I hadn't done that before. Usually, I get bored looking at macro photos cause they tend to be the same subjects - flowers or bugs - and lost interest in trying to do this mode for a while. However, I finally did my first study shots yesterday as I wanted to get a feel for it, and here is a result.



Camera Canon EOS 30D
Exposure 0.033 sec (1/30)
Aperture f/3.2
Focal Length 50 mm
ISO Speed 100
Exposure Bias -2 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire
Handheld

I saw the leaves on the ground in the park and thought that the prominent veins were very interesting texturally. I, then, had an idea of how I wanted to capture the image and set the exposure compensation to -2 to get this darkened feel on the photo.

What is frustrating, though, is the lens. I focused manually as I found that the autofocus is very fiddly. The slightest movement creates a blur and the autofocus is thrown off. I realised that some support is required for macro as i imagined this is how it would be for any macro lens (I think). Is this really the case or can I get away with handheld shots with a different macro lens?

Anyhoo, I wanted a monochromed macro shot with this image and set about doing that in PP, thus the above result. I do really like the "under the microscope" look of this and now I"m getting excited with macro photography. I do want to get people's general idea on this, though, if it's pulling some interest aesthetically and technically. Does it work in this style? Is it too dark? Is it composed well enough or can it be done better (I tried different crops but was only semi-satisfied with this one). Is it sharp enough?

If you wanted to compare it to a coloured version (although different shot, albeit same leaf), you can find it in my flickr.

Sorry for my usual ramble Thank you for time and advise!

Cheers,

Grace

[cristen]

Hello there, Grace. I really like your shot, a dramatic monochromatic presentation and nice composition. Enjoy your lens and I hope to see more of your macros shots.

[RichardTaylor]

To me (aesthetic) it looks (and on the histogram) a bit too much underexposed.
Try a new layer with screen blending mode at 100% to see what I mean.

The focus looks OK
With macros autofocus, on most lenses, is next to useless when shooting very close or macros.
The only one that I have heard is a lot better is the Canon 100mm F2.8 IS macro, however even then at 1:1 distances you are still gong to have some problems (I wouldn't mind owning that lens)
And the autofocus can be OK on decent a P&S in macro mode as you have a lot more DOF (relatively speaking) but then you may have other problems.


If the subject, and lighting, allows a tripod helps a huge amount (both in focussing, DOF & shutter speed), and a focussing rail and also make life a little easier especially at minimum focussing distances, for focussing.

Also you have very little DOF at wide apertures so even moving slightly back & foreward will throw the focus off. If the available light is ok you may be able to shoot at a smaller aperture (like F16+) to give you a bit more leeway, however keep in mind camera shake may become a problem if shooting hand held at slow shutter speeds.

If you do not want to (or can't) use a tripod or mono pod a flash gun may help as it allows you to shoot at maximum synch speed and small apertures and the very high flash duration will freeze moving subjects and stop the effects camera shake. Used properly it also kill distracting backgrounds.


All my macros are nature subjects.

Hope this helps.

[graciousness]

Originally Posted by cristen

Hello there, Grace. I really like your shot, a dramatic monochromatic presentation and nice composition. Enjoy your lens and I hope to see more of your macros shots.

Hi Cristen, many thanks for the compliment. I am starting to enjoy the lens now that I've actually seriously started trying it out. I've quickly realised that macro photography is a seriously technical mode to get into and in a way, I think I need to start doing this mode of photography more to learn discipline in getting my basics right. Also, it forces one to get out of the box, so to speak, and try to find some different creative angles so that your photos can set apart from the norm of macro.

If you have a macro, you should start doing it!! You'll love it and hate it at the same time, but what a great way to really ingrain the basics in your head.

Cheers and I hope I'll be submitting more macros in the future soon for critique

Originally Posted by RichardTaylor

To me (aesthetic) it looks (and on the histogram) a bit too much underexposed.
Try a new layer with screen blending mode at 100% to see what I mean.

I use Aperture for PP work where you don't work in layers - will pop this in Photoshop and learn about that....screen blending mode Can you tell I got .01% knowledge of this software? Hehe....

I deliberately underexposed this shot to play around with this monochrome effect I had in mind at the time. What do you, then, think of this version which is same leaf, different shot and in colour?



Is that better? I know there's the DOF is just a little bit too shallow, but wanted to see the graduating blur on this lens. I'll use bigger DOF next time, although that would slow my shutter down a bit more......sigh.

[QUOTE}
The focus looks OK
With macros autofocus, on most lenses, is next to useless when shooting very close or macros.
The only one that I have heard is a lot better is the Canon 100mm F2.8 IS macro.
And the autofocus can be OK on decent a P&S in macro mode as you have a lot more DOF (relatively speaking) but then you may have other problems.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, this is why I don't like this lens for portrait shots. I don't do formal sitting portraits and most of the time, I take photos of children (toddlers) so I have realised that macro lens is not forgiving on moving children. I hope the 85mm will give me what I want, thanks to suggestions.

If the subject allows a tripod helps a huge amount (both in focussing, DOF & shutter speed), and a focussing rail and also make life a little easier especially at minimum focussing distances, for focussing.

Also you have very little DOF at wide apertures so even moving slightly back & foreward will throw the focus off. If the available light is ok you may be able to shoot at a smaller aperture (like F16+) to give you a bit more leeway, however keep in mind camera shake may become a problem if shooting hand held at slow shutter speeds.

If you do not want to (or can't) use a tripod or mono pod a flash gun may help as it allows you to shoot at maximum synch speed and small apertures and the very high flash duration will freeze moving subjects and stop the effects camera shake. Used properly it also kill distracting backgrounds.

I will be more disciplined next time and bring my tripod with me. Although it wouldn't have helped yesterday as I would have had to maneuver the tripod in reallly odd angles to try and get the shots.

I'm going to look into that flash gun......that sounds brilliant! Then that will force me to also really start learning using flash. Which. I. Still. Haven't. Done. Sigh.

Many thanks again for your advice! You know you always help me heaps

Cheers,

G.-

[RichardTaylor]

I think it looks a lot better that the first pic.

[cristen]

Originally Posted by graciousness

If you have a macro, you should start doing it!! You'll love it and hate it at the same time, but what a great way to really ingrain the basics in your head.
G.-

I love macro shots. But all I have are reversing rings and close up filters. With what I have though, I've bravely posted some shots here for critique. It is difficult, indeed, with that shallow DoF. Very few times I got lucky, but barely...

[chicagojohn]

Originally Posted by RichardTaylor

I think it looks a lot better that the first pic.

I prefer the first picture, personally. The reasons include the more off-center positioning of the first image and its lack of color, both of which make it less recognizable and more abstract, arousing more interest than, "Oh, that's just a poorly lit leaf".

In my opinion, a histogram is only a very preliminary guide as to the distribution of dynamic range; as in this instance. In no case, in my opinion, can one use a histogram as prima facie evidence of "over exposure" or "under exposure".

While it can certainly be used to assess the presence of highlight areas of an image where sensors are full and absent of differential information, and on the opposite, shadow side where some sensors are completely empty, and also therefore absent of infomation, and of the overall distribution of the midrange intensities with respect to both extremes, the import of the histogram data for the image has to be considered in the overall context of the image and especially what the photographer is trying to represent, in my opinion. Apart from that, a histogram has little independent value. Generally speaking, a bell-shaped histogram which does not extend beyond shadow and highlight boundaries may be desireable for purely representational purposes, but that is certainly just a subset of the class of acceptable, or meaningful, or even compelling images, in my opinion.

Histogram or no histogram, I personally like the first image better.

[sk66]

With macro (or any shot really) you have to decide what it is about the scene which is drawing you in and to relay to the viewer.
IMO, it is the strong geometric pattern here.
I did a basic edit for exposure/levels to emphasize the pattern of the venation.



This version works better than the original for exposure/contrast and "intimacy"/ detail. Your second is equal in exposure but lacking in "intimacy/detail"

[chicagojohn]

Originally Posted by sk66

With macro (or any shot really) you have to decide what it is about the scene which is drawing you in and to relay to the viewer.
IMO, it is the strong geometric pattern here.
I did a basic edit for exposure/levels to emphasize the pattern of the venation.

[This version works better than the original for exposure/contrast and "intimacy"/ detail. Your second is equal in exposure but lacking in "intimacy/detail"

Always wanting to learn, what, exactly, is "intimacy/detail". I ain't never have heard o' that b'for. How is it qunatified?

[graciousness]

I just realised that there are new replies to this thread -- so sorry!! And thanks ChicagoJohn and sk66 for your replies

It's interesting how people react to the original photo - I suspected as much that I'd get different opinions. It is interesting, though, how people perceive the photo and it's helping shape my own style towards macro. I think it's a style I do want to keep pursuing.....time will tell.

I do understand what intimate detail is being referred to, as I think it relates to texture, hence, the need for a little bit more exposure to bring out the detail in such macro shots. I have played with bringing up the exposure level on the photo prior to posting here, but I don't know why I keep going back to the more underexposed shot. But here's my own re-edited sepia version with more details (attached). So do you guys think it's better or has it lost some of it's abstractness as John had described it?

ChicagoJohn - you know, I never look at histograms? I know I'm suppose to, but it's all so technical to me and it feels like if I have to keep referring to it, that I would trust that more than what my own eyes see. Does that make sense? I'm not so over-concerned with the numbers presented with exposures, etc, as my eyes should be good enough to judge and see balance. And I have to trust my eyes, otherwise, then we're back to me letting the camera doing all the work rather than me. I don't want a histogram to judge my work whether it's good or not - I want viewers' eyes to make the judgement. I hope that makes sense.

But I know that my sepia version would not be for everyone; I wanted to test the 'water' so to speak to see what people's thoughts are on my take on the macro subject.

Cheers again guys for the replies!