[old4570]

Updated to revision 1.41 ( Thank you GUB )
http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=39461380786738518652

Don't forget to tell me what's wrong with it ...
It is basic, but hopefully with enough information to get folks started ..


Part two will be FLASH !


Part 3 will cover Gear / Lenses / Tubes / and stuff ..


Please feel free to offer your opinion , worst case scenario , ill ignore it !

---

Last edited by old4570; 09-01-2015 at 05:13 PM.

[marcusBMG]

Good job old4570, I particularly commend the example photos.

Suggestions/thoughts:
1. p2- use the exposure triangle in a brief discussion of fundamentals
2. Talk about focal length a bit more, why just using longer focal length by itself is not an efficient/effective way of getting good strong macro, what manufacturers may/may not mean when they write "macro" on their lenses, how some lenses are designed with a way of getting closer to subjects (extended focus, lens extension).
3. introduce magnification ration as the usual measuring stick., and that how close you are to the subject is more important than focal length.
4. big font is filling white space but looks odd

[old4570]

Good job old4570, I particularly commend the example photos.

Suggestions/thoughts:
1. p2- use the exposure triangle in a brief discussion of fundamentals
2. Talk about focal length a bit more, why just using longer focal length by itself is not an efficient/effective way of getting good strong macro, what manufacturers may/may not mean when they write "macro" on their lenses, how some lenses are designed with a way of getting closer to subjects (extended focus, lens extension).
3. introduce magnification ration as the usual measuring stick., and that how close you are to the subject is more important than focal length.
4. big font is filling white space but looks odd

I will cover most of that in Part 3 when I talk about gear ( Lenses ) , I really did not want to get technical in part one . I want part one to be KISS , part two will hopefully get people thinking about and producing better pictures .
( Even with a $5 CF filter )
As for being creative ? well I'm about as artistic as a block of concrete ... Some one else will have to inspire that perspective
I think part one is to show how easy it can be , rather than how hard or technical .
A little like driving a car , you don't need to know how to change the oil or spark plugs ( Though its very good to know )


Point 3 - I sort of very lightly covered that with the different camera lens examples ..
Again I did not want to get into it in part 1 , I wanted to , but I want to stick to the 3 part plan , not just for the reader but also for myself ( So I don't lose the plot )
I tried to cover everything the first time I sat down to write , unfortunately I found it extremely difficult to be simple , and technical at the same time .
I tried 3 times to do this and each time it became a bit of a mess . The simplicity was lost in the technical explanation .
So for the 4th time I sat down to write , I decided this needed to be done in 3 parts ..
Each time taking the reader to a new level ...
And this is after all meant to be a beginners guide , so to experienced photographers would most likely be lacking ..
Perhaps one day : I can write a guide for the intermediate macro photographer ? but first I have to stop being one myself ..

[promacjoe]

A little like driving a car , you don't need to know how to change the oil or spark plugs ( Though its very good to know

Yes, But before you can drive a car you need to know several things, 1: What a car is, 2: What a road is, and the rules of the road for the country that you are driving In. You can't put someone behind the wheel of a car, and tell them where the brake and accelerator is, and then expect them to drive across country, Much less a busy metropolitan area. It is a learning process, and that learning process needs to include the basics First. By the way, I'm a firm believer in anyone who drives a car should know how to check the oil and other fluids, along with being able to change a tire if necessary.

it always bugs me when I picked up a instructional book that says do this this and this but never tells you why. that's how you tell a machine what to do, not people.

and by the way, in my opinion using cheap macro filters is one of the worst ways of doing macro photography. In order from worst to best, Macro filters, bellows, extension tubes, And a dedicated macro lens.

you should teach people to be innovative in the photography, not just do assembly-line photographs. And the only way you can do that is by teaching the basics first so they have a good foundation of what they're doing.

[Scorpio71GR]

Nice job, informative and easy to read. I think anyone starting out in macro should have no trouble with this. You are trying to explain macro photography, not basic photography itself. As for using close up filters I used them when I was a teenager just starting out. They are a great way to try macro and see if it is something you may like before you drop several hundred dollars on a true 1:1 macro lens.

[marcusBMG]

I will cover most of that in Part 3 when I talk about gear ( Lenses ) , I really did not want to get technical in part one . I want part one to be KISS , part two will hopefully get people thinking about and producing better pictures .

Sure, an admirable philosophy. And I think starting with close up filters as being easiest and cheapest is perfectly reasonable. In making my comments I tried to put myself in the mind of a relative novice: what would that person want to know + what does that person need to know.
You mention the exposure apects and my thought is its always relevant to spend a moment touching base with those fundamentals.
i envisage that person going, hey my lens already has macro written on it. So what does/doesn't it do? How does doesn't become does (if that makes sense)?

So I'm kinda a bit more with promacjoe .... but its your project and you have a plan!

[old4570]

Yes, But before you can drive a car you need to know several things, 1: What a car is, 2: What a road is, and the rules of the road for the country that you are driving In. You can't put someone behind the wheel of a car, and tell them where the brake and accelerator is, and then expect them to drive across country, Much less a busy metropolitan area. It is a learning process, and that learning process needs to include the basics First. By the way, I'm a firm believer in anyone who drives a car should know how to check the oil and other fluids, along with being able to change a tire if necessary.

it always bugs me when I picked up a instructional book that says do this this and this but never tells you why. that's how you tell a machine what to do, not people.

and by the way, in my opinion using cheap macro filters is one of the worst ways of doing macro photography. In order from worst to best, Macro filters, bellows, extension tubes, And a dedicated macro lens.

you should teach people to be innovative in the photography, not just do assembly-line photographs. And the only way you can do that is by teaching the basics first so they have a good foundation of what they're doing.

When it comes to CF filters , I hope you are speaking for yourself !













Because as far as I can tell , they work rather well ..
Now Im in no way claiming that they will compete with a Tokina 100mm F2 or any other high quality Macro lens ..
But for $5 or less , they come awfully close , especially considering the budget lens they may be attached to .
And for $5 or less , can give the prospective newcomer one hell of a cheap education .

I have seen way too many ??? ( Bad ? ) macro's taken with expensive glass , to po po any method of Macro where the results speak for themselves .
And not everyone can do , or like doing , Macro , some one else s way . And if you don't like something , are you really going to give it the old College try ?
CF Filters have a learning curve just like any other method of Macro: You either take the time to learn , or you don't .

---------- Post added 12-29-14 at 01:50 PM ----------

Sure, an admirable philosophy. And I think starting with close up filters as being easiest and cheapest is perfectly reasonable. In making my comments I tried to put myself in the mind of a relative novice: what would that person want to know + what does that person need to know.
You mention the exposure apects and my thought is its always relevant to spend a moment touching base with those fundamentals.
i envisage that person going, hey my lens already has macro written on it. So what does/doesn't it do? How does doesn't become does (if that makes sense)?

So I'm kinda a bit more with promacjoe .... but its your project and you have a plan!

It is a 3 part plan :
And as I mentioned I will get there , in Part 3 ..

Once Part 3 is completed , parts 1 to 3 will be combined .. But for now , everyone is just going to have to wait ! Cos part 2 is next .. And in part 2 we will get a little more involved , but with light ( Flash ) .
Its all about an easy transition :

For those with Macro on their lens ..
Well the Kit lens ( Pentax ) is close focus , dont know if Pentax claims Macro , they have in the past ...
The Canon 35-135 says Macro on it , and I didnt want to go there because the CF filters brought the focus distance down to where the results are more Macro like ( well 1:2 Macro )
Again I didn't want to get all techno because it does not matter .. This is all stuff people learn on the way ..
And knowing a bunch of techno stuff does not necessarily make you a good photographer ..
You just need to know the basics , Aperture , shutter speed , and ISO and how they relate to each other .. That's it to start with ... Just go out and take pictures .. Why confuse the issue ?
DOF will come quickly , but that's a relationship between aperture and focus distance ...
Something I touched upon , but wont get into deeply until part 3 .. I will emphasis it some in Part 2 ( DOF )
But I feel many regulars here wont be happy until part 3 is out .

[GUB]

Nice work -- I like your graphical approach.

But can someone check this?

"One is to use a
bigger lens that allows you to be further away from the
subject, there for increasing DOF. Or you can
introduce more light ( use a Flash ). Remember, the
further away the subject is for any given F-stop the
greater the DOF."

I think if you are using a longer lens to give the same magnification (from further away) then the DOF will remain the same.
But then I am not a technical expert on it.
But the DOF calculator backs me up on it.

[old4570]

Nice work -- I like your graphical approach.

But can someone check this?

"One is to use a
bigger lens that allows you to be further away from the
subject, there for increasing DOF. Or you can
introduce more light ( use a Flash ). Remember, the
further away the subject is for any given F-stop the
greater the DOF."

I think if you are using a longer lens to give the same magnification (from further away) then the DOF will remain the same.
But then I am not a technical expert on it.
But the DOF calculator backs me up on it.

Well caught ! ... DOF calculator


135mm F8 19cm to focus point = 0.02
55mm F8 7cm to focus point = 0.01


BUTT !!!!


the 135mm lens is full frame ( If mem serves )
and the 55 kit lens is a Cropped sensor lens ? ( DA 18-55 AL (2) )


That would make it near enough to 200mm F8 19cm to focus point = 0.00


BUTT !!!!


We are forgetting about the CF filter and its effect ...
Do the calculations = fact as they are with the CF filter in place ?


I will be back as I recalculate without the CF filter ...


No CF Filter :


55 f8 11cm = 0.06cm
135 f8 55cm = 0.35cm
200 f8 55cm = 0.15cm


hmmmm ,

[GUB]

135mm F8 19cm to focus point = 0.02 55mm F8 7cm to focus point = 0.01

Wouldn't the equivalent actually be 17 cm for the 135 which the calculator then rounds off to .01.
And just doesn't the cf filter (being a convex lens ) just effectively shorten the focal length? ( which then makes the lens physical focussing operate too far from the camera and thus as a close up)
So what I think is right--
For a given magnification with a given aperture and a given CoC (varies for sensor format) any focal length lens will give the same DoF.

---------- Post added 12-29-14 at 05:53 PM ----------

the 135mm lens is full frame ( If mem serves ) and the 55 kit lens is a Cropped sensor lens ? ( DA 18-55 AL (2) )

That is irrelevant
The circle of confusion is based on the sensor format of the camera you are using and therefore the same.

[old4570]

Yeah , I'm not that into math .. I prefer to just take a picture and see ...
But nice pick up !

---------- Post added 12-29-14 at 04:15 PM ----------




Havent seen them side by side yet ! ( Clicking submit )


Ok , looks to be seriously close : ( Both with +4 CF filters )


Nice pick up GUB ! Thank you .. Looks like a new revision is in order !

[promacjoe]

DOF calculators do not work for micro. A 50 mm lens will give a similar depth of field as a 135mm or a 200mm lens at 1:1 ratio. only focusing distant changes. Which equals approximately 2X the focal length of the lens. however DOF is affected by the aperture.

[GUB]

DOF calculators do not work for micro. A 50 mm lens will give a similar depth of field as a 135mm or a 200mm lens at 1:1 ratio. only focusing distant changes. Which equals approximately 2X the focal length of the lens. however DOF is affected by the aperture.

Yeah I was wondering -- can you perhaps get another stop or 2 more closed on a longer lens before diffraction kicks in??

[promacjoe]

Yeah I was wondering -- can you perhaps get another stop or 2 more closed on a longer lens before diffraction kicks in??

No, diffraction will kick in at about the same aperture. Diffraction is a inherent property of the aperture size. A longer lens will give you a better working distance so that you do not disturb the subject. For instance, if you are taking a picture of a Hornet nest you would want the longest focal length that you could get, in order not to disturb them. However, taking a picture of a inanimate object, such as a penny you could use a standard lens.

given the same ratio between the focal length in the distance for each lens, you will get a similar size image.

[GUB]

No, diffraction will kick in at about the same aperture. Diffraction is a inherent property of the aperture size. A longer lens will give you a better working distance so that you do not disturb the subject. For instance, if you are taking a picture of a Hornet nest you would want the longest focal length that you could get, in order not to disturb them. However, taking a picture of a inanimate object, such as a penny you could use a standard lens.

given the same ratio between the focal length in the distance for each lens, you will get a similar size image.

I thought diffraction issues were created by the relationship between the circumference of the aperture vs the area of lens opening.
And the f number is simply derived by F length/ diameter of aperture.
So in a 200mm lens at f4 the iris diameter would be 50 mm so there would be 12.5 sq mm of glass for every mm of iris circumference.
In a 50mm lens at f4 the iris would be 12.5mm --- so only 3.13 sq mm of glass for every mm of iris circumference.
That is why I was thinking you could have a 200mm at f8 for the same diffraction effect of a 50mm at f4.
Is it perhaps because the diffracting effect originates from a further distance that the gap closes?