So,
I'm pretty new to photography (just got a DSLR), and I've started off only using macro mainly because the shots seem to be innovative and interesting and... it's easy.

Anyone else agree? Or is that just me. Or am I completely off-base.

(Any macro tips also appreciated)

You might want to ask yourself those same questions as you gain experience and have uploaded some images. Let me know when it gets easy and then you can help me.
As for tips.
focus
DoF
lighting
shadow control
background
bokeh
subject matter
do I need to go on?

I find macro quite a challenge.

It is easy enough to shoot macro.

Hard to get a good shot.

Whole different world to learn: dof, light, comp, foreground, background and focus all require re-learning to see how an image may or may not work under the particulars of macro shooting.

Like the extremes of focal lengths, ultra wide and tele take a good many shots before you get the eye in.

I think in about a year I will start to nail it.

Seems like a challenging way to start, but if you like challenges, go for it. The most important thing about photography for me is to focus on what you like and when you see it click! When you get some experience you can try to focus on other things that broaden your vision.

There are some real masters of macro on this site. Study their work and try to strive for equivalent results.

Macro is easy in the way you can make the pictures on your kitchen table.

The tough part is that you have absolutely no DOF (about 1 mm).
Lighting your subject is a hell because you are so close to your subject.

Ofcourse all dark sides also have a light side, like the DOF. Sometimes it seems you are able to see through items like leaves. Just look at some pictures of Ursula Abrechs on this site and you'll see what I mean. The effect is quit hard to predict (it is to me anyway).

And you have never watched at the world at that level so I love exploring a subject by rotating, moving and tilting it (often with a brush).

Enjoy the journey :)

Yes, you can make macro-pictures on your kitchen table - or coffee-maschine! - and you can make them with a good DOF, if you have a real good patience and likes Trial and Error!
Lars :-)

I think any time you do something you like, something you enjoy, then it is easy. That is, easy to do from an involvement point of view, but sometimes not so easy to do from a results point of view. Enjoying it alone doesn't guarantee good results. It is true that different things are "easy" for different people :)

Macro tips. Hmmmm. One that's helped me is to pay close attention while making my compositions, to open my eyes wide while looking through the viewfinder, to pay attention to the whole of the frame, the edges, the middle, the whole of the subject. And with that use manual focus, to go in and out on the subject I'm exploring, it's amazing what you see that way. Oh, and use the polarizer filter, it's lovely for macro work!

Hope this helps :)

Now that is the solution I was looking for.
When getting close to certain kinds of flower leaves, some of them have this beautiful velvet look. However, when you get in close, those kind of plants tend to have many tiny ugly bright spots. Hard to get those out of the way and I always try to lower the light intensity with thin sheets of paper but that lowers the contrast as well. A polarizer should do the trick :)

One problem with macro is the shallow DOF. If you want more DOF you can always stop down but not too much, difraction will start to be visible at around f=11 or something. If you want more DOF still I can recomend the Helicon Focus program http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html. You take a lot of pictures with slightly different focus and add them together in the program. The problem is that your motif have to be absolutely still for a long period of time and you have to use a tripod. I haven't used it alot but it's cool to me :-)

Hi, I'm new to this website (or at least I hope to be when my shots get through the screening).
Macro is my main interest and in particular of insects.
I wouldn't say it's easy, but for me all the other disciplines are much more of a challenge. This may be because I've hardly done anything but macro, or maybe it's just because I suck at the rest. Who knows ;)
If you are going to shoot insects the obvious problems are approaching them and their movement.
I shoot without flash, so I require sunny weather.
Here's the part where you are going to laugh at me.. I use a Nikon Coolpix 8700. I love the hell out of that thing though.
I can't wait to see if my images are deemed good enough for this site :)

Silly question maybe... why is it called macro and not micro?

Hi Richard,
It has to do with the scaling. Here's what the wiki says:

"Macro photography is close-up photography. The classical definition is that the image projected on the "film plane" (i.e., film or a digital sensor) is close to the same size as the subject. On 35 mm film (for example), the lens is typically optimized to focus sharply on a small area approaching the size of the film frame. Most 35mm format macro lenses achieve at least 1:2, that is to say, the image on the film is 1/2 the size of the object being photographed. Many 35mm macro lenses are 1:1, meaning the image on the film is the same size as the object being photographed. Another important distinction is that lenses designed for macro are usually at their sharpest at macro focus distances and are not quite as sharp at other focus distances.

In recent years, the term macro has been used in marketing material to mean being able to focus on a subject close enough so that when a regular 6×4 inch (15×10 cm) print is made, the image is life-size or larger. This requires a magnification ratio of only approximately 1:4, more easily attainable by lens makers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography

Some lenses do use the Micro term, i.e. my AF Micro-NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8D. I don't think there is really any difference. I did read somewhere that Nikon considers "micro" to mean anything up to 1:1 and "macro" to mean anything bigger than 1:1, i.e. 3:1 or 10:1. Not sure if this is true because they have a "macro" setting on some of the old MF lenses that certainly did not yield even 1:1, more like 1:4. Don't really understand this myself. I just take the belief that Nikon is using the term micro the way Canon uses the term "macro."

There is in fact microphotography, but it's taken through microscopes. Even Canon MP-E 65mm is considered a lens for macrophotography with its x5 magnification.

"Here's the part where you are going to laugh at me.. I use a Nikon Coolpix 8700. I love the hell out of that thing though."

Well one of the best macro artists on this site uses an old Minolta Dimage with a raynox 250 in front. You can get great results with a compact if you know what you are doing.

Who?

I think JBA is referring to Marta Grzesiak from Poland. Just stunning macro shots...
http://1x.com/v2/#member/8090/-marta-grzesiak-/

Up to now I've been concentrating on wide angle vistas and landscape views however, I received my new macro lens at the weekend and spent a lot of time in the garden shooting spiders and bugs..or trying to. I find it pretty hard or should say frustrating more than technically challenging, finding interesting comps and about to press the shutter only to find an empty leave as the blighter has flew away. Fascinating subject though and I'm gonna have endless fun stalking and shooting the wee beasties.

John

They say you have to catch up with the errant beasties early in the morning, before the sun has warmed them up. I think some people keep ice handy to keep them slow. . . ;-) but that may be just an evil rumour. I was trying to catch a bee-mimic hoverfly type creature in a flower yesterday, but I could never guess which flower it was going to go to and my patience ran out in the end.
I find the depth of focus to be the awkward factor, as soon as the background is nicely blurry ( f2-8 or somesuch ) the DOF is too small. . . Focus Stacking is looking interesting though, I need to try it out.
Good luck anyway,
Jon

A DSLR with a dedicated macro lens just can not and never give you the same amazing results as a good compact camera set to wide angle in super macro mode. Ever noticed that macro lenses for DSLR cameras are never wide angle lenses..? That's why, in many cases, especially when you want those panoramic-like captures with extensive DOF, you just can't beat those compact cameras. For those captures, I would really prefer a compact over a DSLR anytime...

Hi Geert, I don't know the pros and cons between a compact and dslr/macro lens as I'm not experienced enough but I do want 1:1 mag ratio of my chosen subject at a relatively workable distance from subject with the optical quality that my present camera and macro lens affords (D300/Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro) and relatively shallow depths of field.

It would be intersting if you could expand on the compact benefits as this may aid me in my foray into the macro world.

Regards,
John

Very interesting Geert, any recommendations? I am thinking of getting a half decent compact for holidays and general wandering about. One with good macro too would be brilliant.
thanks,
Jon

btw - the focus stacking in CS4 is quite interesting, early days for me but fun.

Two dedicated focus stacking softwares are CombineZm and Helicon Focus, havent used but are recommended.
John

Hi John, I also have the Sigma 105mm, it's a very good, fast and sharp lens and I'm sure you'll find many good uses for it. Especially if you want a relatively workable distance and shallow depth of field. You can add a teleconverter for even more workable distance if you like. Or extension tubes if you want to get closer to the subject and to get more magnification. However, the very shallow depth of field means that you're going to need lots of practicing hours and probably many 'rejects' to get your focus on the subject exactly as you want it.
As all telephoto (macro) lenses, your 105mm has a much more shallow depth of field than a wide angle lens. A telephoto lens typically compresses distance, and depth of field with it. On the other hand, imagine an interchangeable, fast wide angle lens with macro capabilities for DSLR... the physical requirements for lens mount and sensor size would cause such a lens to be huge, very heavy and extremely expensive... I don't know of any manufacturer that makes such a lens.
Yet, many compact cameras are capable of producing excellent wide angle macro images, because of their limited sensor size and lens mount (and lens to shutter plane distance). You know those images with an object just before the lens and a landscape behind it, and everything is sharp and in focus..? You can do that with a compact camera, but not with a DSLR. If you're looking to make such images, start thinking about getting one of those decent compacts.
So if you want an insect to be in focus from left to right eye or even from head to tail, think compact.
If you rather have just a shallow focal point and you're ready to practice a lot in getting the focus just in the right spot, try DSLR.
Or you can use focus bracketing with a DSLR and software like Helicon Focus; just remember that you will not be able to do that with (fast) moving subjects...

Yeah my son has a really basic compact but has managed to take some amazing macros with it - handheld - simply because of the huge DOF at wide apertures (and hence fast shutter speeds) caused by the ridiculously short focal length - just 5mm.

Not sure I understand you, Geert. I can shoot a subject 1 foot from my camera and have both the subject and everything behind it to infinity in focus. 16mm, F16, full frame camera. You can confirm this with a depth of field chart/calculator.

Cheers Geert, I grasp most of what you say and I understand compacts have an inherant greater DOF due to their sensor size etc. By compact, do you mean the prosumer bridge type cameras such as the Panasonic DMC or any small pocket type ccompact/

John

ES, that's pure wide angle photography, which can give you a really impressive field of view and depth of field. But you can not really call that macro photography, can you..? Macro is getting your subject at a 1:1 magnification. Compact cameras can give you both: that 1:1 magnification and the impressive field of view and depth of field...

John, I mean any compact with decent macro capability (better check that out before acquiring). Of course, they don't all have the same image quality. The prosumer bridge type cameras will most likely be better in that aspect, and give you more exposure options.

To make macro seems easy.
But to make beautiful photos in macro is a very difficult exercise and require a detailed knowledge of all the photographic techniques.
enjoy with macrophotography!

what is the best way to start then? I read that shorter focal length macro lenses make it hard to get in good light because you are too close....also sometimes getting in close is not good.

Outside of bugs - is there such a think as macro abstract?

Richard, I started with small still objects to get accustomed to the equipment and the way of (manual) focusing, exposure and lighting (with or without flash). Getting the lens very close to the subject can indeed make it very difficult to get good light, even with normal flash light... unless you have one of those dedicated ring flashes (or else dual macro flashes) that you can place round or at the sides of your lens.

And sure, there is such a thing as macro abstract. Just take a look at my only published photo here for a very good example (lol)

I am not a big fan of macro... but if you are interested have a look here: http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com

This guy would deserve a OE gold membership ad honorem!

Ricardo, very nice macros at that site !
I'm not as good as that guy, but could you (or anyone else that is interested) take a look at the images at my website and tell me what you think ?
Don't mind the design of the website.. I'm working on a better one ;)
Thanks :)

http://enmos.eu

i agree in all of your words.........................
thanx

One important macro tip, often forgotten because new macro shooters tend to focus too much on getting the subject sharp, watch your background!

It seems in most macro shots I've seen, the background doesn't seem to be nearly as critical to the shot as sharpness of the subject and quality of lighting. That may be because the background will almost always be way out of focus. I wonder though that if you have strong lighting and sharpness on your core subject (e.g., the bug, flower, etc.), impact is stronger if your background is extremely simple (plain white, for example).

The background does not have to be plain white. If you work in color, also in color you can create contrast. For example a yellow flower will even look sharper against a blue background, but the whole picture will look softer, more gentle when you use a colour which is next to yellow (orange).

But if you really want to make a macro pop, you can have something visible in the background, which has a relation to the subject in focus. Just watch Ursula Abresch's macros and you'll see what i mean.

Macro is not easy! I've seen billions of images,sharp as a scalpel,but it gives me nothing. It's fairly easy to get those sharp pictures of insects on a flower,branch or straw. But try to catch them in flight. Try to catch them in a hunt for prey. Try to catch them in an emotional setting. Try to make a macroshoot a meaningfull one. Not just another flawless image ,pinsharp fly or wasp with no content. make the macroshot tell a story,,,then I'll get impressed :)

John

Great words !!!

These are macro shots with tons of emotions :
http://1x.com/?action=profile&user=9711

Nice one thomas, thanks for discovering Leon for me, dead impressive.
JP

Actually Photography itself is really easy. Refining your technique will take a lifetime but that's just the fun part.
All things are easy if you break them down into small enough segments.
The only thing in life that's difficult is cooking cheese on toast without burning the crusts.

And that's easy too, just use a microwave, sorta like Photoshop...

BTW, my goal is to print/post straight from the scanner...

Don't forget that in macro photography there are also several types of photography, like in people photography. One can either shoot in nature, call it street photography, or one can shoot in a controlled set-up, call it studio photography. It would be unfair to compare studio photography with street photography. In a studio one has much more control over the colors of the backdrops and the light, something that is much harder to do in nature. On the other hand, it is much harder to get insects at ease in a studio. Another master in studio photography is Igor SiwanowicZ (http://photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=1783374), he even breeds the insects himself.

I find that of all the subjects, macro comes easiest to me :)

Macro Photography,,,Easy????,,,Who say that!

If you just click the shutter in 1:1 ratio, that's very Easy,,,
but if you want to have STORY, IMPACT, EMOTIONS,, That's another level
But if you said Macro Photography is easy for you,,,maybe you need to explore the Underwater Photography Macro,,and GOODLUCK

I definitely agree with Geert, compact camera can give you a wider DOF due the focal length and sensor size,,but the downfall of the compact camera is ,,,,how about you want to create the blurry backGround, then i can say DO it in PHOTOSHOP. :-)

How's it going with the macro Arieh, still easy? :)

Master April403 ah.... you must be the macros' master that I am searching for .... please enlighten on this discipline..... :))

(easy...?!! huooo.......)