Tech setup a tad complex... From body outwards: 1.4x Canon TC, 65mm of extension tubes (first tube "bored" to allow TC to fit), then 100mm 1:1 macro. Technique: Manual focus set to closest focus (approx 2x life). Handheld - achieved focus by moving lens back and forwards towards subject. Working distance about 5cm. 550EX flashgun with diffuser and improvised paper "bounce reflector" held just off the side of lens, paper bounce reflector taped to other side of lens. A BIG thank you to M Plonsky for his macro tutorial, for inspiration and technical ideas. The bug is a hoverfly (harmless but very skittish). The flower is a thistle. More such images will follow if you like this one.
Hi Matej, Good luck trying this without a flash - the shutter speed will be a problem as you say - especially if you're trying to use a fairly small aperture to make the most of the tiny depth of field. Photographers who do macro without flash normally use a tripod, or use wide-open lenses and accept no depth of field. You can get an attachment for a good tripod that provides a rail with forward/backwards microadjustment for focusing purposes. I think without flash though insects will be extremely hard. The insects don't (in my experience) stay still long enough for you to think about adjusting a tripod. Best of luck anyway and thanks for your interest in my images. Chris
I see the principle of how the flash affects the effective shutter speed. I, however, have no external flash (no teleconvertor, either; just the extension tubes and the 105mm macro lens), so for me the shutter speed set on the camera would be the effective shutter speed. I'll just have to experiment :-)
Sorry for the duplication in the above... should have re-read my own previous comment
As an afterthought it occurred to me that I am probably anticipating the point of perfect focus also - as I move to bring the bug into focus, I think that sometimes I am probably taking the shot just as I know the bug is about to come into great focus.
Hi Matej, I'm glad you found my answer useful. I hope this one is also useful.
As far as your new question is concerned, the most important thing to realise is that the length of the exposure for these shots is not determined by the shutter speed. It is determined by the duration of the burst of flash from the flashgun, which occurs over a far shorter time than the shutter speed.
You will notice that the background of the shot is totally black. This is despite the fact the shot was taken in broad daylight. This is because the effective aperture of the lens is extremely small. I'm setting f/16 on the lens, but the addition of the teleconverter and the extension tubes loses several stops of light, making the effective aperture of the setup probably somewhere around f/45 (that's just a guess, not a precise calculation). This means that the only things that record on film to any significant extent are those that are lit by the flash, and they are only lit when the flash is on, only a fraction of the shutter speed. This means that camera shake while the shutter is open is not significant - I have an effective shutter speed of perhaps 1/1000s - I don't know the actual duration of the flash, but I believe it's in that ballpark.
However, there _are_ certainly stability issues with handholding in this way - but they occur before the exposure is made. As you have seen yourself, there is a tiny depth of field when you're composing such a shot - especially since you're looking through the lens wide open (You'd hardly be able to see ANYTHING with the lens stopped down it would be so dark). So the bug is moving in and out of focus to a dramatic extent every time you move, it moves, or the flower moves.
The stability problem is that you may go to take the shot when you see the bug in perfect focus, but things move before the exposure actually occurs. Some movement is inevitable and you need to rely on the (tiny) depth of field you get to cover it. Of course, it doesn't always work. In fact it only works perfectly a fraction of the time. I've got shots where the back of the bug is in focus instead of the front, I have a shot of a flower, and a set of insect legs just leaving the top of the frame, I have some shots where the bug turned around and you can no longer see it's face, etc etc. For this reason I love the Eos3, because it has a very light and fast shutter trigger which definitely helps - when I decide to take the shot it just happens, I don't need to think "press now!".
Initially I had _loads_ of these failures, because I thought "I'm close to a good shot and the bug could leave at any minute" and just took the shot. Now I reduce these disappointments a fair bit, because I won't shoot unless I really think I have a great shot - a bit of patience, if the bug flies off, it flies off and I'll find another. I know the focus is spot on when I can actually see the texture of the facets of the compound eye through the lens. I try to only take the shot when I see the focus that good. If I can still see them in the print I'm a very happy man - I managed not to
move too much. This shot for example, the focus is _not_ perfect. It's a tiny bit off, being pin-sharp on the bug's back just behind the eyes. The eyes are still pretty sharp, but the texture isn't very visible even in the print - you can only just see it, some of them are spot on.
I probably compose and focus on a bug 10 times for every one I actually take, and of the ones I take, perhaps 4/10 I consider rubbish, 4/10 acceptable but not inspiring, 1/10 good, and 1/10 if I'm lucky is stunning.
Another thing I do is move slowly. Even if I know the bug is way out of shot, I'll pan across slowly to find it. Trying to move faster loses my stability, startles the bug, and probably puts me way out of focus which takes longer to find again.
In the article, several possibilities are mentioned for steadying the camera. I find that my tripod is too big to use effectively when shooting with extension tubes, and considering the very shallow DOF, handholding introduces the risk that even the slightest movement of my body will get the subject out of focus. Then there's the problem with even the slightest breeze moving the flower. How do you deal with these issues? I see your shutter speed for this shot was 1/125 - that doesn't seem too fast, considering the setup. Could you possibly tell me your experiences as to what can be considered a safe (fast enough) shutter speed?
Hi Matej, Thank you for you comment and questions - I am happy to answer them.
The shot was taken in daylight. The apparent darkness in the background is due to the extremely small effective aperture used, and the fact that the foreground was lit with powerful flash.
I had the 1:1 macro lens set to f/16 - with 65mm of extension tube and a 1.4x converter in between the macro lens and the camera body I believe this works out to somewhere between f/32 and f/45. Therefore the entire setup is _extremely_ dark.
I use a powerful flashgun just off the side of the lens, its distance to subject is perhaps 6-8cm. As the flash is powerful enough to light a rock concert at long range, it's quite capable of lighting a bug at this range even at f/32. However, the power of this illuminations drops off at a startling rate with increasing distance, hence the background appears totally black.
As for your second question, you're quite correct, the bugs do tend to "exit stage left" just when you think you've got them. I'm just getting used to their reactions at the moment - I think there is an optimum speed to approach them - too fast and they will run away, too slow and they will have left anyway before you shoot them. I find one of the most valuable things to know is to have a good idea of your "distance to subject". You can approach fairly quickly if you know how close you need to go. The total lack of depth of field makes it almost easier to do this without looking through the viewfinder. Once in close range, move slowly and even wait for the bug to come to you. Reading Mark Plonsky's article may help - he points out a lot of useful information.
There's no doubt it does take patience, and for every shot that works there are a number that do not work. Initially I would take the shot as soon as I got vaguely near the bug, now I tend to be more selective, only taking the shot if I believe the bug is reasonably well composed and reasonably close to sharp.
To put a number to the question - I might go out and take a roll of 36 in an hour and a half, of which perhaps half would be flowers without bugs and reasonably good. Of the remaining 16, if 6 were "ok", and 2 of those were good, I'd generally be happy. I'm considering going digital, which obviously cuts down the costs of the lost frames.
Question one: was it dark outside when you shot this, or is the dark background something one normally gets with that lighting setup?
Question two: how much time did it take to shoot this? I've tried shooting insects, but they tend to fly away just when I finally get them in focus (by the same method as you've described) :-) especially when working from such a close distance.
I must say I find this shot quite stunning - please do post more.
0 
{K:24381} 8/6/2003
