Today in the sun

It's nice to see the improvement in the shots

My best macro shots are always produced by a s*** load of luck which is why I don't have many good ones

I like the shots above

Very interesting and informative thread! For what it's worth, I never use a tripod for macro - it is so restrictive as to be more trouble than it is worth (unless all the subjects are static, which sort of defeats the object if shooting wild things). I also prefer to shoot without flash, simply because I think the results are far more natural. This can be problematic with DOF, freezing action etc., but after much experimentation I would rather increase the ISO to 1600 or so. With the K-x, K-r and K-5 the results are still vibrant even at this or higher ISO settings and you can get decent shutter speeds at f8 or f11.

I also find that often the results with non-macro lenses and tubes are better than a dedicated macro lens. I seem to get sharper pics this way.

Regards
David

To a certain extent I could agree with you David (re. Tripods) however not all subjects are active all the time, I have shot caterpillars & spiders with a mag-slider, and flies, dragonflies and damsels on tripods ..... and just as many, or more, by hand !

As for flash ... well you will get far more keepers and sometimes it is the ONLY way to get the shot. All the best macro shooters use flash.

There is a time and a place both for tripods and flash and you will be limiting your opportunities to deny either a place in your macro kit.

Also for the OP - I also wouldn't believe the stories that AF is useless in macro. It's not. With skittish subjects I often use AF and it works just as well (sometimes better) than MF. That said overall I generally use MF more.

+ 1. If I'm working really close I use the flash even in bright sunshine. (I don't use a tripod either)

Nice shots by the way.

I'm not sure all the best macro shooters use flash. However, all the best macro shooters who use flash do so in a very skilled way indeed. Managing the reflections from the shiny surface of bugs and balancing subject and background lighting is hugely difficult and more so the closer you go. It's a personal preference but I just don't like macro shots where the use of flash is obvious.

I'm with you on that one, dr. If I can see obvious reflections caused by flash it turns me off.

While I agree that, for some subjects, such as those on michaelmas daisies which are generally moving about during the day, a tripod is useless. But I find that, as Dr O says, there are times where almost any bug is still. You just have to learn when and where that is. In those cases I'll use a tripod and get a better shot as a result of it. That's been my experience, anyway. I can use mirror-up, a longer exposure resulting in a greater dof, and ensure better focussing than hand held.

Not all of the above is right all the time, but I feel it helps me get better shots. If the insect or whatever moves, that's bad luck. There'll always be another.

Agree with everything but the first sentence.

It's illogical to think that any of the top macro shooters would deliberately seriously handicap themselves. Some of them even go out of their way to show you their flash set-ups (some of them quite brilliant). Since macro is all about getting close, usually using f8 and up, and most often at speeds of over 1/100 (or usually at 1/180 or 1/250, both flash sync speeds) then a flash is more often than not a necessity. However the skill is all in the diffusing so that the reflections you mention are rarely noticeable in their work.

BTW I do agree with you in general, in all my photography (except macro ) I prefer ambient lighting wherever possible.

Perhaps the very best macro photographers do use flash all the time. I wouldn't know. I'm sure I couldn't afford their lighting set ups.

This thread started with someone who is attempting to start on the macro path. I started on that just a few months ago.

I would, personally, suggest learning about the lens, learning how to get the correct focus, which includes, if my experience is anything to go by, training the eye, and to start by shooting almost still subjects. There's no doubt that flash can be a very useful tool, but it's not essential for a beginner, especially if shooting in bright sunlight (although this can also produce the same sort of reflections as flash).

Of course, I'm really just a novice in this game, and there are plenty of ways to skin a cat. Some people may say that it's best to start using flash right at the beginning. I don't think that's necessary.

Today I produced my first image using focus stacking. Now that does increase the dof! Try doing that without a tripod.

Fwiw, I personally get more detail in the eye with a reversed lens, tubes & flash than I ever get with any of my 3 macro lenses.

Flash, I think, is best, when you can't tell it's been used. Ie diffused on 1/16, 1/32. There is outstanding work both with and without flash.

The only macro lens I'd get now is MPE-65, but that's a different system. Most 'macro' lenses arn't actually even really macro, they're more like short distance teles.

I didn't put my point across very well. I'm sure you're right, all the best macro photographers have flash in their armoury. However, I suspect there are those who use frequently use natural light too.

Personally I rarely use flash for macro. I have tried, albeit rather crudely and I didn't like the results so I won't try it again until I organise a proper set-up. But I don't like full sun either, with the exception of furry things like butterflies which can largely cope with strong light. Even thing strong sun can mess up the surroundings, in fact usually does. It does make things more difficult but I enjoy the challenge and I'm sure that when I do use flash then my technique will be better for not using it. I don't think there are many bugs I've missed this year because of not having flash, and I have been pretty lazy on the early morning front too.

I'm sure you are right there Dr.

I also started macro in the same way you did because I found using flash intimidating after finding out that the undiffused on-board flash is not going to work (harsh, shadows, reflections etc.).

Dark Skies - often macro lighting set ups are not expensive at all. Mine's relatively simple (flash unit - manual is fine, stand, wireless transmitter/receiver, medium sized softbox - whatever is comfortable to work with) and if you have any flash unit at all then another 20 - 30 pounds has you covered (cheap Chinese Ebay gear works perfectly).
I also concocted one of those cardboard extending diffusers for the on-board flash which costs just a couple of pounds (or nothing if you have the bits and bobs to hand) and a little effort, they are remarkably effective.

I believe Nass is correct, in general you get more detail, more keepers. I avoided flash as long as I could but it became frustrating and I'd urge anyone just starting out to learn how to use their lens properly (as DS said) on still subjects and then quickly learn how to add and diffuse flash (or even use twin video arm LEDs which I also tried for a while but are more expensive and not as powerful as using flash but have the advantage of allowing you to clearly see and focus on the subject in poor light).

Yes, I do intend to build a home made diffuser at some time. It's certainly a technique which I want to try and learn because, as Dr O says, good macro photographers have flash in their armoury. It's learning when to have it and use it is something I have to get my head around.

After about 4 months using a macro lens I find I'm still learning the basic techniques.

[IMG]http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff444/Frogherder/IMGP7853.jpg[/IMG]

Just thought I'd show you my "scrapyard" diffuser. Which I use instead of the onboard flash for most things.

It's a standard 2 litre icecreamtub which I lined with kitchen foil using a few strips of double sided tape to hold it in place. The rectangular hole takes the AF260Sa flash gun ( a snug press fit). The white plastic lid of the tub acts as the diffuser and is taped on with white electricians tape. The flash gun is fired wirelessly (the receiver lives in place)

Changes the guns GN of 26 down to circa GN6 so reasonably easy to get close with the first test shot.
A hankerchief folded into four produces about the same reduction. I've started using this when photographing my 3m grandson - he barely notices, which compared with the look of absolute shock when his mum uses her onboard camera
Bernard

Cool idea FH ! I love seeing these homemade diffusers and seeing/hearing what they can do ! I'm afraid my home-made diffuser (not used so often now as I prefer wireless/softbox off-camera) is almost identical to that of Trickletreat's on page 1.

I have made 4 in the last few weeks, and I'm in the middle of doing my 5th as we speak, just waiting on some parts. 1-3 were bracket & flash, 4 was on hotshoe & V will be on hotshoe + extension + swivelly thing. I've found 4 & 5 better because the flash is nearer the subject so you use less flash so it recycles faster, has a shorter duration etc etc etc. if V is a success I'll post a photo sometime