-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
Show us your macro photos & equipment!
- Thread starter Will Thompson
- Start date
Will Thompson
Active member
Robert Watcher
Well-known member
My equipment is essentially just a dedicated macro lens for my Olympus camera and a set of Neewer extension tubes. For lighting, it is natural light or a small Godox TT350 flash on my camera shot through a small diffuser that I hold on my lens. For indoor studio setting, I use 2 flexible LED end table lights. Sometimes I have painted backgrounds with my iPhone and various colours on my screen. Also I like to tether the camera to my computer when possible.
Robert Watcher
Well-known member
Indoors
Tethered
Tethered
Last edited:
Robert Watcher
Well-known member
Outdoors
Will Thompson
Active member
Robert I love your spheres within spheres!
I also love the patterns in your work.
Particularly what I am thinking is fungi but also seems like slices of wood stacked!
Really great shots!
I also love the patterns in your work.
Particularly what I am thinking is fungi but also seems like slices of wood stacked!
Really great shots!
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
These are superb! Fabulous how these burst out of the cactus! Whet macro lens is this the 50 or 100 Canon?Asher
Will Thompson
Active member
Canon EF 50mm f2.5 macro
All 4 Canon 100mm macro lenses EF L, RF L, EF, & EF USM are useless for what I shoot!
The best is the RF 35mm IS STM MACRO!
The RF 24mm IS STM MACRO is useless as well since it is impossible to properly mount a ring-light to it!
All 4 Canon 100mm macro lenses EF L, RF L, EF, & EF USM are useless for what I shoot!
The best is the RF 35mm IS STM MACRO!
The RF 24mm IS STM MACRO is useless as well since it is impossible to properly mount a ring-light to it!
Last edited:
Will Thompson
Active member
Asher stop commenting and post something of yours!
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Hi, Rob,
Lovely shots and a wonderful photo essay.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Doug
Lovely shots and a wonderful photo essay.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Doug
Will Thompson
Active member
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Will,
Can you explain your statement,
“All 4 Canon 100mm macro lenses EF L, RF L, EF, & EF USM are useless for what I shoot!”
Why?
The best is the RF 35mm IS STM MACRO!
Does that have a built in flash?
Can you explain your statement,
“All 4 Canon 100mm macro lenses EF L, RF L, EF, & EF USM are useless for what I shoot!”
Why?
The best is the RF 35mm IS STM MACRO!
Does that have a built in flash?
Will Thompson
Active member
Can not mount a ring light or not wide enough!
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Will Thompson
Active member
No
Will Thompson
Active member
Will Thompson
Active member
Will Thompson
Active member
Will Thompson
Active member
Will Thompson
Active member
Will Thompson
Active member
Will Thompson
Active member
Will Thompson
Active member
Will Thompson
Active member
Will Thompson
Active member
Will Thompson
Active member
Will Thompson
Active member
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
It is interesting that we speak of the photography of small (but not microscopic) objects as macrophotography (or photomacrography) given that "macro" is a particle of Geek origin that means "large."
My belief is that this reflects that the initial use of macrophotography (or photomacrography) was to distinguish it from the photography of microscopic objects (then called microphotography (or photomicrography), the particle "micro" being of Greek origin and meaning "small".
So the "large" objects shot in macrophotography are large compared to the objects shot in microphotography, but small compared to the objects shot in portrait photography (other than for pet spiders and the like).
******
A related curiosity is the custom of speaking of a macrophotographic setup as worthy of that name only if the image magnification is 1.00 or greater.
That mans that, with an 8" × 10" camera and such a qualifying setup, it would be suitable for photographing an object as small as, say, a lady's high-heeled shoe.
Best regards,
Doug
My belief is that this reflects that the initial use of macrophotography (or photomacrography) was to distinguish it from the photography of microscopic objects (then called microphotography (or photomicrography), the particle "micro" being of Greek origin and meaning "small".
So the "large" objects shot in macrophotography are large compared to the objects shot in microphotography, but small compared to the objects shot in portrait photography (other than for pet spiders and the like).
******
A related curiosity is the custom of speaking of a macrophotographic setup as worthy of that name only if the image magnification is 1.00 or greater.
That mans that, with an 8" × 10" camera and such a qualifying setup, it would be suitable for photographing an object as small as, say, a lady's high-heeled shoe.
Best regards,
Doug
Last edited: