Posted by Jim Hackley on April 3, 2014 at 11:15 AM
Over the last couple of months I have become interested in macro/flora photography. One of the problems I have encountered is how to show the main subject sharp but still keep the background elements in check when using a smaller aperture. I can shoot more wide open but then the subject is less sharp so I been trying to find not so distracting backgrounds. I would be curious to see how other macro/flora photographers handle this.
Do you find an acceptable f stop like f8/f10 instead of f16/f22? Do you do some type of PS blur technique for the background? Do you work the subject until you find the right background that is not so distracting?
I guess this also depends on what you are trying to with your image but for now I am trying to find a background that is not distracting but keep the main subject as sharp as possible. I am currently using a Nikkor 85 mm 3.5 lens but have been thinking about upgrading.
Thank you for any feedback.
Regards,
Jim
Hi Jim! Some of my thoughts:
--A longer macro lens helps with this. I have a 180mm Tamron macro lens which allows more distance from the subject while shooting. This gives more sharpness to the subject while making the background more blurred than a shorter lens would do. Not sure of all the technical reasons for this. . .but it works well.
--Use an artificial background. I often use black velvet, but other colored materials work too. Some persons use a large print of blurred foliage pasted on a panel to hold in the background. Then you can set your aperture as small as you wish without worrying about the background getting busy.
--Put your background in shade and/or more light on your subject. Use of a flash or even just a small LED flashlight can give more lighting to the subject. Conversely, add shade to the background by your shadow or some other method.
--Move around, if possible, until you get greater distance between your subject and background. The more distance between the two, the more blurred you can get the background while still keeping the subject sharp. Sometimes a lower POV helps with this because it enables you to use the sky or distant trees as your background instead of the immediate area around your subject.
--Keep your focal plane lined up with the important elements in your image that you want sharp. That way you can keep your aperture more open but still have crucial elements in focus.
--Move distracting background elements as much as possible without being destructive to the environment.
--Take multiple shots, if possible, at various apertures. When viewing later, you can decide which image has the balance you like best between focused and blurred.
--Much can be done in post-processing now to blur and darken background elements while keeping the subject sharp and bright. I like Nik software, using the control points in Viveza to help with this.
These are just some of the techniques I have learned about and utilized. Hope it helps!
Hi Jim,
In addition to Carolyn's wonderful suggestions, you can also use focus stacking to get sharp macro images of a flower without getting a distracting background. Basically, use a wide open f/stop and focus at different distances into the flower, then combine the images (preferably shot when there is little or no wind movement of flower) - Photoshop has a great auto-align and auto-blend for focus stacking (there's also other software designed for this). If your camera has a depth-of-field preview button, you can use that to preview how much of your image will be in focus before you shoot and change your f/stop accordingly if necessary. You mentioned that you might be upgrading - as Carolyn mentioned, a longer focal-length macro lens (e.g., 180mm) would greatly help with a softer bokeh (blurred background). Alternatively, if you already have a longer focal-length telephoto lens (e.g., 300mm, 400mm), you can use a screw-on close-up double-element lens (looks just like a screw-on filter) that will give you macro capability and blur the background.
Carol,
I have done several of your suggestions already but you have brought up other wonderful points. It is interesting the photography path we take as I started out with landscapes, got caught up in bird photography for the last several years and now I am focused on the macro/flower/close up items. It is like another world when you start looking at the smaller things.
Sandy,
I do have a 300 f4 which has given me very sharp bird images so I may start seeing what this lens can do with close up images.
David,
I have not tried stacking images at this point but may look at that also. By the way I have your excellent book "Wildflowers of Monterey County".
Thank you all very much for your suggestions, much appreciated.
Jim
Some great suggestions already, Jim. You have already achieved considerable progress in macro and floral photography by recognizing the importance of the bg. Now, the most important thing you can do is to simply pay critical attention to the bg when shooting. Of course, having and using your camera's dof preview is invaluable. Anyway, the more attention you pay to the bg, the quicker you will learn what works and what doesn't, and how to choose subjects (taking into account both the subject and the bg) and angles which work best for the light, subject and bg. In floral/macro photography, I spend way more time studying angles, separation, and bgs than shooting. I'll also echo David's suggestion about combining shallow dof w/ focus stacking as a great way to obtain a greater subject dof while maintaining a neutral bg. Finally, get close to your subject. This will allow you get greater dof on the subject while maintaining a neutral bg and/or minimizing the bg.
p.s., to answer your question, there is no optimal or preferred fstop. f8 may be too wide in one image, and not wide enough in another. It always depends on the subject and conditions. I shoot florals and macro subjects using every possible fstop. It just depends on the subject and conditions.
I also echo Scott's suggestion to shoot every macro image at all f-stops - or actually, I do 2.8, 4, 7.1, 8, 11, 14, 16, 22, 26, 32 as I have found these the sharpest. Doesn't take much extra time at all since you're set up on a tripod anyway. Then you have many choices of "optimal".
Sandyt
For me, it is more difficult to find a wonderful background than to find a perfect flower or a friendly insect. With a shallow DOF, it is pretty hard to get the subject sharp if the important elements of an image are not on a focal plane. I often shot flowers at different apertures. With the butterflies, I have less time to test apertures. Sometimes, an acceptable F stop is just a compromise between a sharp subject and a blurred background.
Yun
Posted by Jim Hackley on April 3, 2014 at 11:49 PM
Scott, Sandy, Yun,
I went out this afternoon and started practicing some of these suggestions especially paying more attention to focal plane and background.
Thank you for taking the time to comment.
Regards,
Jim
Jim, I often use stacking to let me do what you're talking about. It's definitely not an effort free approach on the processing end, check out my post here. It also important to say that the wider your aperture, the harder it is to get a truly sharp stack.
If you're trying to use a long tele for "macro" you must have extension tubes so you can get closer focus than is normally allowed otherwise there's no way to get even close to 1:1 (lifesize) views. For example, Wikipedia gives the maximum magnification of the canon 500 f4 as 0.15 (or about 1/7th lifesize) at a close focusing distance of just over 12 feet.
Posted by Jim Hackley on April 10, 2014 at 12:34 PM
Thanks Mark, I did not know that about extension tubes, may have to give that a try as I started to experiment around with my 300 f4 lens.
Always have to be aware of background and lighting (shade or overcast preferred). If I want the flower or object in sharp focus I use my 100-400 lens, set camera to "P" and stand way back, zoom in and shoot. May involve some cropping in post processing but it gives a blurred background and a sharp flower. If I want an abstract macro, I add the 500D diopter onto the 100-400 lens and get as close as I can to give sharp focus to the edge of the petals. Take many shots at different distances. Simplistic, but it works as an option to buying and/or carrying a macro lens.
Discussion
11 repliesDo you find an acceptable f stop like f8/f10 instead of f16/f22? Do you do some type of PS blur technique for the background? Do you work the subject until you find the right background that is not so distracting?
I guess this also depends on what you are trying to with your image but for now I am trying to find a background that is not distracting but keep the main subject as sharp as possible. I am currently using a Nikkor 85 mm 3.5 lens but have been thinking about upgrading.
Thank you for any feedback.
Regards,
Jim
--A longer macro lens helps with this. I have a 180mm Tamron macro lens which allows more distance from the subject while shooting. This gives more sharpness to the subject while making the background more blurred than a shorter lens would do. Not sure of all the technical reasons for this. . .but it works well.
--Use an artificial background. I often use black velvet, but other colored materials work too. Some persons use a large print of blurred foliage pasted on a panel to hold in the background. Then you can set your aperture as small as you wish without worrying about the background getting busy.
--Put your background in shade and/or more light on your subject. Use of a flash or even just a small LED flashlight can give more lighting to the subject. Conversely, add shade to the background by your shadow or some other method.
--Move around, if possible, until you get greater distance between your subject and background. The more distance between the two, the more blurred you can get the background while still keeping the subject sharp. Sometimes a lower POV helps with this because it enables you to use the sky or distant trees as your background instead of the immediate area around your subject.
--Keep your focal plane lined up with the important elements in your image that you want sharp. That way you can keep your aperture more open but still have crucial elements in focus.
--Move distracting background elements as much as possible without being destructive to the environment.
--Take multiple shots, if possible, at various apertures. When viewing later, you can decide which image has the balance you like best between focused and blurred.
--Much can be done in post-processing now to blur and darken background elements while keeping the subject sharp and bright. I like Nik software, using the control points in Viveza to help with this.
These are just some of the techniques I have learned about and utilized. Hope it helps!
The only addition i can make is, consider using your long telephoto!
When I remember to use (and it's possible to use) my 500, the subject is tack-sharp and the BG is perfectly blurred.
Here is an example:
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=216124&CGISESSID=6fe86dea92e2dc62ca53b6730dc92b30&u=21159
Sandy
In addition to Carolyn's wonderful suggestions, you can also use focus stacking to get sharp macro images of a flower without getting a distracting background. Basically, use a wide open f/stop and focus at different distances into the flower, then combine the images (preferably shot when there is little or no wind movement of flower) - Photoshop has a great auto-align and auto-blend for focus stacking (there's also other software designed for this). If your camera has a depth-of-field preview button, you can use that to preview how much of your image will be in focus before you shoot and change your f/stop accordingly if necessary. You mentioned that you might be upgrading - as Carolyn mentioned, a longer focal-length macro lens (e.g., 180mm) would greatly help with a softer bokeh (blurred background). Alternatively, if you already have a longer focal-length telephoto lens (e.g., 300mm, 400mm), you can use a screw-on close-up double-element lens (looks just like a screw-on filter) that will give you macro capability and blur the background.
David
I have done several of your suggestions already but you have brought up other wonderful points. It is interesting the photography path we take as I started out with landscapes, got caught up in bird photography for the last several years and now I am focused on the macro/flower/close up items. It is like another world when you start looking at the smaller things.
Sandy,
I do have a 300 f4 which has given me very sharp bird images so I may start seeing what this lens can do with close up images.
David,
I have not tried stacking images at this point but may look at that also. By the way I have your excellent book "Wildflowers of Monterey County".
Thank you all very much for your suggestions, much appreciated.
Jim
p.s., to answer your question, there is no optimal or preferred fstop. f8 may be too wide in one image, and not wide enough in another. It always depends on the subject and conditions. I shoot florals and macro subjects using every possible fstop. It just depends on the subject and conditions.
Sandyt
For me, it is more difficult to find a wonderful background than to find a perfect flower or a friendly insect. With a shallow DOF, it is pretty hard to get the subject sharp if the important elements of an image are not on a focal plane. I often shot flowers at different apertures. With the butterflies, I have less time to test apertures. Sometimes, an acceptable F stop is just a compromise between a sharp subject and a blurred background.
Yun
I went out this afternoon and started practicing some of these suggestions especially paying more attention to focal plane and background.
Thank you for taking the time to comment.
Regards,
Jim
If you're trying to use a long tele for "macro" you must have extension tubes so you can get closer focus than is normally allowed otherwise there's no way to get even close to 1:1 (lifesize) views. For example, Wikipedia gives the maximum magnification of the canon 500 f4 as 0.15 (or about 1/7th lifesize) at a close focusing distance of just over 12 feet.