Macro Photography and Epilepsy

Nature Talk
22

Ok, I kind of overread that the OP want´s to go in ultra-macro … different story

1 Like
23

I wish plants didn’t move. Many of my pictures are fingers with flower, as there is always a breeze. Just. In the moment when I click the shutter.

2 Likes
24

I use an Olympus Stylus TG-4 camera. It has “microscope” settings for close ups and an LED ring that clips over the lens. It is a small point and shoot type camera a fair digital telephoto. Also it has built in GPS. It is my go-to camera for i-Naturalist.

1 Like
25

It’s an Amaran Halo and this particular model seems to have been discontinued for years which renders it kind of moot to share that info now. I use it with my Canon PowerShot SX40 HS (also apparently discontinued) with a Raynox DCR-250 snap on macro lens. They work well together, but it might not work as well for larger lenses on dSLRs. I seem to remember reading it causes vignetting with some larger lenses and was incompatible with some Nikon cameras. I think your best bet is to do a search for ring flash or LED ring light in combo with whatever camera brand you’re using.

2 Likes
26

I deal with migraine headaches from time to time which I understand is not at all the same thing but I occasionally deal with some similar issues. One simple solution is I wear sunglasses and close my eyes right before I hit the shutter. I agree that at 2x, you will never be happy with a contestant light source. One thing I did in the past was use a super bright led headlamp that I could set directly on the lens. This worked, but never produced high quality results as you can’t really freeze time. You can choose to accept noise and shake and just deal with it, but I was never happy with this. One option could be to settle for in studio work. This way, you can set up a studio where the flash is never visible. I believe Sam Droege has a YouTube video showing his Styrofoam cooler bounce flash set up. The flash is completely enclosed our at least could easily be modified to be completely enclosed. Diy diffusers can help with field photography. Making a snoot with a diffuser at the end can limit the area the flash hits. After market eye cups can also help reduce the outside light bleeding into the viewfinder. Another thing that may help is to set your shutter to single frame rather than a continuous mode to eliminate a strobe effect. Most flash heads will perform better this way too unless you get something real high end.

4 Likes
27

A flash shouldn’t be a problem, at least with a real camera. And anything beyond 1:1 magnification pretty much requires a real camera.

The reason the flash shouldn’t be a problem is that you shouldn’t ever actually see the flash. You have one eye closed, and the other against the viewfinder. The closed eye won’t see the flash since it’s closed. You can’t see the flash in the viewfinder because the mirror is up during the time of the flash. At most you’ll see a weak flash coming thru your eyelid, or the momentary increase in ambient light around the viewfinder. Both those are heavily attenuated.

I don’t know much about how sensitive some epileptics can be to a single flash, but all the above is worth considering. The few epileptics I’m familiar with are sensitive to repeated flashes, usually around 5-10 Hz being the worst. A single flash wouldn’t bother them.

To answer your other question, yes, you really need a flash for serious macro photography like you describe, with greater than 1:1 magnification. Yes, I know cell phones can take recognizable pictures on “macro” with sufficient ambient light. However, that macro rarely goes to 1:1 (equivalent for 35mm frame), and shutter speed will be slow and the depth of field poor.

The basic physics of how lenses work means you need a lot of light for macros. We think of f-stops being normalized measures of how much light the lens lets thru. If a picture of your house looks good at 1/200 second and f/8, then it will look good with any other lens also set to f/8 in otherwise the same conditions.

This simple view of f-stops only works because the magnification is much less than 1. In reality, the light indicated by an f-stop setting is actually attenuated by the square of (1 + M), where M is the magnification from the subject to the image plane. With a picture of your house, the magnification is much much less than 1, so (1 + M) squared is still basically 1.

However, at a magnification of 1, (1 + M) squared is 4, so you’re already getting 2 f-stops less light than what the lens setting would otherwise indicate. At 1:2, you loose a factor of 9, or about 3 f-stops.

Depth of field is another problem magnification. To get higher depth of field, you need a higher f-stop to get a smaller diameter lens. That robs you of more light.

Then there is camera shake. Small movements that you normally wouldn’t notice are magnified just like the subject. Holding the camera still can be a real challenge for macro photography. Unless you have a still subject and can mount the camera, you need to use a faster shutter speed to compensate for wobbles. That takes even more light.

Put all these together, and a flash is pretty much the only viable option. It gives you a lot of extra light, and works like a fast shutter at the same time.

A steady light the same brightness of a flash would be very bright. It would take a lot of power, and quite possibly would blind and/or cook whatever you are trying to take a picture of.

If you’re serious about macro photography, try a xenon flash ring light. That puts the light right where you need it, and also acts as a baffle to reduce the amount of flash bouncing back in your direction.

3 Likes
28

This seems obvious, but it’s not always true. I often look through the viewfinder with my dominant eye and leave the other one open most of the time, because if I keep it closed for too long I have trouble getting the two eyes to coordinate for a few seconds, and I don’t like that. We humans are often a bit weird.

3 Likes
29

Plus if you ever worked with microscope you know you need to have both eyes opened and it helps with macro too, as object can suddenly move and you’ll loose it if you won’t see it with another eye, so it’s a nice skill to have!

2 Likes
30

Agree whole heartedly with Olin.

Using a flash camera is much different than facing one. When using DSLR through the viewfinder you just won’t see the flash pop.

Have you ran this past your doctor/specialist? Is a single bounced flash a defined trigger for you?

For me, especially in the field, a diffused flash is the simplest most flexible way to go. Further to keeping it simple I use the compact clip on diffuser that came with the flash. Works great for my needs, 1:1 and super macro.

I admire those that do stacked imaging but in the field it would be highly restrictive. Subjects that pose still on a static platform are rare to find.

Regards
James

31

Except field insect photography isn’t like portrait photography. I rarely close my non dominate eye as it isn’t comfortable for me and I frequently take photos with my camera at arms length while still looking through the viewfinder. Also, the eye cups frequently don’t prevent all the flash from bleeding in. When my eyes are sensitive, I can always see the flash using my t3i but only sometimes using my eos r when I have it tight to my face.

Using a bounce flash would likely reduce the flash I see, but with my current setup and in real world conditions, I almost always see my flash.

I agree though this shouldn’t be a problem so long as you make sure not to shoot in a continuous mode.

2 Likes
32

The Olympus Tough TG-6 (or predecessors) has Microscope level Macro built in, and the accessory Light Ring evens out the available light. I am not very good with the focusing as I have trouble with focusing my own aged eyes, and I am not sure if it requires use of the built in flash or not, but could be worth looking into.

I own, and used to use, a 10x or 20x dissecting microspoce for looking at bits of specimens. The results with the Olympus do provide a similar quality photo to the lower range mag of the microscope, when I can get it right…

1 Like
33

This got long because I was having too much fun thinking about various techniques and looking through macro photography contest winners … sorry! :D

Background: I am NOT a professional. I shoot for fun and to explore the world. I’ve been shooting macro for about 2 1/2 years, starting with a kit telephoto and a Raynox adaptor. I like trying new techniques so I experiment a lot.

So, what does flash get you in typical macro photography and how can you work around it? Here are the obvious answers that come to mind for me:

Three benefits of flash we need to work around

  1. A little movement is a big problem so taking a very brief exposure is important if your subject is moving (assuming you are not going for intentional motion blur).

  2. (Traditionally) macro is about emphasizing small details so you want a low ISO.

  3. (Again, in “traditional macro”) you’re trying to maximize depth of field so you stopped down a lot and need a lot of light.

So, how can we work around those - keeping in mind, as others have noted, that there is no need to limit one’s self to trying to make one’s photos look just like everyone else’s?

Issue 1 - Freezing movement at high magnification

The most obvious workaround for issue 1 is to minimize movement by keeping the camera and subject stationary.

  • Tripod or bean bag
  • Stationary subjects (mushrooms, slime molds, sleeping insects)
  • Avoid wind (deep forests and canyons) or wind breaks (popup light boxes, pieces of painted cardboard, field “studios”, etc.)
  • Use of clamps to stabilize less-stable substrates like twigs that are prone to swinging in a slight breeze

Less obvious workarounds for 1 might include e.g. intentional motion. (see https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2020/11/winners-close-up-photographer-year/617070/#img04 - contest winner, NOT mine)

Issue 2 - Maximizing detail and minimizing noise

Some workarounds:

Issue 3 - Stopping down

Stopping down maximizes depth of field, but requires more light (often provided via flash) and can also introduce diffraction if you stop down too much. The obvious workaround is, of course, focus stacking. With a stationary subject, this can allow greater depth of field while permitting you to shoot at the lens’s optimal aperture to maximize detail. The result can be a sharper and more detailed image than a single shot can provide, with a smoother background. It’s possible to use a flash when focus stacking, but it can be challenging in the field - stacking is one situation where a (slightly) active subject can often be photographed more effectively without flash.

Other workarounds might include compositions that utilize very thin depth of field. See https://photocontest.smithsonianmag.com/photocontest/detail/sunny-drops/ (Photo contest entry, NOT mine) or https://www.cupoty.com/henrik-spranz-ballerina (contest winner, NOT mine)

Some benefits of no-flash macro

Above all, have fun and experiment, and you will certainly discover ways to capture images that suit both your stylistic preferences and your needs!

4 Likes
34

I use natural light whenever possible but I did occasionally use a ring light with my Olympus Tough camera. This seemed to do a pretty good job, but when photographing shiny things the reflection could sometimes be a problem, such as this example where it caused a false pattern.

2 Likes
35

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.