Lighting & Studio Why flash is a must in almost all macro scenarios...

[Helix_2648]

I bought a flash last summer but only for insects and not for focus stacking. It was hard for me to handle with the flash in manual mode because either the result was too dark or too bright. And I would never use it for my mushroom pictures but of course for insects.

But let's see if I can improve my skills next spring / summer. I'm also thinking about to but a good diffuser for my lens but not as long as I don't know which lens I will buy as this is very important for a good diffuser.

 

[Chavezshutter]

I bought a flash last summer but only for insects and not for focus stacking. It was hard for me to handle with the flash in manual mode because either the result was too dark or too bright. And I would never use it for my mushroom pictures but of course for insects.

But let's see if I can improve my skills next spring / summer. I'm also thinking about to but a good diffuser for my lens but not as long as I don't know which lens I will buy as this is very important for a good diffuser.

I forced myself to use manual until i got used to it but nowdays I often use TTL, in the past I did not like TTL as i prefer to have full control of anything photography related but since I have started to use flash exposure compensation with TTL I have become a fan. It is easy to setup, gives great results without having to re-adjust your settings when conditions change and if you're using something like a diffuser or simply want more or less exposure you can do do so by adjusting the compensation. I dial up +0.3 to compensate for diffuser and its set, face into sun, back to the sun, indoors or outdoors and its ready to fire. If i want more or less light I just dial compensation, very easy and handy for more time critical photography like events, street photography,etc

Thank you for your comments

 

[subbu]

Nice writeup Chavezshutter. Personally i like photos without flash. IT doesn't mean that i never use flash. I do, I have a flash and a good DIY diffuser. Depending on the subject i decide to use flash. I click pics during my nature/photography walks and I always carry tripod and it comes handy to lower my shutter speed in some difficult lighting condition. Overall i can say I use flash around 10-15% of the time. I am trying to focus my attention towards "artistic macro" now a days..

 

[P J Gibbons]

Of all the factors that a photographer can control, the ability to control lighting would by far be one of the most important. In other style of photography like landscape the photographer will hunt for that just perfect golden hour lighting to light up their scene just right, of course they could take a photo in different lighting conditions but that is a compromise most times, from my own experience even a rather boring landscape transforms into something special under the right lighting conditions.

In Macro the ability to add light becomes even more important for the simple reason that in order to capture most subjects at 1:1 magnification or more we must narrow our f/stop in order to have enough depth of field. Stepping down from what is normally a sufficient f/stop for other style of photography (eg. f/4) to what is required for 1:1 macro photography (eg. f/11 +) means that you have to get that light back somehow for a proper exposure. Raising your ISO is the worst solution and last option, so what is left? increase shutterspeed? maybe if you have a static scene and a tripod. This leaves only flash or another external light source as solution and as you will see there are much more reasons to choose one of these, as they do much more than simply add light...

A flash freezes action; if you have ever been to some party, club, etc where they were using a strobe light you may have noticed that the strobe freezes people for a short period after the strobe fires, it makes it look as if everyone freezes mid dance move. Flash does the same thing. I have an active little dog and when I wanted to learn about flashes one of the first things i tried was to see if i could a get a shot of her in action - My shutterspeed dropped from over 1500/sec with no flash to 200/sec to completely freeze her mid air, side effect of this was the ability to sharply drop my ISO and therefore lower the noise in the photo.

A flash creates sharpness; I do a lot of photography where I need to turn off lights in order to achieve the result I am looking for, one of the most frustrating things about this is when I KNOW I have hit sharp focus only to get a photo that did not look sharp at all, lights back on, take another shot and its sharp, what is going on here?!?!
Cameras, just like our eyes do not see objects but rather the light reflected from them, more light means more definition. More light also means you get to trade in noise and allow you to use the narrower fstop that are needed in macro.

Flashes also opens your choices to off camera flash later on which is in itself a very handy technique to learn for all types of photography. A good LED torch or light panel works well too but be careful of the blueish hue that LED can give, altering your white balance to compensate for this can change the tones in your photos in ways you may want to avoid. I use 1/2 CTO (Colour Temperature Orange) Gel sheet 205 on my LEDs to avoid white balance issues in post.

There are times when a flash isn't needed like if you have a backlit image and you want a silhouette, if your not shooting macro at close proximity you dont need flash as you dont need to narrow down your fstop in order to get the DOF required to capture your subject or maybe your doing UV photography like me where any external light will dim the fluorescence. But overall these scenarios are in the minority of most macro scenarios.

I would love to hear about some of your opinions about this as I believe its one of the most re-occuring themes I see on macroderie, which is the reason I decided to write this post in the first place.

I will finish by telling you what my experience with and without a flash has been - My camera brand is well known for its low light capabilities and the last thing I wanted was to spend more money on another piece of equipment, not to mention the time to learn how to use it, extra weight, etc, etc. Why would I need it with a camera that performs so well in low light? Fast forward to nowdays where I still beat myself up for not having entered into flash photography earlier, wasted time. To date no other single purchase (not even top brand lenses) has had a greater positive impact on my macro photography, I cant recommend it enough to anyone who wants to raise the bar in their macro journey.

Hi, I always use a Flash and Diffuser to photograph Insects and other Tiny Creatures as it does Freeze the image and give sharper detail. I however don’t use Flash in all situations, Sometimes I just prefer to use the natural light available. For Me it depends on the situation? With Plants and Flowers for example, if there is good available light , nice backlight etc I may shoot without the Flash especially if I want a nice Soft focused image. I do though use Flash if the light is lower say at Dusk when I am Capturing Golden late evening light as it keeps the ISO Setting down to avoid Noise.

 

[Dalantech]

There are two aspects to light: Hard and soft light, specular and diffused light.

If the light source is large relative to the subject then the light will be soft. Shadows will not be really dark, and the line between what's in and out of the light won't be well defined. If the light is hard then the shadows will be very dark and the line between what's in and out of the light will be well defined. You can make a small light source look soft by getting it close to the subject, and you can make a large light source look harsh by moving it away from the subject. The sun is a good example: Even though it's huge at noon on a clear day the light it produces is harsh because it's small in the sky. Add some light clouds that are acting as a diffuser and the light gets softer.

This next one is the area where a lot of people shooting macro mess up, myself included. A light source can look soft (soft shadows) and still be specular (not well diffused). It can easily happen if the diffuser that you're using is large relative to the subject but there's a hot spot in it because the diffuser isn't really forcing the light to spread out very well. A lot of the flash lighting that I see people using could best be described as "soft specular". Even my own light suffered from not being diffused enough"

Sweat Bee in a Sourgrass Flower VI by John Kimbler, on Flickr

The shadows are soft, but if you look at the specular highlight in the bee's eyes I've lost some detail because the light isn't diffused enough. Learning that soft light does not equal diffused light was a game changer for me, and I built a new diffuser set for my twin flash.

View attachment 15533Foraging Mining Bee III by John Kimbler, on Flickr

A similar subject, but now there's more detail in the specular area of the eyes. In my experience using multiple layers of a thin diffusion material works better than a few thick layers, especially when there isn't very much distance between the flash and the subject when using a macro twin flash.

 

[J.Alexander]

I shoot without light, what is a good light source, flash or lamp?

 

[Dalantech]

It depends on what you're shooting. If you have full control over the motion (camera on a tripod, completely immobile subject, etc.) then you can use just about any light source. But if you need to freeze motion then a flash with a good diffuser, one that's forcing the light to spread out and not just blocking the light, is a better choice cause the short duration of the light acts as your "shutter" and can help to freeze motion.