Author Topic: Close-up photography (Read 2538 times)

geoffgeoffp · « **on:** May 19, 2018, 02:40:44 PM »

There has been a discussion of this subject in another thread,however I felt it might be a good idea to clarify a number of facts. What follows are not my opinions but photographic facts that can be verified in any photographic how to handbook of the 1960’s onward.The first and simplest method is to use supplementary close up lenses,these are inexpensive but can be effective, they are limited in their range.They are also available for TLR cameras, there is a set of two, the upper, applied to the viewing lens corrects for parralax.The second is a ste of extension tubes from film technology.There is usually a set of 3 and they separate for different focussing distances.They are attached to the camera body and are always used with a 50mm lens, they will give 1x1 reproduction.The third method is using camera extension bellows, again attached to the camera body and using a 50mm lens.The final method is the macro lens, this is an innovation of the digital age and gives superb results. I hope I have not been boring you with information you already possess,my apologies if that is the case.

Kai-san · « **Reply #1 on:** May 19, 2018, 03:44:33 PM »

There is clearly a misunderstanding here that needs to be corrected. The macro lens is not an innovation of the digital age. Macro lenses were commercially available in the early sixties from Nikon (Micro Nikkor) and probably other brands as well.

Pete_R · « **Reply #2 on:** May 19, 2018, 03:59:33 PM »

Extension tubes and bellows can be used with any focal length. They're not just for 50mm lenses. And I assume you are talking 35mm/full frame here but the same tools can be used with other formats and, following your logic, would require a different focal length. Tubes/bellows won't necessarily give you 1 to 1 reproduction - they may, but it depends on the degree of extension.

Another consideration is that most lenses are not designed to work at close distances and may not give satisfactory results using tubes/bellows.

You might also consider the option of reversing a lens.

geoffgeoffp · « **Reply #3 on:** May 19, 2018, 05:03:25 PM »

Actually the first macro lens, the Kilfit Macro- Kilare 40mm was produced in 1955, but I ignored it because it eventually came to nothing.The macro lenses referred to later were so called macro zooms that could not get closer than. 1:4 ratio so can be dismissed as a marketing ploy. Of course you an use any lens on tubes or bellows if you are happy with poor results.I assumed that everyone wants high quality

Kai-san · « **Reply #4 on:** May 19, 2018, 05:15:49 PM »

The Micro Nikkors came in both 1:1 and 1:2 and there was no zoom function on those lenses. The oldest one I know is from 1961.

Pete_R · « **Reply #5 on:** May 19, 2018, 06:03:10 PM »

Quote from: geoffgeoffp on May 19, 2018, 05:03:25 PM

The macro lenses referred to later were so called macro zooms that could not get closer than. 1:4 ratio so can be dismissed as a marketing ploy. Of course you an use any lens on tubes or bellows if you are happy with poor results.

Complete twaddle.

A pointless thread that'll get no more of my attention.

geoffgeoffp · « **Reply #6 on:** May 19, 2018, 07:10:25 PM »

I didn’t know about the Nikon,thank you. It was a throwaway comment I shouldn’t have made as I really didn’t wish to get into a historical session.

lharby · « **Reply #7 on:** May 21, 2018, 10:52:48 AM »

This is a stupid thread, but I have a serious question.

I shoot alot of macros, I tend to use extension tubes (although for one camera I have diopters).

I want to know if it's possible to shoot macros but not suffer the extreme loss of depth of field that it brings, would bellows resolve that issue, or will there always be a shallow DoF working at macro levels.

Thanks!

Sandeha Lynch · « **Reply #8 on:** May 21, 2018, 12:03:45 PM »

Always a shallow DOF, which is why *contemporary* [giggle] photographers use multiple frames and stacking software. It works.

lharby · « **Reply #9 on:** May 21, 2018, 12:27:43 PM »

Do you know I have always disliked that stacking digital approach, but I might actually attempt it with film (but probably only 4 exposures).

jojonas~ · « **Reply #10 on:** May 21, 2018, 02:28:10 PM »

Quote from: lharby on May 21, 2018, 12:27:43 PM

Do you know I have always disliked that stacking digital approach, but I might actually attempt it with film (but probably only 4 exposures).

that'd be pretty hardcore!

my OM Zuiko 50mm 3.5 lens is from the 70s :B

Francois · « **Reply #11 on:** May 21, 2018, 02:43:01 PM »

This thread is... how may I call this... interesting in a weird way.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned lens reversing rings....

EarlJam · « **Reply #12 on:** May 21, 2018, 02:50:53 PM »

In the process of writing this when Francois posted . . .

Another approach for macro is to reverse a 50mm lens, either by itself or added to the front of a longer lens. If memory serves, there were a couple of different types of rings: filter mount-to-filter mount (ex., 49mm or 52mm male to male) and filter mount-to-lens mount. In the M42 days, it was relatively easy to just hold the lens against the camera body, a trick I learned from my dad before we bought a reversing ring.

The attached image is from a Kodachrome-related thread this weekend on Rangefinder Forum, taken with a 50mm lens reversed on the front of a 200 f4; see post #29:
https://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165131

Additional info on reversed lenses here: http://www.alanwood.net/photography/reversing-rings.html

jojonas~ · « **Reply #13 on:** May 21, 2018, 03:35:31 PM »

Quote from: PeterR on May 19, 2018, 03:59:33 PM

Quote from: Francois on May 21, 2018, 02:43:01 PM
This thread is... how may I call this... interesting in a weird way.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned lens reversing rings....
You might also consider the option of reversing a lens.

good info, earljam! man, that alanwood page takes me back a bit

Sandeha Lynch · « **Reply #14 on:** May 21, 2018, 05:01:53 PM »

I've done that with a 200/4 and a reversed 43/1.9 on the front. It's *contemporary* so I won't show it here, but the result was pretty good with just three frames and using Helicon Focus software. Shooting the three frames at f.16 ISO 100 and a pair of flash guns was fine, the bigger issue being getting a stable set-up when you don't have a proper table-top rig.

Pete_R · « **Reply #15 on:** May 21, 2018, 05:36:23 PM »

Quote from: Francois on May 21, 2018, 02:43:01 PM

This thread is... how may I call this... interesting in a weird way.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned lens reversing rings....

I did.

But then, I said I was going to ignore this thread because of the drivel the OP was spouting. But now it's on course...

Francois · « **Reply #16 on:** May 21, 2018, 10:34:04 PM »

For me, the main problem with close-up work like that has always been lighting. That and getting the subject to stand still long enough for me to press the shutter.

Francois · « **Reply #17 on:** May 22, 2018, 03:01:46 PM »

Quote from: PeterR on May 21, 2018, 05:36:23 PM

Quote from: Francois on May 21, 2018, 02:43:01 PM
This thread is... how may I call this... interesting in a weird way.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned lens reversing rings....

I did.

But then, I said I was going to ignore this thread because of the drivel the OP was spouting. But now it's on course...

Sorry about that, at one point my eyes sort of glazed over the text...

John Robison · « **Reply #18 on:** May 22, 2018, 03:56:54 PM »

Quote from: Francois on May 21, 2018, 10:34:04 PM

For me, the main problem with close-up work like that has always been lighting. That and getting the subject to stand still long enough for me to press the shutter.

Use a longer lens, this will give you greater working distance in front of the lens. This is why several systems had 100mm macros back in the 70's when I was selling cameras. Most of them would focus from infinity to at least 1:2 without extension tubes. Pentax had a 100mm f4 and Minolta sold a very popular 100mm f3.5. Both of these brands also supplied these lenses in short mount for use on a bellows. Of course the Olympus OM system featured an extensive selection of focusing extension tubes, bellows, and short mount macro lenses from 20mm to 135mm for reproduction ratios from 1:1 down to 10:1, quite a range and available from about 1973 with their OM system. There were also special focusing screens for hi-mag photography in the Olympus system.

You can, with a bit of work and calculations make your own 105mm macro. First buy a 105mm enlarging lens with a standard m39 (LTM) mount. You will also need one of those M42 mount focusing extension tube available on ebay. Get one with a 55mm total extension. Order a M39 to M43 thread adapter at the same time and a set of M42 fixed extension tubes. This will mount to your M42 camera body. (Everyone should have at least one M42 mount 35mm SLR body.) By mixing and matching the focusing tube and extension tubes you should be able to get a combo that settles in at just a little short (beyond) infinity. With 55mm of extension you should be able to go to 1:2 with this combo. That or, if you don't mind the bulk use a bellows to mate lens and body.

Francois · « **Reply #19 on:** May 22, 2018, 08:54:23 PM »

I already have a Bellows set for my Minolta with the 100mm macro lens that came with it. I also have extension tubes for my Nikon, A Pentax Takumar 35mm that's reverse mounted to a Nikon mount, an M42 adapter for Nikon (well, actually two since when I ordered the lensed one there was a mistake in China and I got the unlensed one... I got the lensed one as a replacement later)...

But the thing is to get good light on the subject. I've tried reflectors, a home made ring light contraption, a single flash with a Lumiquest Big Bounce... but that never satisfies me.

Bryan · « **Reply #20 on:** May 22, 2018, 09:37:06 PM »

I like the OM extension bellows. I also have an M42 reversal ring that works pretty good but one of my favorites is the macro lens attachment for my Rolleiflex TLR.

This was shot with the bellows on my OM-1.

Shutter Macro by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

Olympus OM-1 with Extension Bellows by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

This was shot with a Pentax K1000 using the M42 reversal ring and an M42 to PK adapter.

Clematis by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

Rolleiflex Automat with a Rondo Close-Up Lens II

Russula Mushroom by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

John Robison · « **Reply #21 on:** May 23, 2018, 12:02:30 AM »

Quote from: Francois on May 22, 2018, 08:54:23 PM

I already have a Bellows set for my Minolta with the 100mm macro lens that came with it. I also have extension tubes for my Nikon, A Pentax Takumar 35mm that's reverse mounted to a Nikon mount, an M42 adapter for Nikon (well, actually two since when I ordered the lensed one there was a mistake in China and I got the unlensed one... I got the lensed one as a replacement later)...

But the thing is to get good light on the subject. I've tried reflectors, a home made ring light contraption, a single flash with a Lumiquest Big Bounce... but that never satisfies me.

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought that you were talking about not having enough room to light the subject or your lens shadowed the subject. By the way, are you talking about insects? You also mentioned the problem was getting the subject to hold still. Have no ideas there, never tried to photograph insects (well maybe once or twice in bright sunlight) so I have no insight or experience with that subject. How about a whiff of Chloroform?

Francois · « **Reply #22 on:** May 23, 2018, 03:08:03 PM »

The only way i found that works well is to use dead insects. The most common methods of killing them are to lock them in a sealed jar with a rag soaked in alcohol at the bottom of to put them in a jar and into the freezer for a few hours.

But sadly they all involve capturing them, something I don't like doing.