Nikon Rumors Forum

where there’s smoke there’s forum fire

1. 

   Michael DeRose
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Sep '10
   Posts: 277

   offline

   So, i was reading up on all the different things you can do with macro photography and i came across a few examples of eye photography. After spending the next hour or so looking at all the different shots, i decided i would like to give this a try. Now, i dont have much experience when it comes to this type of photography, but does anyone have suggestions as to what a good setup might be?

   The few sources i could find on the topic, seem to suggest a ring flash and a macro lens between 60-105mm. Some also used a 50 with two extenders.

   Thoughts? Ideas?

   Posted 2 years ago #
2. 

   NikoDoby
   

   The Terminator
   Joined: May '09
   Posts: 6,598

   offline

   "You'll shoot your eye out kid!"

   Posted 2 years ago #
3. 

   NSXType-R
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Mar '09
   Posts: 2,803

   offline

   A tripod with focusing rails probably. Something that I don't own.

   Posted 2 years ago #
4. 

   aetas
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Dec '09
   Posts: 273

   offline

   For my close up work I really like the Nikon 105mm 2.8 Its very sharp. I have tried extenders and they seem to slightly soften some shots. Thats just me though. Sometimes a little extra reach is worth it. I like to get all the sharpness I can when working with macro though.
   Good luck, tell us how they come out.

   Posted 2 years ago #
5. 

   IndyGeoff
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Aug '10
   Posts: 107

   offline

   NikoDoby - LOL I get it.

   Posted 2 years ago #
6. 

   visumax
   

   senior member
   Joined: Jul '10
   Posts: 58

   offline

   aetas said:
   For my close up work I really like the Nikon 105mm 2.8 Its very sharp. I have tried extenders and they seem to slightly soften some shots. Thats just me though. Sometimes a little extra reach is worth it. I like to get all the sharpness I can when working with macro though.
   Good luck, tell us how they come out.

   I am really happy to learn that you like the 105 2.8, as I just received one a few days ago specifically for macro but was concerned that maybe a tilt/shift would have been a better option. I was a little concerned in trying it that the 2.8 is really stopped down for anything close, but I know that for macro it does not matter. I also wonder how it will compare to my 85 1.4 for portrait work, since many also like it for this. I am using a full frame D3s but could also put it on my D300.

   Posted 2 years ago #
7. 

   TaoTeJared
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Apr '10
   Posts: 2,422

   offline

   I have both the 105vr and 60mm AFD, both have their places for macro work, are very versatile, and are certainly better than extenders if you plan on doing much macro work. Both are great for portrait work as well. They are by far the sharpest lenses I have ever worked with.

   Eye photography - tried it haphazardly and not too successful. To do it right, certainly need a good macro ring light type of source, low iso, F5.6-11 and the key, absolutely no movement. With the working distance at about 12 inches, you only have about 1/4" of focus so any movement from the focus to click will result in not so great shots.

   It is difficult but can be done.

   Posted 2 years ago #
8. 

   Michael DeRose
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Sep '10
   Posts: 277

   offline

   hmm good to know. I haven't bought a lens for this job just yet, but im about 95 percent sure im going to go with the 105. I still need to decide with macro ring light to get.

   On another light note, I saw that Suren Manvelyan might be using a LED light panel. (you guys should google his work...AMAZING!!) I cant tell if it is a LED panel or it is a macro ring light.

   Posted 2 years ago #
9. 

   NSXType-R
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Mar '09
   Posts: 2,803

   offline

   http://gizmodo.com/5722577/the-human-eye-looks-like-a-crater

   You mean this?

   That's some cool stuff.

   Posted 2 years ago #
10. 

    jerl
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Dec '10
    Posts: 425

    offline

    I'd say the most challenging thing is to get the model to hold still enough, and if the model is you, then focusing can be difficult (easier with live view and a mirror though).

    As far as setup goes, I would just use the cheap 50mm with extension tubes rather than shelling out for a new macro lens (for now anyway). More important is the lighting and support. Some kind of ring light, or a couple of off-camera flashes will work fine, and a good tripod with a rail is practically a necessity for studio style macro shots.

    And you know what? You've piqued my curiosity, I think I'll have to give this a shot too.

    Posted 2 years ago #
11. 

    Michael DeRose
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Sep '10
    Posts: 277

    offline

    NSXType-R said:
    http://gizmodo.com/5722577/the-human-eye-looks-like-a-crater

    You mean this?

    That's some cool stuff.

    I had not seen that post yet, but yes that is some of that guys work. His stuff is aspiring to say the least. If you look for his main website, he has a ton of other photos as well.

    As for getting a 50, i have one. I might give that a try at first, but i thing the 105 is something i want to have in my bag.

    Thanks again for the input. Ill be sure to post the results...if they are good : )

    Posted 2 years ago #
12. 

    studio460
    

    preferred member
    Joined: May '10
    Posts: 1,231

    offline

    Michael DeRose said:
    On another light note, I saw that Suren Manvelyan might be using a LED light panel. (you guys should google his work...AMAZING!!) I cant tell if it is a LED panel or it is a macro ring light.

    It's not a LitePanel. It's not a ringlight either (a ringlight wouldn't produce such modeled, contoured lighting). It looks like a high Watt-second strobe head with a narrow-angle, honeycomb grid attached. There appears to be only a single source, focused (pointed) obliquely (off-optical axis) onto the subject, at a fairly shallow angle. This would explain the high degree of contrast, intense speculars, and highly modeled lighting effects.

    Anyway, if I were to attempt to replicate those images, that's what I would use. I'd use the highest Watt-second strobe I could rent, and the narrowest-angle honeycomb grids I could find. For lens choices, longer macros give you more working distance, so either the 105mm or 200mm. But, maybe the 60mm would look even more interesting, since it would have less foreshortening (haven't done much macro work, so I'm not sure if there's even a discernable difference at these kinds of magnifications and subject-to-camera distances).

    Posted 2 years ago #
13. 

    msknight
    

    member
    Joined: Jan '11
    Posts: 14

    offline

    FWIW, I prefer using daylight and take a few exposures. Get close to a window on a bright day, and put up a lace curtain to diffuse it a little.

    Posted 2 years ago #
14. 

    heartyfisher
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 1,701

    offline

    I have not tried macro of eyes before but I would think working distance would be important. esp if you are going to add extension tubes to the lens (don't use tele converters, it just soften the image). I would say you would need at least the 105 micro or 150 or 180 sigma macro or the 200 micro nikkor.

    Posted 2 years ago #
15. 

    Michael DeRose
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Sep '10
    Posts: 277

    offline

    studio460 said:
    It's not a LitePanel. It's not a ringlight either (a ringlight wouldn't produce such modeled, contoured lighting). It looks like a high Watt-second strobe head with a narrow-angle, honeycomb grid attached. There appears to be only a single source, focused (pointed) obliquely (off-optical axis) onto the subject, at a fairly shallow angle. This would explain the high degree of contrast, intense speculars, and highly modeled lighting effects.

    Anyway, if I were to attempt to replicate those images, that's what I would use. I'd use the highest Watt-second strobe I could rent, and the narrowest-angle honeycomb grids I could find. For lens choices, longer macros give you more working distance, so either the 105mm or 200mm. But, maybe the 60mm would look even more interesting, since it would have less foreshortening (haven't done much macro work, so I'm not sure if there's even a discernable difference at these kinds of magnifications and subject-to-camera distances).

    Mind blown!! Great idea. I think i might try this out in a few weeks. Thanks again!

    Posted 2 years ago #
16. 

    elvishefer
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Sep '10
    Posts: 496

    offline

    I guess this is a general lighting question moreso than an eye macro photo, but I ran into the problem while shooting eye macro so here goes:

    I preface by saying I know almost nothing about lighting and I've been learning as I go.

    In the shot below, I ran into a couple of problems with my catch light.

    The first is that I set my flash too powerful for the distance (sb200 on a lens ring mount), thus over exposing the reflection while at the same time metering correctly for everything other than the catch light. I know how to fix this, but I didn't notice while I had the shoot set up so I didn't correct it in a later exposure.

    The second thing is that when I managed to hold steady enough (this was a self portrait that had me looking through the lens to see the upside-down viewfinder HUD and align my eye correctly, and then making a mirror-up exposure with a remote), the color version of this shot shows the surface of my eye as uneven. Is the surface slightly cratered, and does it mess with a properly focused catch light, or is this another manifestation of the over exposure problem?

    Tips welcome, I value your opinions here in my winter-bound apartment. ;)

    Thanks!

    

    Posted 2 years ago #
17. 

    studio460
    

    preferred member
    Joined: May '10
    Posts: 1,231

    offline

    1. The surface of your eye may actually be irregular (I don't know).

    2. If I understood your question correctly, you have two objects at two different distances from your image plane. If you want both your eye and the reflection of the catchlight to be in focus, you need to stop down far enough to expand your depth-of-field to accomodate both.

    Posted 2 years ago #
18. 

    TaoTeJared
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    Self portraits are a pain.

    Shoot color and stop down to F16 (depending on your lens focal length). There should be allot more detail unless you are cropping allot.

    Posted 2 years ago #
19. 

    Michael DeRose
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Sep '10
    Posts: 277

    offline

    the surface of an eye can be different. Also, i have messed around a bit with this two weeks ago. It seems that the light needs to come in at a rather flat angle. the eye seemed to be more clear when the light source was almost 160 with the side of the eye. The light seems to light up the eye, but also not leave a glare. OH!! and to get your eyes even clearer, i tried eye drops before a shot. It cleans the eye lens of anything that might be on it. Make sure to blink a few times before the shot.

    Ill test this out more when i have some free time, but i hope that helps some.

    Posted 2 years ago #
20. 

    heartyfisher
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 1,701

    offline

    Had a play last night.. :-) harder than it looks :-) but I have a few more ideas to try :-) a polarising filter seemed to help the harsh highlights. will try something else and report back.. Oh must remember to get an eye dropper for my poor model! :-)

    Posted 2 years ago #
21. 

    Michael DeRose
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Sep '10
    Posts: 277

    offline

    Oh good idea hearty. I will try and remember to try a polarizing filter as well!!

    Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.