Macro photography at f/64?

The purchase of my new Tamron SP 90mm VC USD (f017) Macro lens has been accompanied by two separate yet ultimately interlinking trains of thought, the first by a feature of the lens which allows it to use an aperture setting of f/64, and the second a dialogue I recently had with bird photographer Keith Bauer of the Nature Photographers’s Network about what constitutes good bird and wildlife photography.

Having spent years meticulously photographing birds, ensuring that his images did not contain any other “clutter”, and modelling his work on what he saw in books which identified different species of bird, Keith** came to a gradual realization that something was missing, and that this was the environment in which the birds lived and actively related to.  He began to include more and more of the environment into his images, and he liked the result. 

Having agreed with Keith’s philosophy on this, I can see the same issues at work in the world of (nature) macro photography.  The ideal is so often repeated that the subject must be isolated from its environment.  The nature of Macro, where close-up work means that macro lenses must have a very narrow depth of field, is often considered an advantage because it ensures that all but the subject is an indistinct bokeh (ooh! ….the extasy of creamy bokeh!!). 

The world of macro is divided into two distinct camps, the one working indoors with all kinds of focus rails and special lighting systems, and whose end is the photography of single objects where every single part is razor-sharp, and the other, out in the field, where focus stacking is not practicable because the subject cannot be relied upon to be still, and photographers are trained to ensure that at least the eye is in focus, and it is at least accepted (if not welcomed) that the remainder of the image fades into a blur.

Being generally in the “including the environment is good” camp, I looked with some excitement at the ability of this Tamron lens to go as far as f/64.  But I had creeping doubts, as almost every self-respecting photographer and reviewer worth their salt repeats the view in perfect unison that the/she would never dream of having a smaller aperture than that at f/22 because images thus created would be unacceptably soft as the result of diffraction.

So why bring out a lens which goes to f/64, unless this lens has characteristics which make f/64 a real option for good quality photographs?  Review after review had not even mentioned this feature, only the maximum aperture of f/2.8 which is only useful when the lens is used for portraiture, and is definitely not at all useful for the macro photographer.  But in online discussions, anyone mentioning the possibility of using higher f-stops than f/22 is responded to as if a total greenhorn!

However, my thinking about this was that I would rather have a small amount of softness throughout an image than have a small slither razor-sharp and the rest of the blur, because I like to get really close-up, but at the same time not having the environment totally blurred (and being in nature, cannot focus-stack because things move, and because one generally has to act quickly to photograph insects and bugs). So the only question was: is the softness that bad, or just one feature which can be played off against others such as depth of field?

I decided to give the feature a trial, which I present here NOT as a scientific study, but as a discussion point.

The attached image shows the same image of nectarines in unedited images at five different aperture settings: f/64, f/32, f/16, f/8, f5.6*.  The images have no particular artistic merit, and no discussion is being initiated therefore over whether such an image in particular benefits from a larger or smaller depth of field.  The function of the image is : 1) to showcase the possible benefits of thinking positively about f/64 as a viable option for macro photography; 2) to compare the depth of field of different f-stops 3) to demonstrate whether or not images created using f/64 are too “soft” to be of any effective merit.

These nectarines were about half the dimensions of a typical apple. I have to say that I needed to look on the screen at about ten times the size of the actual fruit before I could detect any trace of softness in the f/64 image. At that point I could see that there was a very small difference between parts of the stalk of the main nectarine in the f/64 and f/16 image; on the other hand, in the latter I was noticing that some parts of this tiny stalk were slightly out of focus, because of the smaller depth of field. Yet even when blown up to full screen I was not bothered by the f/64 image being too soft. I will repeat that it is not my intention to be making a judgement on whether this particular image is better suited to wide or narrow depth of field, and that the image itself is not supposed to have any artistic merit.

I would very much welcome any views on this issue.  My own personal conclusion is that f/64 is a great possibility for macro photographers who are interested in seeing small creatures or plants in their setting.  On the flip side, a setting of f/64 requires much more light, but with the advent of better and better lighting systems for macro photographers which are not unduly expensive, combined with the fact that high-ISO photography is improving all the time and now does not mean accepting a lot of noise in the image….

So, at least let a discussion begin about this issue!

* A detail: Nikon alone of all manufacturers use a system of “effective apertures” which mean that very close up the largest aperture effectively is f/5.6 and the largest f/64.  Canon and other manufacturers, for example, would still measure these as f/2.8 and f/32 respectively. My Tamron lens, made for a Nikon full frame mount, uses the Nikon measures.

** Please see the post regarding Keith Bauer’s article on this page

A new journey into Macro photography

Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift deals with matters of size and scale.  I was always fascinated by one particular fact in this wonderful book:  that Gulliver looked on the tiny Lilliputians as exquisite miniatures, perfect in every way, but when he arrived in Brobdingnag and found people over twenty metres tall, he found all kind of defects and ugliness when he looked at their skin. 

Perception of beauty is linked to scale, something that we are all very aware of when we see a stunning photo on our mobile phone and then later view it on a large screen and find noise, unwanted blur, irrelevant little details, colour issues and so on, which gives us a very different perception of the image. 

However, it is not quite so simple to say that small is always beautiful because it does not reveal the defects observable in the large: in macro photography it can be entirely the other way round.  Macro enables us to look at objects so small that their structures do not reveal themselves to us at all without magnification.  By magnifying them, they become beautiful to us and cease to be a mere blob. Thus through macro photography we can bring the extremely small to the level of the exquisite miniature: suddenly we can view the extraordinary structures of a fly or spider, reveal their magical inner workings, and we will be less likely to think of them as annoying little things which the world would be better without.   Macro photography can thus be transformative in allowing us to develop a more healthy and real understanding of that whole part of the living world. 

When I bought my first macro lens I found it totally fascinating to take photos of bugs and spiders and look at the images on my screen and see things that I was simply unable to see in real life.  I never thought I would find a fly beautiful, but it certainly is, from the amazing structure of the eye to the delicate gossamer of the wings, and I was just happy not to be too critical as I took dozens of photos and then looked at them in wonder.  I felt I had an opening into a whole new world which I’d never seen before but had always lived side by side with! 

Of course, to continue with the Gulliver analogy, when you get into extreme macro, magnifying to x5 or more, you again begin to see the imperfections – the fly becomes a Brobdingnagian and measures have to be taken, and a brush and other kit need to be obtained to “clean up” the insect or flower, as we do not want to see unsightly blobs, dust and other imperfections in our image!  The photographer Allan Walls is a leading expert on macro and has an article on this very subject

When I originally researched various macro lenses with a view to buying one,  I knew I had  done quite enough when YouTube’s algorithms decided that pretty much all my recommended videos were on macro kit.   At some point in the process I came across a rather unusual lens made my Laowa: an extreme wide-angle macro.  I really enjoyed the perspective that it gave, and I had an idea that seeing an insect or flower in context might in the end be more interesting that just having the object by itself  against a background of (wonderfully, of course) creamy bokeh.  I hadn’t decided to buy the lens at that point, but a couple of months later (when I was still looking!) I found what looked like almost the identical lens at half the price made by a company called Opteka; it was so cheap I snapped it up, and it became my new toy.  Later I found what was probably the back story to this lens, that Opteka had indeed apparently ripped off Laowa’s design in every detail, and, not having had to do the research and design, could offer the lens at a knockdown price.  Legal matters seemed to ensue, and suddenly the Opteka lens was nowhere to be purchased. 

I am not sure if I am the first person to start my journey into macro with such an unusual lens; it’s quite hard to get used to – to get 1:1 maginification the object has virtually to be touching the lens, and you really have to be careful what else is in your picture, as it has a 120% angle of view.  Technically the lens is hard to use, in addition to which getting close to insects and bugs can be a big challenge, so I would also very much like to get either the Tamron 90mm 1:1 or the Laowa 100mm 2:1, but plans to do this have had to be held back during the Covid 19 crisis. 

As I sit at home and unable to get out,  I’m even thinking of photographing bubbles, water drops and oil film, etc. just for the challenge.  But photographing living things is what attracts me in macro photography.

As I have got used to the simple pleasure of seeing things big and with detail not visible to the naked eye, I have started to wonder more about what a good macro photograph is, and the matter of the small depth of field is never far from one’s mind.  Of course, at ones desk at home, with lighting set up, electronic focusing rail and dedicated focus-stacking software, everything can be in focus with hitherto un-dreamed of magnification and sharpness.  But this will mostly work with product photography, or with dead or otherwise inert creatures, but will rarely work out in nature, and that is what interests me.  Really, you need one shot, with the focus on the eye, probably, or you need very many shots – what you don’t want is to have several “bands” of focus because you have overestimated the tiny depth of focus in macro. 

Most of all, if I am to have any success, I want my photos to have character, or show something different in the way the insect is behaving or where it is; and this, I am realizing, is the hardest thing with this type of photography.  I am thoroughly enjoying this first part of my journey to Lilliput!

Including the Environment - A great article on bird photography by Keith Bauer of NPN

If you don’t already know the Nature Photographers’ Network I can thoroughly recommend it as what it says on the tin: photographers sharing their insights and thoughts in an environment which nurtures mutual support, and where self-promotion, marketing and hype are refreshingly absent. It’s a sight where you can read articles, view others’ images, comment on those images or upload your own for comment. The tight protocols in place to keep this a positive and supportive experience mean that this is always an illuminating experience and never a put down, and there is a brilliant team of moderators ensuring that the all posts are within those protocols.

NPN is a truly unique organization for nature and wildlife photographers.

Keith Bauer is moderator for the Bird Photography part of the site, and he has written an excellent article which presents the case for showing birds in their environment rather than just as a technically perfect image of the bird alone in the frame. I really want to share this great article, which also includes some of Keith’s own memorable images:

https://www.naturephotographers.network/including-the-environment/

If you enjoy the article you can leave a message for Keith on the NPN website.

Aspect Ratio and Photo Size

I come to a discussion about aspect ratio as a photographer who generally doesn’t think about specific aspect ratios in my images.  I look at an image and crop according to the dynamics of the photograph (with the possible exception of square images, which I like to be exactly square). It is when a photographer is talking about cropping an image and wondering which fixed aspect ratio would suit it best, as if non-standard ratios were not a possibility, that I find myself wondering why.

Is there something inherently satisfying about the standard ratios, which make other ratios look unsatisfying in some way?

Ratios and musical sounds

This got me thinking about some very basic mathematics, and to help me I thought about a phenomenon in sound, which I know about through being a musician, called the harmonic series.  If a single note is played with a frequency f, a series of additional notes will automatically sound, and these “overtones” or “harmonics” are at the frequences 2f, 3f, 4f, 5f, 6f, and so on. The relative amplitude or volume of these harmonics gives what most people would call the “tone” of the instrument.  What becomes interesting for anyone looking at ratios is that the relative simplicity of mathematical ratios give rise to simple and pleasing musical ratios.

The most significant facts about the harmonic series:

1. The notes of the harmonic series, as each of them is added, first form a standard chord (major triad), then a dominant seventh, and then a ninth.  These are the most common chords in music.

2. The most simple frequency ratios (as found in the harmonic series) produce the simplest musical intervals; In fact, the simplest ratio has the most consonant (blended) sound and the most complex ratio has the most dissonant (clashing) sound.  This gives rise to a hierarchy of dissonace.  This is as follows;

·        Octave (simplest ratio)             2:1

·        (Perfect) 5th (next simplest)     3:2

·        (Perfect) 4th                            4:3

·        Major 3rd                                 5:4

·        Minor 3rd                                 6:5

·        (Diatonic) semitone             16:15

The most clashing interval in music, with the most complex ratio (see above) is called a semitone; this can be found on a keyboard, for example, by playing two adjacent white notes where there is no black note in between. 

3. Mathematical ratios in musical pitch therefore have an aesthetic corollary: simple ratios have consonant sounds; complex ratios have dissonant sounds.

Photographic image aspect ratios

Where does this leave photographers and different aspect ratios, and whether or not there is a mathematical basis for the aesthetics of different proportions in their images?  Do the most satisfying and commonly used sizes reflect simple ratios? Is there a hierarchy of satisfyingness as in the musical intervals? Or do the dynamics of individual images totally over-ride the simple dimensions of the image? What are the dimensions of an image – do they represent the actual edge of a reality we are asked to look at, or are we looking at an arbitrary section of reality, where borders are an inconvenience because we cannot have an infinite image?  Of course, these considerations occupy the minds and eyes of photographers who might, for example, be very careful that edge details do not “leak” out of the image, or who commonly like to ensure a scarcely noticeable vignette which darkens the outer area of the picture to “draw the eye in” to the main part of the picture; but the whole varied array of things that a photograph can be make this a complex subject where rules for some photos don’t seem to fit others.

Back to ratios!  Here is a chart of commonly used photo sizes.  I have included a column for “mathematical simplicity” to mirror that of the harmonic series in music – the lower the number the simpler the ratio.  where this is not clear I have put a question mark.

Looking at most sizes above we can see how exactly the same ratios are present as in the harmonic series, which seems to prove the case relating mathematics to aesthetics; but is any hierarchy of ratios which puts the 1:1 ratio as most simple/easy on the eye and the 5:4/10:8 the least simple?  I don't think this has been answered….

Next we look at the three ratios at the bottom: The “A” series, the golden ratio, and US letter size.  With the A series there is a simple ratio (√2:1) – which of course is why A series paper folded into two produces A series dimensions; and with the golden section the ratio of the height (y) to the width (x) is the same as the sum of the height and width (y+x) to the longer of the two sides (y:x = y+x:y); US letter size is purely historic and related to the convenience of making paper (something about the size of a vatman’s arms!).

The above will give some justification to the view that the standard photo sizes/aspect ratio have a sound base in mathematics, by linking mathematical simplicity with aesthetics, and the harmonic series thought of as a musical example of a similar link.

A few thoughts

But…. not quite: there are some loose ends to be tied up…

1)      There doesn’t seem to be a hierarchy of simplicity as there is with musical intervals, linked to the degree of mathematical simplicity of their ratios

2)      There are plenty of other simple ratios which generally do not generate satisfying aspect ratios; notably, 2:1, or √3:1 etc. etc.  Could any aspect ratio be given some kind of ratio or other to justify its proportions?

3)      Photographs have their inner dynamics: we are not just looking at blank rectangles

4)      Purely from an aesthetic point of view, does a photo even need to be rectangular/square?

5)      Thought: photographers love to speak of the golden section and find it all over the place not only in photo dimensions, but within images – why do none of the standardized sizes available from printers conform to this ratio?

6)      Not mentioned above is the 16:9 ratio: the maths of this ratio require an extremely mathematical brain - therefore a compex ratio - but it has become standard in the moving image world.

The convenience factor

I have noticed that photographers are increasingly making images in A4, A3 etc.  This highlights the factor not yet considered, which I believe trumps the others: the convenience of standardization.  For example, buying an A4 frame, or other standard size, is very cheap compared to having a custom size made, and there are plenty of other circumstances where having a small range of set sizes makes life a lot simpler and more practicable.  If the convenience rationale is indeed true, or even partially true, then photographs may sometimes be being put into a standardized straitjacket totally unconnected to aesthetics.

Conclusion

I’m not sure if there is a clear conclusion from all this, but I will take from these thoughts a self-justification for not paying too much attention to set aspect ratios, and I won’t start asking myself whether such and such an image would be better as a 5:4 or 6:5; but I’m ready to admit that there is some mathematical justification for these set ratios. 

I hope the link to musical intervals may have been of interest, whether or not you have an interest in the physical basis of sounds.

Finally, I’m certain that there is a wide range of views on all this, and my intention is only to stimulate discussion!

Unboxing video reviews - why?

What on earth is the point of an unboxing video? It is always exciting to take a new piece of kit out of its box and handle it for the first time, but it is not exciting to watch someone else do it, especially if they then start to pronounce on the merits of the equipment that they have never seen before. Please use the equipment for a significant period of time before giving a judgement.

But then again, isn’t it a good thing that photographers and manufacturers have a partnership which promotes the equipment that we all use - photographers and manufacturers will both benefit as viewers get vicarious pleasure from watching someone else opening up their new just-arrived product?

However, when money is a factor, it is hard to know whether the opinions given by photographers are genuine or skewed, and there is often the feeling that reviews are not independent.

To open this dicussion to all reviews (rather than just unboxing videos) photographers are always keen to say when their reviews are not sponsored, as if this proved that they are truly independent. This is the case oftentimes, but difficult to verify, because a good review might be given in the hope of a future beneficial relationship, for example.

One very healthy outcome of proper in-depth product reviews is where photographers in the field point out defects or issues with equipment and the manufacturer responds, creating a positive dialogue of which the consequence is improvements to the product.

And so back to the unboxing video, where none of the positive outcomes of other product reviews can be had, and where nothing can be tested, only a list made of the specifications which can be viewed online anyway, or very superficial features listed which might or might not be borne out with proper use: “the lens looks really well made”, etc. etc.

Please share your thoughts on this!

"Rules" of Photography

In my view we hear too much about the “rules” that photographers are supposed to abide by to create that perfect picture. Below are some of these rules that I have read about and heard discussed on YouTube and elsewhere and some thoughts about what these rules can and can’t teach us, and how, if at all, we can use them to create a great and memorable image:

1)      Rule of thirds, golden section etc.

2)      You must always have “leading lines”

3)     There must always be one single most important part of an image

4)      Avoid white and black parts of an image because they can contain no detail

5)      Crop to a fixed and established ratio

6)      Always have a foreground in a landscape photo

7)      Never put a horizon in the middle of the image

8)      Always put a vignette in a photo

In addition, many photographers believe that cropping ought not to be done after the event, that the correct crop should be decided at the moment of capture.

In my view, these can all be photographic chains and leashes, holding back real instictive judgement, (although the moment you realize that they are not rules and can be ignored, they can then have their uses.)/

Don’t be restricted by any of these rules, and only use them if they support your instinct: there might be a reason why you only want to have a small slither of sky at the top of your photo; black and white areas of an image can be very powerful; the point of your image might be to juxtapose two different ideas; you might not have any need for a foreground. - after all, panoramas don’t generally contain foregrounds, and certain other images will have their own reason for not having them.

1)     We are wrong if we try to compose an image and use the rule of thirds as our first port of call, and only reject it if is obviously unsuitable for the image.  Photoshop now has grid lines of rule of thirds, golden section, golden sprial, triangle and diagonal.  I have seen people get so excited that a particular image fits to one of these, but the truth is that almost any image can be thought of as following one of these grids.

2) Nothing is worse than a foreground put there for the sake of it - a foreground needs to comment on or add to the image, and in general it should also be visually connected to the rest of the image. So in general your photo will have leading lines because that is visually right - but that is something to be noted after the event, not at the moment of capture.

3) The juxtaposition of two different or even opposing ideas into an image can produce an effect much more than the sum of the two ideas. It can suggest or challenge, amuse or comment. So don’t feel that there must be one single focus for your picture and then ensure that this focus is brighter than the rest of the image, so that the eye is immediately led there. Of course this is true of many great images, but not all!

4) Some photographers feel it is a fundamental axiom of their art to ensure that there is detail in all areas of their image. They feel apoplexy every time the forbidden blue or red bits appear whilst editing in Lightroom or Photoshop - warning, warning, your photo is in danger of ruin! It might be, but then again, blocks of white or dark material can so effectively offset other areas of a photo and lead the eye to detailed areas; they can be a vital part of the structure of the image. So, don’t always have that feature of the histogram on, and use black and white areas if that feels right.

5) There is indeed a lot of convenience in having set cropping ratios in images, but don’t forget that there is no special visual magic in a 4/5, 5/7 or 16/9. They are conventions and can be useful if you need to have a group of images, for example , which need to be displayed together; or a particular medium/social media site might demand a certain ratio. The golden section (1.618) has a particular appeal to the eye because the ratio of the smaller side to the larger is the same as the ratio of the larger side to the sum of both sides, but usually the dynamics of the image itself make their own demands which override these kinds of consideration. So, free yourself up and stop thinking: “would this be better as a 5/7 or a 2/3” - it is fine to be none of these. It is like paper, where we are conditioned into expecting an A4 ratio, because it is all over the place. Or in music there are certain fixed structures such as ternary (ABA) or rondo (ABACA), but a composer doesn’t start off with a preconceived idea of a structure and then put material into that structure: the musical ideas and inner dynamics of the piece will suggest their own form.

6) See discussion in 3) above

7) Although good photographers know that the default positioning of the horizon in an image is a third or two thirds from the top of the image (rule of thirds), and that this will often look best, there are so many reasons why you might want it somewhere else; having a horizon in the middle is often best when symmetry is a feature of the image. When the main subject is placed in the middle (rather than right or left), this can be effective for similar reasons.

8) When I first heard a photographer whom I really admire say that he put a vignette on his landscape images by default, I thought: “why?”. I thought of a vignette as a special effect that might occasionally have its place. What I hadn’t realized is that a vignette effect, when done subtly and discretely in terms of amount, exact placement and degree of feathering, does not look like a vignette at all, and can transform an image. So I became a frequent user of this technique, but am determined not to overdo it or use it for no good reason.

Thoughts on lens aperture

The widest aperture of any lens is considered to be one of its most important features: it is even thought necessary for this statistic to be a part of the name of the lens (eg Nikon f/2.8): why?

The answer generally given is that 1) a wide aperture lets more light into the lens and enables photography in low light, and 2) a wide aperture gives a narrow depth of focus.   Technology moves on, and cameras now by and large have the capacity to use very large ISOs without significant noise; this to a large extent makes 1) above an out-of-date concern, especially as increasing the ISO does not have any effect on the artistic effect of the image, whereas increasing the aperture does, and might for example produce an image with a very narrow depth of field where that might not have been desired.

Therefore, in effect, the low f-number is there only for one purpose – to enable the photographer to focus on a single subject, leaving the remainder of the image with a pleasant blur (the “creamy bokeh” which sends so many photographers into uncontrollable extasy!).   This purpose is occasionally of importance for landscape photographers, but more often for the portrait or street photographer, who wish to cut out extraneous details; for wildlife photographers, usually equipped with a long lens, the problem is usually the other way around – they would like more depth of field to get an entire animal in focus, rather than just one part of the face; and the same situation holds for macro photographers.  I would therefore say that having the lowest possible f-stop is only crucial for certain photographers and in certain situations, and presenting it as the defining feature of a lens is out of date.  To be clear, important in varying degrees in various situations for different kinds of photographer: but not the one defining feature any more.