Flash or Natural light? Macro

Scott Murray

Senior Member
There was a question raised recently regarding macro photography and a few stated that they would never use flash in macro photography.
This to me seems bizarre as photography be it macro, landscape or portraiture is all about light, and like any photography you should use it to your advantage not be at its mercy.

Here are my very first macro shots taken many years ago.

I am pretty sure this was taken with no flash (ISO 4000).

Green Tree Ants by Scott Murray, on Flickr

Again using ring light, no flash and available light.

Long legged fly. by Scott Murray, on Flickr

Flash and ring light, ISO reduced.

Small jumping spider by Scott Murray, on Flickr

Actually going through my best images well the ones loaded on flickr and facebook I can only find the one that I liked and was natural light which was the first posted here of the green tree ants.

Under the shade of a tree, with out flash you would not see any of the colour or even the bug in this image. So if you are not willing to use flash to your advantage you will be missing out on great images.

Untitled by Scott Murray, on Flickr

I am not saying my photos are the best and I am not saying that you cannot take great photos using natural light, all I am saying is that do not rule either out and use all lighting options that you have. In this way you will be getting the most of your photography.
 

RobV

Senior Member
Newbie here.

When you say flash, you are not referring to the ring light around the lens? I thought that was also considered a flash. (I have not held one in my hands, yet - ring light)

Also, I read from unreliable source (Ken...) that 60mm is not useful in macro, because you have to get too close to the subject. With a ring light, that is negated, correct? I didn't really want to hold a large 105mm lens for closeup work.
But then, I have not shot my first true macro picture!

I have a Nikon 60mm f/2.8 AF Micro coming tomorrow.
 

Scott Murray

Senior Member
Newbie here.

When you say flash, you are not referring to the ring light around the lens? I thought that was also considered a flash. (I have not held one in my hands, yet - ring light)

Also, I read from unreliable source (Ken...) that 60mm is not useful in macro, because you have to get too close to the subject. With a ring light, that is negated, correct? I didn't really want to hold a large 105mm lens for closeup work.
But then, I have not shot my first true macro picture!

I have a Nikon 60mm f/2.8 AF Micro coming tomorrow.
I have many shots using my 60mm and you can get close if you take your time and do not use fast movements. The ring light is basically a light and normally does not produce enough light intensity for fast shutter speeds and small apertures (f/11etc) If anyone was going to get a ring light and had an onboard flash I would say do not and just use your flash with a diffuser as you will get much better and cleaner images.
 

Ironwood

Senior Member
Newbie here.

When you say flash, you are not referring to the ring light around the lens? I thought that was also considered a flash. (I have not held one in my hands, yet - ring light)

Also, I read from unreliable source (Ken...) that 60mm is not useful in macro, because you have to get too close to the subject. With a ring light, that is negated, correct? I didn't really want to hold a large 105mm lens for closeup work.
But then, I have not shot my first true macro picture!

I have a Nikon 60mm f/2.8 AF Micro coming tomorrow.
Your 60mm should do quite well.
I have both a Nikon 55mm AF f2.8 and the Nikon 105mm VR f2.8 . While the 105 is newer and probably a bit easier to use, I find a lot of my best images come from the 55.

Learn to use what you have, and you will be surprised how good your 60mm is.
 
Top