Macro flash advice wanted

[Squawk]

Some lighting advice from the macro masters please. I'm looking to descend into macro madness and get the 105 2.8, but I think light is a bit of an issue. My thought is to use flash, but should I live with my SB910, get a softbox for it, or invest in a ring flash? Can you also answer any questions I didn't know I needed to ask. Intended subject matter is supposed to be insects and small flowers. Thanks in advance

 

[Don McCracken]

I'm not a master, but I use an LED from Manfrotto. It's inexpensive and versatile. If my camera is on a tripod and I'm using live view, I can introduce front or side lighting to different degrees and it doesn't seem to bother the subjects I photograph.

 

[DRwyoming]

Intended subject matter is supposed to be insects and small flowers.

If you go the flash route, a decent flash diffuser is generally enough for macro work, basically even the bare flash is a fairly large light source when it's only a few inches from your subject and a simple diffuser makes it a much broader light source when close up. Some kind of adjustable flash bracket that gets the flash off the hot shoe mount and lets you position it off axis and closer to your subject with some angle helps a lot.

That said, I do about 90% of my macro photography with natural light but often with a simple pop out light diffuser (aka scrim) to soften daylight as it hits the subject. That's my preferred approach for insects including Butterflies and macro flower shots. I personally think it's easier and leads to better overall lighting than flash work especially if the background is further back which will go very dark when relying on flash alone.

I've been experimenting with a small LED light panel from LumiCube which I like and is nice and diffuse, again it's mounted on an adjustable bracket so I can get it in close and set the lighting angle I want but it has the same issue as flash in terms of leading to dark backgrounds if there's much distance between the main subject and the background as is common in some Butterfly shots. I've been using it more to add some subtle fill light and not so much as my primary lighting source.

 

[Steve]

I agree with the idea of using a small, continuous light source. In Costa Rica we also use reflectors. In fact, pretty much any macro you see of mine is either natural light or with a reflector. I think that seeing the way to the light is hitting the subject and being able to "sculpt" it is easier with continuous lights and reflectors. It's not that flash is a bad idea either, they all work well. Just gotta pick the tool that works best for your field workflow.

Also, as DR says, usually just the flash itself is enough, or possibly a small diffuser. A flash is usually a point light source and can cause harsh shadows, but when it's two or three inches from the subject, it's a diffused light source. Also, keep in mind that many flash units have a built-in diffuser of some sort that can work well.

 

[Squawk]

If you go the flash route, a decent flash diffuser is generally enough for macro work, basically even the bare flash is a fairly large light source when it's only a few inches from your subject and a simple diffuser makes it a much broader light source when close up. Some kind of adjustable flash bracket that gets the flash off the hot shoe mount and lets you position it off axis and closer to your subject with some angle helps a lot.

That said, I do about 90% of my macro photography with natural light but often with a simple pop out light diffuser (aka scrim) to soften daylight as it hits the subject. That's my preferred approach for insects including Butterflies and macro flower shots. I personally think it's easier and leads to better overall lighting than flash work especially if the background is further back which will go very dark when relying on flash alone.

I've been experimenting with a small LED light panel from LumiCube which I like and is nice and diffuse, again it's mounted on an adjustable bracket so I can get it in close and set the lighting angle I want but it has the same issue as flash in terms of leading to dark backgrounds if there's much distance between the main subject and the background as is common in some Butterfly shots. I've been using it more to add some subtle fill light and not so much as my primary lighting source.

Thanks. I love not spending money. I've got a manfrotto LED panel so I'm already there. Perhaps I'll start with natural light and only try flash on subjects with an immediate background.

 

[Squawk]

I agree with the idea of using a small, continuous light source. In Costa Rica we also use reflectors. In fact, pretty much any macro you see of mine is either natural light or with a reflector. I think that seeing the way to the light is hitting the subject and being able to "sculpt" it is easier with continuous lights and reflectors. It's not that flash is a bad idea either, they all work well. Just gotta pick the tool that works best for your field workflow.

Also, as DR says, usually just the flash itself is enough, or possibly a small diffuser. A flash is usually a point light source and can cause harsh shadows, but when it's two or three inches from the subject, it's a diffused light source. Also, keep in mind that many flash units have a built-in diffuser of some sort that can work well.

Ahhh. I'd missed that the diffusion is also relative to source distance. And the 910 has a little flip out plastic diffuser. Very useful insight. Thanks