Yuku free message boards

Hi:

I use a macro rig that puts the lights out front - in front of the lens. It allows me to make close up shots as much as 3X life size, with the appropriate lens, and my hands are around the camera body and away from the teeth of any snake-with-an-attitude.

If you don't have something like this then a macro lens in the 200 to 300mm range will work, though the use of on-camera (macro) flash is no longer feasible for reasons that I can't explain in few words. A longer focal length lens gives you the advantage of providing a greater working distance between you and your subject. A side benefit is that your nasty snakes will probably feel more comfortable because you and your camera will likely be outside of their 'comfort circle', to coin a common phrase among animal photographers.

But the longer the focal length the more unwieldy the camera/lens combination will be to use. A 200mm lens, used to photograph at life-size, requires about 200mm of additional extension in many cases (Depends, to some extent, on the design of the lens. There are a couple of exceptions). And with all that weight a tripod is pretty much essential, unless you have Arnold Scwartzenegger's arms

I haven't gotten around to photographing my two nasty chondros yet - at such close quarters, but I have included a couple of pics of a quite nasty ETB, and a potentially dangerous eyelash viper...all made with this macro rig. The eyelash viper was intent on nailing me for sure. My hands were well clear of any danger. With the focal length lenses I prefer to use you can see I have plenty of working distance between me and the subject in most cases. The ETB was an exception. I used a 38mm macro lens and was almost on top of the thing. But my hands were clear.

The rig in the pic is mounted on a tripod, and what it doesn't show is that the lens is mounted to an auto bellows. One slight twist of the thing and you can extend the bellows very quickly out towards the subject, making the distance between you and your subject that much farther...as it was for the viper shot. Even better when the snake is out to get you! When I used it for the snake pics here I was hand holding it.

The chondro eye shot was made with a calm, cooperative chondro; the first chondro I ever owned, back in 1982.











I hope this answered your question.

Stu

Hi Greg:

Quote:

---

"Stu, do you prefer flash to studio lighting?"

---

It depends on the situation: If I have the space and the cooperation of the animal then I prefer studio flash because of the possibility to fine-tune the quality of the lighting in subtle ways that is easier to do with studio lights than it is with on-camera flash lighting.

If I'm dealing with a fast-moving subject that I have to 'chase' to get the image, or if I'm doing high-magnification close-up work, then I prefer to use on-camera flash. As you'll see from the pic, below, of my studio lighting set-up, trying to get in close with the camera would be a lesson in frustration:



The drawback to studio lights - for film photography, which is what I'm still dealing with - is their relatively long 'on-time' during an exposure. Electronic flash doesn't suffer from this problem. Their 'on-times' are a fraction of that of studio flashes. Of course you can use lights that are on all the time, such as those being used for digital photography. There are pros and cons to this method as well.

The drawback to lights that are on all the time is the heat they tend to put out. My studio lights have modelling lamps in them so, technically, they are on all the time, but the powerful lights - the ones that would put out all the heat if they had to be on all the time - are only on during the time of an exposure so don't put out much heat during a photo session.

An on-camera macro flash arrangement, such as the one in the pic I posted earlier, simply cannot be beat for subjects that have to be 'chased around', or for high-magnification close-up work. Close-up images vs full-body shots are, to me, completely different aspects of photography so require different approaches with the lighting. The macro set up in my earlier post is useless for full-body shots, unless said full body belongs to a very tiny subject. Likewise, the studio set-up is 'very' difficult to use for high magnification close-ups where you want to move around to get the best possible framing, etc.

So, for ultra close-ups (such as the ones of the ETB) an on-camera flash wins out every time, in my opinion, if it's set up correctly. Those kinds of pics can be made with studio flash but it's far easier, and a whole lot more convenient, to use on- camera flash. But it has to be the right kind of flash, with the right kind of light quality, etc.

An electronic flash for a camera is 'on' for a fraction of the time when compared to the type of studio flash I use. Normally it's not a problem but if you have a skittish animal that is jumpy when the flash fires then there is more chance for the image to be less sharp with a studio flash vs electronic flash, due to movement from the subject during the exposure. Of course this is another highly subjective area and one person's idea of too much movement (a blurry image) will be different that the next person's, etc. If you make very big enlargements from your images you will most definately notice any movement that was there at the time the image was made.

As for not wanting to keep popping flashes at the snake(s). I tend to agree, but I've found that, because the flash duration is so short, it never seems to have any long term negative effect on them, so I don't worry about it. Also, during any photo session I limit my flash emissions per snake to about 10 to 15 at most, over a one to two-hour period. This way, the number of flash emmissions per snake is relatively small for a given photo session.

Quote:

---

"...the speedlight tends to wash out color and cause glare at macro range."

---

Probably the reason your speelight washes out the color is because it's too specular. If it's diffused enough it'll start to take on the quality of bounce-type umbrella lighting. My on-camera flashes (such as the macro flashes in the pic) are always diffused. I will never use a flash that is not diffused. Of course it's subjective (like many aspects of photography) but I don't like washed-out colors on snakes. I want to show the colors as they really are whenever possible, so I try to keep the washed-out highlights to a minimum. Diffusing the lights helps in this respect.

My studio flashes are always diffused as well. My umbrella unit is a special rig designed for wedding photographers, and intended to provide "...the 'best' kind of light for the bride" (the manufacturer's words, not mine). The flash is aimed at the silver coating on the inside of the umbrella, then that light is reflected back and bounced through the white translucent material. The light ends up being bounced twice, in effect, which really breaks up the light rays, eliminating almost all specularity. It means the umbrella is pretty much a closed box, though, so is a pain to set up and tear down, but I like the light quality it gives me so I am willing to deal with it. If I'm using this light I also use a reflector for fill (see pic). This is the simplest studio set-up I've come up with so far that produces very good quality lighting that suits my tastes.

Quote:

---

"I have heard good things about a ring flash for macro photography."

---

I have a ring light and I like it for some things. It produces completely flat lighting, however, which might or might not suit one's tastes. I think it depends more on the subject. All the images I have of red chondros look awful with a ring light. Also, my ringlight is not very powerful so I only use it for close-ups presently, though I'm going to start experimenting with using an 'assist' light to allow me to use the ring light on full-body subjects.

The ring flash I use has a dedicated cross-polarizing filter which polarizes both the light leaving the flash 'and' the light entering through the camera lens. This produces the most color rich photos possible but - another compromise - reduces the light output by half! It's just that the lighting, being as flat as it is...does not always bring out the best in a subject.

The image of the chondro close-up below, which was one of the images that worked for me, was shot with my ring flash and it has really brought out the subtelties and tones of the colors of the snake (to my eyes):



Photography (as you no doubt know) has always been - and will continue to be for some time to come, I believe - a series of compromises. What I've written here is nothing more than my own opinion on the subject. Others might disagree with what I've stated here. I believe there is no ideal camera, no ideal lens, no ideal lighting set-up, etc. But, so long as the fun never leaves it I'll be ok with that.

Stu

edit: clarification.