Help to choose flash for macro

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

DaveW
Posts: 1702
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:29 am
Location: Nottingham, UK

Post by DaveW »

The problem is not the availability of film cameras Harold, but film choice getting less. I was a Kodachrome user, but the last one I had to send to Switzerland to get processed as Kodak shut their UK plant. Now I understand Switzerland is only a collection point for Europe as all the Kodachrome from there is now couriered to the USA to be developed and then back again to Switzerland for European distribution, obviously this extra cost will be passed on before long in the film price.

In the past I used to use E4 and E6 slide film, but it has all now faded so only Kodachrome seems to have any permanence for slide users. After changing to digital in 2006 I found it so much easier, no need for darkroom manipulation, you do it all in daylight on computer and I can take a plant in my greenhouse in flower and have it on the computer 10 minutes later and in the USA or Malta to friends over the Internet in about another 10 minutes or so. Something I could never do with Kodachrome.

I also get sent CD's containing 300 or so images from my friends trips to the plants habitat. In his film days it would have been far too expensive to duplicate 300 slides for me, now it only takes him a few minutes on computer and a cheap CD-Rom.

I have also noticed how much brighter on screen digital images are projected by a digital computer compared to slides projected with a slide projector used to be. I must say I never regretted moving from film to digital, particularly since the British Post Office changed it's postage rates so letter rate items now have to go through a 1/4" slit so film can's no longer qualify, plus the extra postage on Kodachrome to Switzerland.

If you use negative film or slide film other than Kodachrome and self process you are OK. But as I said all my old non Kodachrome slides have now faded and are useless. The choice of slide film is also diminishing as are other film products such as printing papers as firms pull out of the film business when sales fall to go digital.

DaveW

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Flash For Macro: Film

Post by Harold Gough »

Dave,

You obviously have not kept up with E6 film stocks in the last few years. Kodak brought out a few new ones (?) three or four years ago and Fuji are continuing to do so, the most significant, and recent, being Provia 400X Pro.

Fuji are committed to film and have even set up a website:

http://choose-film.com/

http://www.worldfilmphotoday.org/index.html

You are right about the E6 films of 30 years or so ago (Ektachrome fading to blue) but modern ones, at least the best, are of archival life. During the past two years I have changed to, a marvelous E6 film, Centuria Chrome 100, buying up 400 36 exposure films, some of the last to be made.

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Flash For Macro: Film

Post by Harold Gough »

Re: Kodachrome: It now has to be sent direct to one lab in the USA.

Current E6 films are of similar grain size to Kodachrome. Even Provia 400X Pro is equivalent to K25.
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

DaveW
Posts: 1702
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:29 am
Location: Nottingham, UK

Post by DaveW »

Have they done a 30 year trial yet on modern emulsions to see if they do fade though Harold?

Apart from that film sales are falling due to the convenience of digital, and reduced sales always means less ecconomies of production scale, so eventual high prices for film stock and chemicals.

At the moment some film manufacturers like Fuji are maintaining throughput due to other manufacturers bowing out of film and paper production, but eventually if sales keep falling they will be hit by falls in sales so incur higher production costs for film, as will the manufacturers of processing chemicals.

From the professionals point of view too I understand more and more of their clients are wanting images sent to them digitally over the web rather than on film, as are printing firms.

I did not change originally from film because I did not like it since at the time I still considered it superior, but because I could see the writing on the wall for it's mass use and cheap pricing. I also realised if I was to get anything for my film photo equipment it was a good time to get rid.

As you said earlier you can now pick film stuff up for a song and the reason is obvious because the masses are jumping to digital which means the cost of film and processing chemicals will rise. Even Durst has now stopped producing enlargers due to lack of demand.

If you are happy with film by all means continue, but I think your materials will start to get more and more expensive as their market shrinks. Fuji will make film as long as it is a commercial proposition but as soon as it is not it's shareholders will insist the factory space is used for something more profitable. No doubt selling the film manufacturing plant to some third world niche manufacturer. Remember Kodak nearly went bankrupt a couple of years ago because it relied on film production far too long instead of switching to digital for the bulk of it's business.

I am neither pro or anti film, just making the point that market forces rule and film is set to become a more expensive niche market in future. Nikon has discontinued all it's consumer film cameras now and it looks as if the F6 will be it's last professional film camera.

It is sad for film users, but the amateur market that produced mass film and film camera sales, so largely subsidised the cost of specialist film production and professional film cameras has largely voted with their feet and switched to digital.

I used an F2 Nikon for 30 years and sold it then for more than I originally paid for it. But it was the last of the manual Nikon's. Later film cameras using electronics and LCD displays will not last as long because I believe LCD's have a limited life since my expensive LCD watches display packed up after 10 years. Therefore unless you use early manual film cameras you can expect any produced since the late 1970's will gradually pack up due to their electronics failing and spares being unavailable.

DaveW

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

They do "accelerated" ageing tests on films, as do manufacturers of many products (paint, pesticides, etc.). Certainly, I have seen no trace of problems, over six years, for thousands of images at room temperature, some films going back up to 20 years. (One Ektachrome Professional shows no sign after at least 15 years.

Yes, the transmission of images (at some risk of piracy) and the supply to most clients, is almost totally reliant on digital files, hence my scanner (Epson V750 Pro) to be installed very soon.

There are advantages to digital, in that colour casts can be removed and contrast, even exposure, can be corrected. There seems to be a lot of nonsense about sharpening, which is easily done at the time the shot is taken.

The supply of films in my freezer cost me 65P each for 36 exposure cassettes. I wonder if even the batteries in a digital camera cost more than that! The films all had two years to expiry when frozen. Mind you, even out of date films can be used, due to the digital manipiulations possible after scans.

One thing I forgot about Kodachrome: I used to use K25, with K64 for a 'fast' film. I ran out of E6 on one trip and took some interior shots with K64. I was using ambient (window) light and 1/15 second (tripod). They all came out with a magenta cast due to reciprocity failure. I would have been better off with K25. Reciprocity failure is not a problem with the films I now use, important because some sunlight (tripod) exposures for macro can be 1/15 second or so.
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

Adrian
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:27 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Adrian »

Mike B in OKlahoma wrote:I am not a Nikon shooter, of course, but I can state that when my Canon closeup flash (MT-24EX) had some problems and became disabled, I shifted to using a regular Canon flash (580EX, specifically) for my closeup shots, sometimes with a second slave flash unit.

For all my closeup work except for the extreme stuff at greater than 2x, the regular units are working as well in the vast majority of cases, and in some cases better.
Wow, im quite suprised to see that im not the only one that uses a regular flash for macro work.

I use the 580EX for my flash - allthough i mostly use it just as a fill flash, as im using a tripod pretty much all the time, rarly it is my main source of light.

keep in mind, at very close distances (subject to lens) with regular flash on the hotshoe, the flash coverage can be blocked or effected by the lens. it rarly happens with my 180mm, but happens more often with the 60mm, as the working distance is much further on the 180mm, you can use a flash bracket to overcome this however.

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

[quote="Adrian
Wow, im quite suprised to see that im not the only one that uses a regular flash for macro work.

I use the 580EX for my flash - allthough i mostly use it just as a fill flash, as im using a tripod pretty much all the time, rarly it is my main source of light.

keep in mind, at very close distances (subject to lens) with regular flash on the hotshoe, the flash coverage can be blocked or effected by the lens. it rarly happens with my 180mm, but happens more often with the 60mm, as the working distance is much further on the 180mm, you can use a flash bracket to overcome this however.[/quote]

You think you have problems! It can get rather tricky with bellows lenses. Having the lens housing tapered and the front glass not recessed certainly helps.

That said, I have often hand-held a standard flash unit (i.e. the main light source), relying on the short duration of the flash to negate any hand movement (casting moving shadows) the camera/lens being steadied by a tripod. Also, the light from above can prevent fall-off of intensity, front to back, across the subject.

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic