Tortuga Roja
Guest
This is in response to Ron Franks excellent question on another thread:
I thought I would respond because I have been asked why I shoot so much more macro than WA and I am curious as to what others think.
WA is definitely more of a challenge to expose but I like WA and have plenty of WA shots Im proud of and many more in my mind that havent materialized yet. Macro comes with a few problems of its own though. Still, I find myself deciding on the 105mm or 60mm more often than not when getting my camera ready. I think there are a few reasons that come into play that make macro more of a sure thing and WA more of a gamble.
Here in Hawaii, our reef isnt as colorful as say Fiji so a WA shot of the reef itself usually doesnt make a great subject. My typical use of WA is for a large animal, a "near and far" hopefully with a sunball, or an occasion a CFWA.
Macro always gives you a wider variety of critters. There are always lots of small fish, shrimps, nudis, crabs, eels, etc. available. Not so many large subject like mantas, dolphins, large fish etc. More subjects = more keepers.
If you go out with a 10.5mm WAL and the vis really sucks that day, its likely you'll get few or no keepers. With a 105mm, good shots are still very possible.
I like the little critters than many people dont even know exist. Shooting macro can be like exploring space. If anyone diving at recreational depths finds a new species, it will be a macro sized one.
I cherish the days when I know there is gonna be great vis and those are the days I mount a WAL. Im lucky enuf to live where I can dive most every day and wait for the best days to go WA. But someone that only gets to dive when they are on vacation is taking more of a gamble when they mount a WAL before a dive.
Im leaving for Malaysia in a couple days and Im guessing I will be shooting mostly macro there to. Well see.
So thats my theory on why you see more macro shots these days. And of course like you said, it is easier to properly expose a macro because you have complete control of the light.
This isnt a spectacular looking shot but it may be one of the only, if not the only, shots like this in existence. Most divers dont even know this animal exists even though they are pretty common. You think WA is hard to light, try hand holding a strobe, while trying to aim and manual focus your lens between a opening of an oyster that is less than 1 wide. The shrimp butt w/eggs that you see is about 3-4 deep into this crack. And yes, she always aims her butt out so getting a head shot would mean killing the oyster which in my way of thinking is immoral, and also illegal (they are protected here).
Shrimp butt with eggs inside a blacklipped oyster
Here are some recent shots that show why I like macro critters:
Blue Christmas
Mr. Personality
Cushionstar Shrimp (about 1/4" long)
Seems that a lot of people like to shoot macro? Is this born out of the coolness of getting close to STUFF, or because WA shots are more difficult do to the inability to light the entire area?
I thought I would respond because I have been asked why I shoot so much more macro than WA and I am curious as to what others think.
WA is definitely more of a challenge to expose but I like WA and have plenty of WA shots Im proud of and many more in my mind that havent materialized yet. Macro comes with a few problems of its own though. Still, I find myself deciding on the 105mm or 60mm more often than not when getting my camera ready. I think there are a few reasons that come into play that make macro more of a sure thing and WA more of a gamble.
Here in Hawaii, our reef isnt as colorful as say Fiji so a WA shot of the reef itself usually doesnt make a great subject. My typical use of WA is for a large animal, a "near and far" hopefully with a sunball, or an occasion a CFWA.
Macro always gives you a wider variety of critters. There are always lots of small fish, shrimps, nudis, crabs, eels, etc. available. Not so many large subject like mantas, dolphins, large fish etc. More subjects = more keepers.
If you go out with a 10.5mm WAL and the vis really sucks that day, its likely you'll get few or no keepers. With a 105mm, good shots are still very possible.
I like the little critters than many people dont even know exist. Shooting macro can be like exploring space. If anyone diving at recreational depths finds a new species, it will be a macro sized one.
I cherish the days when I know there is gonna be great vis and those are the days I mount a WAL. Im lucky enuf to live where I can dive most every day and wait for the best days to go WA. But someone that only gets to dive when they are on vacation is taking more of a gamble when they mount a WAL before a dive.
Im leaving for Malaysia in a couple days and Im guessing I will be shooting mostly macro there to. Well see.
So thats my theory on why you see more macro shots these days. And of course like you said, it is easier to properly expose a macro because you have complete control of the light.
This isnt a spectacular looking shot but it may be one of the only, if not the only, shots like this in existence. Most divers dont even know this animal exists even though they are pretty common. You think WA is hard to light, try hand holding a strobe, while trying to aim and manual focus your lens between a opening of an oyster that is less than 1 wide. The shrimp butt w/eggs that you see is about 3-4 deep into this crack. And yes, she always aims her butt out so getting a head shot would mean killing the oyster which in my way of thinking is immoral, and also illegal (they are protected here).
Shrimp butt with eggs inside a blacklipped oyster
![145221445_f7fc693132_o.jpg](http://static.flickr.com/47/145221445_f7fc693132_o.jpg)
Here are some recent shots that show why I like macro critters:
Blue Christmas
![144454881_dd21477b80_o.jpg](http://static.flickr.com/52/144454881_dd21477b80_o.jpg)
Mr. Personality
![143642233_6bf6fb0ffb_o.jpg](http://static.flickr.com/44/143642233_6bf6fb0ffb_o.jpg)
Cushionstar Shrimp (about 1/4" long)
![139263731_8f39790481_o.jpg](http://static.flickr.com/48/139263731_8f39790481_o.jpg)