why so many macros you ask?

[Tortuga Roja]

This is in response to Ron Frank’s excellent question on another thread:

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 I’m proud of and many more in my mind that haven’t materialized yet. Macro comes with a few problems of it’s 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 isn’t as colorful as say Fiji so a WA shot of the reef itself usually doesn’t 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, it’s 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 don’t 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. I’m 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.

I’m leaving for Malaysia in a couple days and I’m guessing I will be shooting mostly macro there to. We’ll see.

So that’s 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 isn’t a spectacular looking shot but it may be one of the only, if not the only, shots like this in existence. Most divers don’t 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)

 

[Larry C]

I'm with you, Tortuga Roja. I do most of my diving on the California coast. During the best times of year, the water is full of phytoplankton as well as animal plankton. If there's surge, you get broken up kelp too, not to mention sand. Visability ranges from 2-50 feet with mostly dark water, but the bottom and the kelp forests are literally swarming with crabs, nudies, shrimp, worms of all types, Rockfish in holes, big green lingcods,etc. My wide shots are typically pretty marginal even on a decent vis day with 15-20 feet horizontal, but even on really bad days with surge numbers higher than the vis I've come up with some really decent macros-even at 80-100 feet where there's not much light.

 

[Dee]

We're on the same page, here. Unfortunately I don't have access to good water as often as you do so I shoot mostly macro because that's what I'm most comfortable with. And, to me, the little stuff is more varied and interesting. It's kind of like Forrest Gumps boc of chocolates....you just never know what you're gonna get! My WA lens is used more for CFWA work than anything else. I have taken some nice WA wall shots but on vacation the viz sets the schedule for those. Luckily with my C-5050 and wetmate lenses, I don't have to decide until I get in the water.

 

[SeaYoda]

No colorful reefs where I dive. Viz is normally 10'-25' with particles most of the time. Even in the best viz, the macros are more interesting here. I might like a WA lens to get more of a close fish in the shot, but that will come some other day.

 

[havnmonkey]

For us p&s'rs; what is more affordable? A good macro or a good WA lense? Inon's WA lense is nearly $400, Macro lense is $175... Also, we usually don't have to buy a lense to shoot macro (we just use "macro mode"). However, even though most of our cameras' have a decent WA range we can't reduce the water column enough to get really sweet pics, they may be memorable shots but not exactly "8x10 hang uo on the wall quality".

I have two strobes; most have one or even just the built in flash. Anything outside of 4-6 feet starts to fade. And without a WA lense we can't do a whole lot about that.

I want a WA lense, I want a Fisheye lense, I want a Macro lense; But I don't dive often enough to justify the expense especially if the results are not gauranteed to be spectacular.

 

[Monkey Knife-fight]

For us p&s'rs; what is more affordable? A good macro or a good WA lense? Inon's WA lense is nearly $400, Macro lense is $175... Also, we usually don't have to buy a lense to shoot macro (we just use "macro mode"). However, even though most of our cameras' have a decent WA range we can't reduce the water column enough to get really sweet pics, they may be memorable shots but not exactly "8x10 hang uo on the wall quality".

I have two strobes; most have one or even just the built in flash. Anything outside of 4-6 feet starts to fade. And without a WA lense we can't do a whole lot about that.

I want a WA lense, I want a Fisheye lense, I want a Macro lense; But I don't dive often enough to justify the expense especially if the results are not gauranteed to be spectacular.

I dunno i got the Inon UWL 105 wide angle for $259. And i got 2 Inon UCL 165 for $270 (2x$135). If you're talking about the dome lenses then those are more expensive but with the regular wide angle the prices are comparable (since lots of people end up with 2 macro lenses).

I just got my macro lenses (took them on one dive and boy howdy are those things tricky) but i like the idea of having wide angle or super macro interchangeable on a dive. Though i agree with most here that i like macro in general. I just love seeing the minute details you can't necessarily even see during the dive.

Chris

 

[Mo2vation]

Easier?

Taking a big DSLR with two large strobes, in through the surf, at night, with a 21W HID on your left hand (which brings fish fry swarming your light like mosquitos), trying to compose a macro shot in the silt (breathe and its a snowstorm), shooting creatures that are 1/2" to 1" long, with maybe 1/2" - 1" DOF, while being pushed around in the surge... oh yeah, baby. Just another Macro night in SoCal.

Macro rules. You know why? Because there is about a zillion small creatures to every one creature the size of your fin, and about 10 zillion small creatures to every creature the size of your buddy.

Plus, shooting in the green / red water at night, its really my only option.

Macro rules.

Excellent shots, Tort.
---

 

[Diver Dennis]

I like macro because you can give your subjects a personality. I like WA for big animals but I just started not long ago and haven't had much of a chance to shoot them.

I should add, it's not only the critters. There are so many colors, textures and structures in the plants as well. The complexity of the underwater world fascinates me. With an image you can let people see the delicate arms of a Crinoid or the sexy arms of an anemone swaying in the current. I do not have the vocabulary to describe in words the wonders I see so I can let images do that for me.
I think good macro is harder to shoot than WA.

 

[havnmonkey]

I just think Macro might produce good results faster...

Just a thought: Would it be possible to stack your macros and then the WA/ fisheye? Probably wouldn't work...

 

[RonFrank]

Nice shots Mike, and thanks for giving your perspective. With luck I'll get a chance to get my D200 UW when in FL. You are right, for those of us who don't have the opportunity to dive often, WA maybe a bit of a gamble, but I still enjoy that. I have not had a chance to shoot much macro, and look forward to doing so more in the future.