Improve Your Macro Photography with Don Komarechka - Behind the Shot 

Hi Pip! Thanks for watching! I am planning to have Don on again soon to cover some of the other types of photography he does too.

Glad you liked it, and I’ve let Don know about your comment.

skolrelaterat Thanks for watching.

Thanks!

oscar ntege Hey Oscar, thanks for watching, and glad you enjoyed it! Don also has a Kickstarter on his new macro book that has 7 days left. www.kickstarter.com/projects/donkom/macro-photography/

Leroy Keith Glad you enjoyed it man!

I could actually picture Don saying exactly that.

Keerthi kumar Yup! I just hung his Snowflake poster in my studio too. So good.

Keerthi kumar Oh yeah... THANK YOU for watching.

@@SteveBrazill I subd that moment itself when don was on the show

Hey Fisheye Adventures! I do not know him, but did just look him up. Looks like some great content, and yeah, we are using the same After Effects template intro (from a site that sells them, and the first other person I have seen with it) I don't do Macro Photography myself, although this episode's guest Don Komarechka does. Stewart is one I will have to check out too. Thanks!

I’ll ask him.

Lau, thanks very much for your thoughtful commentary here! What you write makes a lot of sense, and if that was the whole picture than you'd be right. However, if you also add in the fact that I am changing my angles frequently while rapid-fire shooting with very bright pulses of light, there is definitely a reaction from most insects. Spiders and long-legged flies have the most immediate response, with long-legged flies being so photo-reactive that a TTL preflash will make them jump out of the frame before the full flash actually fires. Bees of any variety are less "jumpy", but I have noticed many bees reacting to my presence. Often times honeybees will stick out their mid and back legs as some sort of reaction in defense or avoidance when I eclipse the sun by my extreme proximity, or they would avoid flowers that I was closest to - another way my presence affects the behaviour of the foraging insects. In sort, I've been able to "pet" some bees because they are just clueless of my presence... maybe not the smartest thing I've done. Other times my actions are somewhat noticed and I can see the effects of that. :)

I had a pet wasp for a day. I have him nectar and it was cold outside so after coming in to shoot under that warm light...he was like a dog I couldn't get to go back outside, lol! He definitely looked at me, a lot when he wanted food. He let me pet him as well. Also hung out with an assassin bug for a bit who never flipped out his proboscis thankfully! Heard that really hurts when they stab you. Don't mess with speeders bc of their fast movement. But flea beetles are fun. They'll sit for a while if refrigerated but once they warm up... They jump 3-4 ft. My husband hears me scream and he yells,"got a flea beetle?" Lol Insects are much more chill once they realize you aren't going to hurt them. I don't think they are near as stupid as people think. Seem about the same as a dog.

A 2 That cracked me up! Glad you enjoyed it A2!

could I get a link to the ring flash he was talking about for 90$

@@user-hh2iw7jn7b Check out the Yongnuo YN-14EX: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1125848-REG/yongnuo_yn_14ex_c_ttl_led_macro_ring.html/BI/8924/KBID/10335/kw/YOYN14EXC/DFF/d10-v2-t1-xYOYN14EXC

A 2 I passed this on to Don, so watch here for any link.

haha... ok thanks

Lame, a good portrait photographer doesn't require good looking people to produce great portraits.

You’re not wrong, John, but the modern definition of macro photography has shifted and you’re not right either. Technically, if I use an 11x14 large format camera to capture a headshot, that image is a macro image - since it’s 1:1 life size. Rather than thinking of magnification in terms of how large a subject is in comparison to the size of the imaging device, it’s far more relevant to align our thinking in different terms. How much space does a subject take within the frame of an image, regardless of original capture material size? The importance of this is further enforced by the variable screen sizes that people view images on, from something as small as a watch to an 85” television. Again, you’re not wrong. Just like Shakespeare is technically Modern English. Language evolves just as art evolves. While photography is deeply rooted in science that can make such evolution less flexible, let’s give this one a pass. With so many varying sensor and screen sizes, it’s no longer important to discuss magnification based solely on the ratio of actual subject size to actual size on the image sensor. There are exceptions to this, obvious. Diffraction limiting your resolving power is a great example of one, where a larger surface area can still be very important. At that point, however, we’re deeply concerned about the physics of light and not the wider scope that encompasses photographic art. Please allow for some flexibility.

Thanks for taking the time to reply here Don.

@@DonKomarechka it's not an issue of being inflexible, but one of needing a common reference point from which to talk about and teach macro photography. It is getting to the point where any image taken with a macro lens is considered a macro photo. Try explaining how difficult it is to shoot macro due to the limited depth of field and available light, actual 1x and higher mag, to someone who shoots well below .5x and yet calls every shot they take "macro". That is why the size of the capturing device, and how an image is displayed, is irrelevant. You are dead on about that 11x14 large format negative head shot being a macro photo -absolutely! But to claim that a standard macro lens can give you 2x magnification if it is attached to a 2x crop factor camera is just bad math.

@@JohnKimbler yeah, a 2x "crop factor" on MFT compared to a full-frame camera, both widely used sizes and everything in between and beyond, makes the true "magnification" a term we really don't need for general conversation. In my book on the subject, I essentially stated that macro photography is "close-up photography", which includes subjects photographed at non-macro (1:1 life size) and beyond macro (beyond 1:1 lifesize). The rule I settled on was a subject being around 2-3 inches in size or smaller should be considered "macro". This takes away the burden of perceived magnification changes and just places the proper context on subject size... which is what we are all really talking about anyhow. :) So, to end: subject size should be the common reference point, and we can debate on where the line is for qualifying as "macro", but my opinion of a 3" subject is really the line for me. Anything smaller is in the macro realm.

@@DonKomarechka I feel like I am beating a dead horse, but subject size and "equivalence" has lead to a lot of confusion. You are only going to get a very small portion of a 3" subject on a tiny cell phone sensor, so magnification as a function of how large the subject is when projected onto the image plane becomes important because it is a constant. Especially when it might be impossible to determine the size of the object in that cell phone shot. You are right that every macro shot is a closeup -macro is a subset of closeup photography. But not every closeup image is a macro image, something that you and I are gonna have to agree to disagree on ;) Footnote: "Equivalence" is pseudo science in fancy packaging. The only way to accurately compare images taken with a crop factor sensor to a larger format is to crop the larger format image down to the same field of view as the crop factor image. When you do nearly every difference between them drops to zero, and that is because they are functionally the same. It does not matter if you shoot with a sensor that crops the image circle projected by a lens, or shoot with that same lens on a full frame camera and then crop in post. A crop is a crop no matter when, or how, you do it. Anything else that is done to the full frame camera, like change the distance to the subject or magnification etc,, to make the subject look the same size as the crop factor camera is a rigged test. Will there be a difference between the two sensors? Sure, but not because there is an inherent difference between them but simply because the test conditions have changed...

Hello Herman, sorry that you do not believe this image is real but my aim is to change your opinion on that, because it is real, unstaged, and completely natural. I had been thinking about how to prove the honesty of this shot, and the only answer I think that would satisfy you is to see ALL of the shots taken from this series, their successes and failures in different bee "positions". Some worked well, some didn't work at all. In total there were 277 shots - I'm even including the dark frames where my flash didn't fire because it was recharging too slowly. You can find all of the images here, just for you (and anyone else reading this): donkom.ca/sweat-bee/ - if you want to download them all at once I have included a zip file that you should see at the top. I encourage your scrutiny on my work - you'll find it to be real. For reference, the unedited version of the image we discuss here is called _1011112.RW2. I'd be happy to provide you with a RAW file of any image that you'd like to get a full resolution closer look at (these were uploaded at 1400x wide for the consideration of bandwidth). I have never once lied about my work. I take threats to that seriously, as comments such as yours could easily damage my reputation and I would go to any lengths to prove the legitimacy of my images. Furthermore, feel free to contact me directly - my e-mail address and phone number are not hard to find, and discuss anything about this image or any other image I have ever taken. Check out my work - I discuss at length the process used to create every image. I hope this satisfies your skepticism, which I always encourage. I don't think anyone should take something at face value, I think that the honesty in anything always has room for questions... but I also think that blatantly claiming something is untrue or fake without all of the evidence or without an open mind is, well, incomplete. Sincerely, - Don Komarechka

@@DonKomarechka well said too many keyboard warriors willing to slag someone off, loved the interview, probably not as much as the one you did with the Northrup's, which is the first time i even heard of you, just getting into macro and you have given me the push i have needed, thanks

@@shaunbrown3947 so glad you enjoyed my reply here - I don't like when my honesty is questioned. :) Glad you've watched a few of my videos - hopefully more to come soon! If you have any questions about macro photography, feel free to reach out and ask.

@@DonKomarechka Thankyou so much for all your amazing information and epic photos! I do have a question about the ring flash though. Were you saying the ring flashes you like to use are not LED? Is there a disadvantage to using an LED ring flash?

@@lbenn43 it's all about flash duration! Imagine that you're in a completely dark room and you set your camera for a 10 minute exposure. It would be black. If you arbitrarily pop a flash off during the exposure, what is the length of your exposure? 10 minutes, or the duration of the flash? Technically both, but it's only the latter one we care about. The same is true when you set your camera to it's flash sync speed and the flash is going to be the dominant light source. 1/200sec would yield a very under-exposed or completely black image if your flash is doing all the work, so the duration of the flash is important to remove motion blur. The average LED flash has a duration of maybe 1/300 sec or so. A xenon flash tube at it's lowest power setting (common for macro when the flash is right next to the subject) is roughly 1/20,000sec. That's a huge difference. LEDs might be find if you're all buttoned down and your subject is static, or if you're shooting video and they are on continuously... but for all other scenarios a traditional flash tube will be best. :)