This episode isn't only a great joy to watch, but it's also one of the most interesting in-depth videos on macro photography on KZbin. Thank you very much gentlemen, both for asking the right questions and sharing your knowledge!
@BehindTheShot6 жыл бұрын
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.
@ronjenkins42572 жыл бұрын
[Me to myself: I'm inspired by Don Komarechka's technology and uses of IR and UV light and sophisticated techniques. I'm getting a 10x microscope objective and tube, automated focusing rail, black light, camera with sensor filters removed . . . gotta catch up . . . . ] Podcast host: So what's new Don? Don Komarechka: So now I'm playing around with a direct link to a scintillation detector directly downloading event horizon gamma ray distortions from supermassive black holes, shining those through water droplets collected from the coolant system of the Pickering CANDU reactor -- I can't do all of this in my back yard but I try to keep it local -- (this really only works with slightly radioactive heavy water actually) -- but I can get some cool effects . . . Podcast host: Awesome!
@BehindTheShot2 жыл бұрын
I could actually picture Don saying exactly that.
@anotherperspective30765 жыл бұрын
Do you know Stewart Wood? He looks like you, he has the same intro like you and he doing macro photography on KZbin!:D
@BehindTheShot5 жыл бұрын
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!
@OscarNtege5 жыл бұрын
Great video,definitely giving me strategies for my next photography tutorial and photoshoot!👌
@BehindTheShot5 жыл бұрын
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/
@PhillipMcCallum4 жыл бұрын
Great video don is one of my favorite photograph He will come down to Australia Oneday
@BehindTheShot4 жыл бұрын
Thanks!
@dreichmuth5 жыл бұрын
Amazing Don! Thanks for the interview...mesmerizing
@BehindTheShot5 жыл бұрын
Glad you liked it, and I’ve let Don know about your comment.
@skakdosmer5 жыл бұрын
17:18 "I'm sure this bee is aware of my presence". Honestly, I'm pretty sure she isn't! Those compound eyes (and the tiny brain behind it) are not designed to discern shapes. They're designed to register movements, and they're extremely good at that. Each individual eye sees only a tiny part of the entire eye's field of view, and if an object rapidly move across the field of view of several eyes, the insect automatically and instantly reacts. But if you move slowly enough, most insects won't even know you're there. A housefly might feel and react to the heat from your hand if you come too close, but if you first hold the hand under the cold tap for a few moments to cool it, quickly dry it off and then slowly approach the fly, it might not notice you until your finger actually touches it! (You'll need a steady hand, though). This is why, if you've come too close to a wasps' nest and alarmed them so that a swarm comes out (surprisingly quickly!) and begins to search the area for potential enemies, your best chance is to calmly and very slowly move away. Because if you run or wave your arms to fend them off, you're basically shouting to them, "HERE I AM!" Now, some insects do have a better eyesight. A Bluebottle is a lot smarter than a housefly or a bee, and it will see you, almost no matter what you do.
@DonKomarechka5 жыл бұрын
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. :)
@lrm522835 жыл бұрын
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.
@50deserteagle5 жыл бұрын
Thanks for sharing.
@skolrelaterat41135 жыл бұрын
Very nice, interesting and inspiring! Thank you!
@BehindTheShot5 жыл бұрын
skolrelaterat Thanks for watching.
@leroy50075 жыл бұрын
God I love this video it was enjoyable and informative.
@BehindTheShot5 жыл бұрын
Leroy Keith Glad you enjoyed it man!
@fourleafclover23773 жыл бұрын
Love it but wondering why the left antennae is more in focus than the right
@BehindTheShot3 жыл бұрын
I’ll ask him.
@keerthikumar54906 жыл бұрын
It's don for real.....my god Thanks...
@SteveBrazill6 жыл бұрын
Keerthi kumar Yup! I just hung his Snowflake poster in my studio too. So good.
@SteveBrazill6 жыл бұрын
Keerthi kumar Oh yeah... THANK YOU for watching.
@keerthikumar54906 жыл бұрын
@@SteveBrazill I subd that moment itself when don was on the show
@user-hh2iw7jn7b5 жыл бұрын
Howie Mandel and frotto baggins of the shire talking about photography!!!! haha just kidding I enjoyed this video
@BehindTheShot5 жыл бұрын
A 2 That cracked me up! Glad you enjoyed it A2!
@user-hh2iw7jn7b5 жыл бұрын
could I get a link to the ring flash he was talking about for 90$
@DonKomarechka5 жыл бұрын
@@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
@BehindTheShot5 жыл бұрын
A 2 I passed this on to Don, so watch here for any link.
@user-hh2iw7jn7b5 жыл бұрын
haha... ok thanks
@mrscientificterms4 жыл бұрын
as a macro shooter . . . 100 for one keeper . . . yep.
@ivanwhitehall38995 жыл бұрын
Profound
@JohnKimbler2 жыл бұрын
Sorry Don but cropping, no matter how you do it (in post or with a smaller than full frame sensor), does not change the magnification. Magnification in macro has to do with the size of the subject as it is being projected onto the image plane. If that projection is as big, or bigger, than the subject itself then the resulting image will be a macro image. Cropping simply makes the subject look larger in the frame, but it will not reveal additional detail that is not already in the image (increasing the magnification can). I agree that there are some advantages to using crop factor sensors for macro. The 1.6x crop on my camera allows me to fill the frame with the subject at lower magnifications than shooting full frame, and being able to shoot at a lower mag gives me more depth of field. Of course I could get the exact same effect if I shot with a full frame sensor and cropped the image, to the same field of view as my 90D, in post.
@DonKomarechka2 жыл бұрын
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.
@BehindTheShot2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for taking the time to reply here Don.
@JohnKimbler2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@DonKomarechka2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@JohnKimbler2 жыл бұрын
@@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...
@theunifiedfield.4 жыл бұрын
Just use the pop-up flash and an average white takeaway chip carton. Cut a hole in it and sit it between your lens and the camera body or extension tubes. It's flexible enough to fold towards the lens and works as good as any shop bought diffuser... and is literally, cheap as chips! ;)
@aiquelindo5 жыл бұрын
Don, you are so handsome. I wish I could take your portrait.
@Cagey75314 жыл бұрын
Lame, a good portrait photographer doesn't require good looking people to produce great portraits.
@hermanpanzerwerferhorkheim98535 жыл бұрын
Sorry, but that's fake. The way the legs are positioned and sitting on the flower, its body and head position, etc. This wouldn't happen naturally. The bee is either chilled or dead and posed. You should have googled "bees on flowers images."
@DonKomarechka5 жыл бұрын
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
@shaunbrown39475 жыл бұрын
@@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
@DonKomarechka5 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@lbenn435 жыл бұрын
@@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?
@DonKomarechka5 жыл бұрын
@@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. :)