On the other hand, 99% of my successful macro photographs have been on a tripod, mirror lock, with a "cable" release (I'm using digital, so "cable" is a bit of a misnomer). It is true I don't photograph bugs, and my macro work is usually of objects that don't tend to move on their own, so perhaps the OP's situation is different. He says he shoots in a small lightbox tent (of what?), which, to me, would seem perfect for a tripod, at least with a slightly longer focal length lens. But macro photography is, to me, akin to landscape photography on a small scale. So, for some of the same reasons that folks use a tripod for landscape, I use it for macro. Note also that I rarely go above 1:1 (or even 1:2), so perhaps even the "macro" designation is a slight stretch, but certainly some of my photographs are "close-ups". I use an old Leitz Tiltall and manual lenses (rather a glutton for punishment, but I like the control) , largely with natural light, but occasionally I'll use some fill flash. Andrew -- http://andrewsharpe.com On Thu, November 10, 2011 8:05 am, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > > My forays (I'm not the OP, note) into shooting macro from a tripod have > been remarkably unsuccessful. None of the photos I like have come from > them, and it's a lot more annoying to try to work that way. > > I wouldn't yet describe this by saying I "have to" hand-hold; I'm still > working on trying to learn to get results I like from a tripod, because > there are significant obvious advantages. But still. > > (And they're all lit by natural light.) > -- > David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ > Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ > Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ > Dragaera: http://dragaera.info > > >
