Pilum's Crazy Rant

Macro photography is interesting. It forces you to evolve as a photographer, especially if you're used to using auto-focus and other automatic settings. I've been giving my new 100mm f/2.8 macro a bit of a work out recently, photographing blocks of ice with food dye mixed in from various angles. Because the depth of field is so tiny I'm forced to use f/32 to actually capture any useful detail. Auto focus fails miserably, so manual focus is the only way to go. Not that it's particularly useful for fine adjustments. I might need to invest in a macro head for precision movements.

I initially thought the twin 500W halogens I was using to light the ice would melt it too quickly and would ruin my shots, but I found it actually made the ice *more* interesting as it slowly melted, revealing more of the surface and it's imperfections below.

At f/32 @ ISO 100, a tripod is essential. 1000Watts of lighting less than a metre away helps, but can only go so far. I've not really had to use manual focus or a tripod that much in my previous photography, and I'm happy to be trying something new to expand my abilities as a photographer.

I'm having a lot of fun with the ice actually. I guess in a way, it's more creative than simply taking a shot of something, because I'm *creating* the ice how I want it as well as posing it, lighting it and taking the shot. For one of my recent shots I sawed a blue block of ice in half and ran it under a hot tap for a while to create a hole, before returning it to my setup and snapping shots of it. Which is the actual art? The block of ice or the photo? Since the ice quickly melts, but the photo survives, I guess it's the photo?