First, a couple of definitions:

Some may disagree with these definitions, but I've found that they get the message across. We should agree that macro means "large" or "closeup", but not so large as to be taken with an electron microscope! This guide will concentrate on macro photography.

A good macro photograph has several features: proper focus, unblurred, proper exposure, and good composition. Proper focus means the areas of interest are perfectly focused, not fuzzy. Areas outside of the center of interest are often in soft focus or totally unfocused. In nature photography, an award-winning shot may have a flower stem in soft focus and the background totally out of focus. But the petals, stamens, anthers (and all those other parts of the flower we don't know the names of) will be perfectly sharp almost to the limits of the film.

Unblurred should be obvious. If the subject or camera moved while the exposure was being made, the entire image will appear out of focus. It's really not "out of focus", but looks that way. This is almost never acceptable, unless done for artistic affect.

Proper exposure should also be obvious. Details cannot be seen in an under- or over-exposed photograph. We could also include color balance here. Incorrect color balance may be too warm, too cool, greenish or otherwise not quite the way we want it to be.

Composition is not so obvious. It all depends on what you're trying to do. In the case of competition nature photography, composition can win or lose a contest, and it depends largely on the personal tastes of the judges! If you're just trying to record what something looks like, it hardly matters: just make the subject fill the entire picture. For those interested in composition, I'll mention a few points, applicable to any type of photography.

First, make sure the center of interest really is the center of interest! But I don't mean, "put it in the center", I mean make sure it dominates the image. A confusing background distracts attention from the subject. The best background should compliment the subject without trying to BE the subject. Generally, there should be one center of interest!

Second, don't put the center of interest in the center! It's usually best to offset 1/3 from the top or bottom and 1/3 from the right or left. Photographers refer to this as the "Rule of Thirds". Also, avoid compositions that lead the eye out of the picture, such as a flower facing an edge rather than towards the middle.

If there is a horizon, make sure it's level! How many pictures have you seen where the ocean appears to be draining out of the edge?

Watch out for "hot spots", bright things in the background that catch the eye and distract from the subject. You might have to move them before you take the shot, or move the camera so they don't show, or shade them so they're not so bright. Sometimes they can be selectively darkened in the darkroom by a process called dodging and burning.

One of the most important rules of composition is, "Don't be afraid to break the rules". Think about the effect you want the image to have on others, and compose accordingly. For instance, a head-on shot of a train coming at the camera will be very imposing if centered (just be sure to step out of the way!)

Don't expect to get good quality macro photographs with a simple camera! Many have a zoom lens with two settings, neither of which is likely to be macro. You may find an add-on closeup adapter which might work, but probably not very well. Your best bet is a Single-Lens-Reflex (SLR) camera with interchangeable lenses.

If you don't have an adequate camera, or big budget for a new camera, search for used SLR's from a shop that has a used camera exchange. You can get a 15-year old camera cheap, and it will work great! It won't have all the electronic bells and whistles, but it will take great pictures. I still occasionally use my 30 year old Minolta SRT-101, one of the best cameras ever built.

If you have a little money to spend, decide on a model by looking in shops and talking to people, and buy from a New York dealer listed in the back of all the photography magazines. If you don’t need to watch your budget so closely, find a good camera shop with a knowledgeable salesman who really understands what you want to do, pick his brains and buy from him.

The new computerized auto-focus cameras are nice, but not necessary. I still don't own one. I mostly use automatic exposure with manual over-ride capability, but no auto-focus.

One high-tech camera should be mentioned: the digital. Still very high priced, they give you the freedom of processing the image on a computer to correct color balance, contrast, etc. Wish I could afford one! They do not, however, have the same ultra-high resolution as film.

If you've found a decent camera "body", you still need a decent lens. What's your budget? If you can drop $150-300, you can get a fantastic lens that will do almost everything. My wife and I use a 28-105 millimeter macro zoom lens which was a tad pricey, but what a lens! The camera exchange people can probably find a real good used one for you. When you try out a lens in the store, just focus on some print and see how close you can get. If you want to order a lens from New York, better try one out locally first!

You can use a "normal" lens, around 50 mm, with a couple of tricks. The cheapest trick is to remove the lens and carefully hold it BACKWARDS against the mounting ring: it will focus very closeup! Strange but true! I have even seen adaptors made to hold the lens accurately in this position.

A better method is with extension rings or extension bellows. If the lens is moved a little away (frontwards, not backwards) from the mounting ring, it will focus closely. The farther away from the camera, the closer it will focus. A small, inexpensive bellows (I bought mine used at a photography show) works very well for most macro photography. Rings are more accurate for precision scientific work, but very inconvenient for most photography. Go with the bellows.

First, I'll tell you the best lighting, and work back to acceptable. The best possible lighting for macro photography is a "ring-flash", with automatic, through-the-lens (TTL) metering. The flash unit has several small flash tubes mounted in a ring around the lens, and give very uniform lighting. The only drawback (besides price) is that you may actually WANT some shadows, to enhance depth and provide a more natural look. This is especially true with flower photography. But if you're trying to record all the details of the subject, nothing beats ring-flash. TTL metering provides very accurate, guess-free exposure, and is highly recommended, but it will only work on cameras built in the last fifteen years or so. My newer Minolta is an X-570, and includes that feature.

Next best is a single automatic TTL flash unit. It needs to be on a cord, so you can position it carefully to minimize excessive shadows. With a macro lens, a flash on top of the camera may not even illuminate the subject, because the lens will be in the way! The lens might be only an inch or less from your subject. You can also minimize shadows by placing a white card on the opposite side of the flash, to reflect light back and fill in the shadows. Pro nature photographers use this method. You can also use two flash units, one slaved to the other. That's a nuisance, don't bother.

Difficult choices to use are non-TTL automatic flash, and manual flash. The former, for reasons I won't go into, is unreliable. The later requires careful measurement of distances and calculation of aperture, and is a nuisance, but does work.

Next is sunlight. It's free and natural in color, but it insists on being exactly where it is, and has a nasty habit of disappearing at certain times! You have to move the subject to adjust illumination. It can be very effective, though. You don't need direct sunlight, hazy or somewhat cloudy works well. It’s nice for nature photography, because it looks so natural. You'll probably want to use the white card, as above, to fill in shadows.

Last choice is a light bulb or photoflood light. I almost guarantee that the pictures will come out very red-colored, although you can buy a filter to correct the color. It's hot, and requires a lot of power (not good for nature photography).

I recommend high speed film, like ISO 400 or more, even with flash. As I mentioned, macro lenses don't admit much light, so you'll have a hard time getting shutter speeds fast enough for sharp photography. With flash, you’ll be able to stop down more, which will improve sharpness. If you happen to like slide film, as I do, you’ll want to use a slower speed, to get the same resolution. Slide film is a lot cheaper to develop, but you need a viewer or projector. Either can be scanned into computer images by a camera shop. If that’s what you plan to do, I recommend the slide film.

For quality, tack-sharp images, the subject and camera must be still, or the shutter speed very high. With flash photography, the light is only there for a tiny fraction of a second and will effectively stop any motion. This, and the controlled color, is why flash photography is preferable. But if you're using any other lighting, you'll need to use a tripod or steady-rest to keep the camera still, and the subject will have to be encouraged to keep still! I've spent hours trying to capture a beautiful flower with existing light, when breezes kept moving it around. Sometimes, I've placed a brace just out of sight to limit its motion.

With TTL flash, set the camera and flash unit according to the manuals, usually "TTL" on the flash and "A" on the camera. It's best to "stop down" (close the lens iris) to around f8 or f11 to ensure sharp focus. Every lens will focus over a wider range (called "depth of field") when stopped down. My TTL flash has a green light that comes on after the shot is taken, to tell that there was enough light. If the light doesn’t come on, open up the aperture and try again. Compose your shot the way you want it to look, and release the shutter.

With other light sources, you'll have to play a game of aperture vs speed, to get properly exposed, sharply focused, motion-free images.

I’ve seen a lot of superb macro photography, and I’ve seen a lot that shouldn’t have been released! I keep thinking, "If only someone had given the photographer a few hints, he could have made a beautiful image of that subject!" Anyone can create good macro photos, but it will take a bit of an investment in time and equipment. I hope you will be inspired to strive for good macro photography. It’s a very rewarding hobby.

I’m not a pro, so how did I learn all of this? Mostly from a very active camera club! I saw a lot of lectures and talked to a lot of award-winning photographers who gladly shared their knowledge with me. I entered competitions, and saw what the judges like and don’t like (I often disagreed!) If photography fascinates you, ask your local camera shop if they know of a camera or photography club meeting in your city, or check with the Photographic Society of America at http://www.psa-photo.org/camclb1.htm.

Enjoy!