Group 95 Bulletin Board
7 threads - 38 total comments
This page is dedicated to discussions about our theme (Macro) that are outside the scope of our monthly images.
Thread Title: Help with focus stacking
Here is a link to a video that gives some good information about focus stacking - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMiuj-R-sP8
This was made by the company Adaptalux, which makes lighting systems for macro photography. I have a number of their products and can recommend them, but do get in touch if you are thinking about buying some as there are items that I wouldn't recommend in their range. Tom has some of their lights, too.
Comments on the video -
* Ben doesn't mention that stopping down (higher aperture number) can reduce the number of frames needed in a bracket, even down to 1 (ie bracket not needed) in some cases. Which is what we do in ⬓normal⬠one-shot macro photography.
* The final image doesn't have to be all in focus - you can choose the images that you merge in the stacking software to leave a blurred background, say, if you want to.
* I would agree with Ben, the "cheap" rail is a bit inaccurate, crude to adjust, and it wobbles the camera a bit, but it does work - I used one (as they did) to some success. The camera won⬙t pull it out if you adjust carefully the friction nuts that it has. I use mine now to move the subject (specimen), it⬙s good for this.
* The 180mm Nisi rail he recommends costs GBP (UK pounds) 257 on Amazon UK - not cheap! There's also a newer 200mm version which is cheaper at GBP 159. However, both are much cheaper on the Nisi website (https://nisioptics.co.uk/product/macro-focusing-rail-nm-200s/) so look there if you are tempted.
* For comparison, the rail made by Novoflex costs 649 Euros - ouch! But it will be well engineered, I'm sure. I had a different product of theirs, and it was also expensive, but beautifully engineered.
* I use a Velbon "Super mag slider" rail, about GBP 140, which works OK, is nicely rigid, and has a sideways movement facility too. See https://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/product/velbon-super-mag-slider/.
* There are many rails on the market, but cheap often equates to wobbly and unpleasant to use, so choose carefully!
* I also use a Wemacro computerised rail and stand which is very good, see https://www.wemacro.com/. The slide, controller and stand costs about GBP 500 complete. The Novoflex computerised rail costs over GBP 2000 without a stand. There are several other makers of similar rails.
* Ben only briefly mentions using Helicon Focus as the stacking software (although he looks at this in more detail on other videos). This is the software that I use, but you can also focus stack using Affinity or Photoshop, and there are other dedicated stacking packages such as Zerene Stacker etc. I'm a big fan of Affinity, but Helicon does a better job of stacking, in my opinion.
⬠You must ensure the camera lens is parallel to the rail movement, else the stacking software might say it can⬙t do the stack
* Ben doesn't mention how to decide how much to move the camera between shots, and how to work out how many to take. There are various methods for doing this.
1. Guess! (Not very reliable, but instructive!). Here are the steps to use:
a) Set the camera to manual focus.
b) Focus the lens and move the camera so that the sharp focus is at the front of the subject, and note the position of the rail. Do not alter the lens⬙ focus position again now!!
c) Then move the camera forwards until the sharp focus is at the distant part of the subject, and note the rail position again.
d) Subtract one from the other. This is the total camera movement to be used.
e) Then, divide that by, say, 10.
f) Move the camera to the first point, and take your first frame
g) Move the camera forwards using the rail by the amount you found in step e)
h) Take your second frame here
i) Repeat g) and h) until you get to the furthest position, for frame 11.
j) You are finished taking the focus stack.
k) Stack the 11 images. If the result is good, it was a good guess to make 10 increments of movement and 11 frames. If you see bands that are less sharp, you need to repeat it, taking 20 steps say (step e) and see if that works.
l) And so on until you get a good result
m) If 10 steps worked perfectly, you can try again with 5 steps and see if that works too. But you might see bands of poorer focus then. If not, try 3! Or 2! Hence you can find the least number of frames needed for that setup and aperture.
n) You can repeat it all using a smaller aperture (larger f number) - you should find that you are able to take fewer frames and still get a uniformly sharp result. And vice versa with a larger aperture
o) The best aperture to use is normally the sharpest one, usually this is 2 to 3 stops down from maximum aperture - so f5.6 to f8 for a macro lens with a maximum aperture of f2.8, say
p) You need to choose the lighting, shutter speed and ISO to get correct exposure of course.
2. Use depth of field tables or calculator (a bit messy and geeky). Several are on the internet.
3. Use the focus indicator in your camera (which highlights the area in focus, in some cameras only - mirrorless only?)
4. Some software eg Helicon Remote (used with Helicon Focus, brilliant if you have a computerised rail and a camera that Helicon support - most Canons and Nikons, some Sony, no Olympus sadly) will calculate it. It will calculate the depth of field even if you don⬙t have a computerised rail.
Posted: 01/23/2024 08:33:08
This was made by the company Adaptalux, which makes lighting systems for macro photography. I have a number of their products and can recommend them, but do get in touch if you are thinking about buying some as there are items that I wouldn't recommend in their range. Tom has some of their lights, too.
Comments on the video -
* Ben doesn't mention that stopping down (higher aperture number) can reduce the number of frames needed in a bracket, even down to 1 (ie bracket not needed) in some cases. Which is what we do in ⬓normal⬠one-shot macro photography.
* The final image doesn't have to be all in focus - you can choose the images that you merge in the stacking software to leave a blurred background, say, if you want to.
* I would agree with Ben, the "cheap" rail is a bit inaccurate, crude to adjust, and it wobbles the camera a bit, but it does work - I used one (as they did) to some success. The camera won⬙t pull it out if you adjust carefully the friction nuts that it has. I use mine now to move the subject (specimen), it⬙s good for this.
* The 180mm Nisi rail he recommends costs GBP (UK pounds) 257 on Amazon UK - not cheap! There's also a newer 200mm version which is cheaper at GBP 159. However, both are much cheaper on the Nisi website (https://nisioptics.co.uk/product/macro-focusing-rail-nm-200s/) so look there if you are tempted.
* For comparison, the rail made by Novoflex costs 649 Euros - ouch! But it will be well engineered, I'm sure. I had a different product of theirs, and it was also expensive, but beautifully engineered.
* I use a Velbon "Super mag slider" rail, about GBP 140, which works OK, is nicely rigid, and has a sideways movement facility too. See https://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/product/velbon-super-mag-slider/.
* There are many rails on the market, but cheap often equates to wobbly and unpleasant to use, so choose carefully!
* I also use a Wemacro computerised rail and stand which is very good, see https://www.wemacro.com/. The slide, controller and stand costs about GBP 500 complete. The Novoflex computerised rail costs over GBP 2000 without a stand. There are several other makers of similar rails.
* Ben only briefly mentions using Helicon Focus as the stacking software (although he looks at this in more detail on other videos). This is the software that I use, but you can also focus stack using Affinity or Photoshop, and there are other dedicated stacking packages such as Zerene Stacker etc. I'm a big fan of Affinity, but Helicon does a better job of stacking, in my opinion.
⬠You must ensure the camera lens is parallel to the rail movement, else the stacking software might say it can⬙t do the stack
* Ben doesn't mention how to decide how much to move the camera between shots, and how to work out how many to take. There are various methods for doing this.
1. Guess! (Not very reliable, but instructive!). Here are the steps to use:
a) Set the camera to manual focus.
b) Focus the lens and move the camera so that the sharp focus is at the front of the subject, and note the position of the rail. Do not alter the lens⬙ focus position again now!!
c) Then move the camera forwards until the sharp focus is at the distant part of the subject, and note the rail position again.
d) Subtract one from the other. This is the total camera movement to be used.
e) Then, divide that by, say, 10.
f) Move the camera to the first point, and take your first frame
g) Move the camera forwards using the rail by the amount you found in step e)
h) Take your second frame here
i) Repeat g) and h) until you get to the furthest position, for frame 11.
j) You are finished taking the focus stack.
k) Stack the 11 images. If the result is good, it was a good guess to make 10 increments of movement and 11 frames. If you see bands that are less sharp, you need to repeat it, taking 20 steps say (step e) and see if that works.
l) And so on until you get a good result
m) If 10 steps worked perfectly, you can try again with 5 steps and see if that works too. But you might see bands of poorer focus then. If not, try 3! Or 2! Hence you can find the least number of frames needed for that setup and aperture.
n) You can repeat it all using a smaller aperture (larger f number) - you should find that you are able to take fewer frames and still get a uniformly sharp result. And vice versa with a larger aperture
o) The best aperture to use is normally the sharpest one, usually this is 2 to 3 stops down from maximum aperture - so f5.6 to f8 for a macro lens with a maximum aperture of f2.8, say
p) You need to choose the lighting, shutter speed and ISO to get correct exposure of course.
2. Use depth of field tables or calculator (a bit messy and geeky). Several are on the internet.
3. Use the focus indicator in your camera (which highlights the area in focus, in some cameras only - mirrorless only?)
4. Some software eg Helicon Remote (used with Helicon Focus, brilliant if you have a computerised rail and a camera that Helicon support - most Canons and Nikons, some Sony, no Olympus sadly) will calculate it. It will calculate the depth of field even if you don⬙t have a computerised rail.
Posted: 01/23/2024 08:33:08
Thread Title: Watch where you walk!
This may be directed at Landscape Photographers, but I think we spend some time a lot closer to these critters, so I decided to share it with the group.
https://loadedlandscapes.com/poisonous-plants/?omhide=true&utm_campaign=Poisonous+Plants+That+Landscape+Photographers+Must+Avoid&utm_content=Poisonous+Plants+That+Landscape+Photographers+Must+Avoid&utm_medium=email&utm_source=getresponse Posted: 06/25/2021 15:00:16
https://loadedlandscapes.com/poisonous-plants/?omhide=true&utm_campaign=Poisonous+Plants+That+Landscape+Photographers+Must+Avoid&utm_content=Poisonous+Plants+That+Landscape+Photographers+Must+Avoid&utm_medium=email&utm_source=getresponse Posted: 06/25/2021 15:00:16
I knew about a couple of these, but others - oh my! d8¬{O Posted: 06/25/2021 15:32:43
Thread Title: Diffraction and Topaz Sharpen AI
Following on from the discussion on this about my photo, Feb 21, but taking it away from the main discussion as it's getting off the track of the photo being discussed.
Diffraction - Tom said "Every lens is different as far as diffraction is concerned" which interested me. I've been doing a bit of internet research as my A-level physics is fairly well forgotten now, but I can't find any reference to, say, the nature of the edge of the diaphragm blades making any difference to diffraction. This might have accounted for differences between different lenses, but apparently not, articles say it's a quantum effect, a property of light itself, as far as I can see. As diffraction scatters light widely, I'm wondering if internal reflections might account for the observations that different lenses perform differently as small apertures. Any physicists out there?
Topaz Sharpen AI. You've piqued my interest again and by registering under an alternative email address I've got a further 30-day trial of this. I'm a complete beginner at this software of course, but I really can't get it to improve my pics much. I tried using the small flower image, but even with sharpen ramped up to 100%, I got little improvement, nothing like as much as you got, Tom. Please would you tell me the settings you used to get your improved image?
Also, do you find it very slow to process any change in the settings? One thing I love about Affinity is it's blisteringly fast, even on this Windows laptop (Intel Core i5 @ 1.60GHz, Windows 10 Home 64-bit, 16 GB RAM, 1863GB Samsung SSD 860 QVO 2TB (for storage) and
465GB Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 500GB (for Windows)) but Topaz seems to take ages, even after a reboot with nothing else open.
Also, you mentioned a subscription charge, and I've seen that mentioned before I think, but the Topaz site only tells me it costs $79.99. Are they being sneaky with the cost of updates, hiding this from potential purchasers? Going back o the terms of the original sale ?? ("customers who were promised lifetime upgrades and now have to pay")
Although I suppose it's not much different to Photoshop Elements which made me abandon Adobe products when updates (for example to open Olympus RAW files) cost nearly as much as the original software had done. But with the cost of Affinity as an example, one can't help thinking that some companies are being greedy.
Posted: 02/21/2021 08:12:57
Diffraction - Tom said "Every lens is different as far as diffraction is concerned" which interested me. I've been doing a bit of internet research as my A-level physics is fairly well forgotten now, but I can't find any reference to, say, the nature of the edge of the diaphragm blades making any difference to diffraction. This might have accounted for differences between different lenses, but apparently not, articles say it's a quantum effect, a property of light itself, as far as I can see. As diffraction scatters light widely, I'm wondering if internal reflections might account for the observations that different lenses perform differently as small apertures. Any physicists out there?
Topaz Sharpen AI. You've piqued my interest again and by registering under an alternative email address I've got a further 30-day trial of this. I'm a complete beginner at this software of course, but I really can't get it to improve my pics much. I tried using the small flower image, but even with sharpen ramped up to 100%, I got little improvement, nothing like as much as you got, Tom. Please would you tell me the settings you used to get your improved image?
Also, do you find it very slow to process any change in the settings? One thing I love about Affinity is it's blisteringly fast, even on this Windows laptop (Intel Core i5 @ 1.60GHz, Windows 10 Home 64-bit, 16 GB RAM, 1863GB Samsung SSD 860 QVO 2TB (for storage) and
465GB Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 500GB (for Windows)) but Topaz seems to take ages, even after a reboot with nothing else open.
Also, you mentioned a subscription charge, and I've seen that mentioned before I think, but the Topaz site only tells me it costs $79.99. Are they being sneaky with the cost of updates, hiding this from potential purchasers? Going back o the terms of the original sale ?? ("customers who were promised lifetime upgrades and now have to pay")
Although I suppose it's not much different to Photoshop Elements which made me abandon Adobe products when updates (for example to open Olympus RAW files) cost nearly as much as the original software had done. But with the cost of Affinity as an example, one can't help thinking that some companies are being greedy.
Posted: 02/21/2021 08:12:57
Diffraction: Diffraction refers to various phenomena that occur when a wave encounters an obstacle or opening. It is defined as the bending of waves around the corners of an obstacle or through an aperture into the region of geometrical shadow of the obstacle/aperture (see image below).
The amount of diffraction will be influenced by the design of the lens system: the number of blades, the number of lens elements, the length of lens barrel. The end result is a softening of focus at the outside edges of the images. My Tamron 60mm macro lens in constructed in such a way that I see almost no diffraction at the smallest apertures. In contrast, my new Laowa ultra macro lens has quite a bit of diffraction at its smallest aperture, especially at the 5:1 focus setting. However, this can be planned for in post once you know the limits of a particular lens. Posted: 02/21/2021 20:20:23
The amount of diffraction will be influenced by the design of the lens system: the number of blades, the number of lens elements, the length of lens barrel. The end result is a softening of focus at the outside edges of the images. My Tamron 60mm macro lens in constructed in such a way that I see almost no diffraction at the smallest apertures. In contrast, my new Laowa ultra macro lens has quite a bit of diffraction at its smallest aperture, especially at the 5:1 focus setting. However, this can be planned for in post once you know the limits of a particular lens. Posted: 02/21/2021 20:20:23
Topaz AI: In the View drop-down, select Compare, which will show you the original and the 3 sharpening choices: Sharpen, Stabilize, and Focus. Also, make sure the Settings are on Auto. This is not a quick program by any stretch. I'm on a slower PC with Disk Drives and only 12Gb of memory and it takes quite a while for the 3 views to generate. I ultimately chose the Focus type process at the defaults (Sharpness at 71 and Noise Suppression at 42). It takes a long time to complete the process, especially if you launch it from inside Affinity Photo as I did. In standalone mode, it took about 6.5 minutes. Posted: 02/21/2021 20:50:48
OK, I see I'll have to be patient. Quite unusual these days. I suppose it shows that there's a lot going on under the bonnet when it's working. I'll give it another go. Posted: 02/22/2021 08:23:12
Topaz's subscription plan: A year ago, Topaz announced that they would change to a quasi-subscription plan starting in August 2020 due to the rising costs of R&D. This met with immediate complaints from the loyal Topaz users who purchased software with the promise, in writing, that it would be updated continually for free. Of course, buried deep within the license agreement were clauses that gave them a way around that. So, starting in August, you purchase a product and get ⬓free⬠updates for 1 year. After that, you can buy a year of updates for that program for $49 (or $99 for all AI products you own). This is not for major version updates, but ALL updates, including bugfixes.
So, yes, you own the software, but there's no free lunch. Are they getting greedy? I have to think so. Once they started focusing on the AI products, they spent little time in beta, releasing updates that were full of bugs against the protests of the beta testers. They're still doing that, unfortunately. I've been invited to become an alpha tester, but I fear it will be even more frustrating.
Companies change and typically not for the better from a consumer point of view. It's no longer a matter of ⬓The customer is always right,⬠but rather ⬓The bottom line is always right!⬠<...sigh...> Posted: 02/21/2021 21:20:03
So, yes, you own the software, but there's no free lunch. Are they getting greedy? I have to think so. Once they started focusing on the AI products, they spent little time in beta, releasing updates that were full of bugs against the protests of the beta testers. They're still doing that, unfortunately. I've been invited to become an alpha tester, but I fear it will be even more frustrating.
Companies change and typically not for the better from a consumer point of view. It's no longer a matter of ⬓The customer is always right,⬠but rather ⬓The bottom line is always right!⬠<...sigh...> Posted: 02/21/2021 21:20:03
How annoying. It's not a good way to attract new customers.
I worked for 21 years for the English chemical giant ICI. Fabulous company. Run initially and until the 1980s by engineers like me who started as young employees and lived their working lives there. It was known as the barometer of British industry - when ICI was making record profits, the British economy was bouyant, and vice versa. Gradually the Board became populated by accountants and MBA holders with business records in other companies. The shareholder became god. All decisions were driven by finances. Research and customer support suffered. The company collapsed, got bought by others, and is forgotten by most now. The only good thing was their pension fund was protected (phew!). Others follow the same model at their peril. Posted: 02/22/2021 08:31:01
I worked for 21 years for the English chemical giant ICI. Fabulous company. Run initially and until the 1980s by engineers like me who started as young employees and lived their working lives there. It was known as the barometer of British industry - when ICI was making record profits, the British economy was bouyant, and vice versa. Gradually the Board became populated by accountants and MBA holders with business records in other companies. The shareholder became god. All decisions were driven by finances. Research and customer support suffered. The company collapsed, got bought by others, and is forgotten by most now. The only good thing was their pension fund was protected (phew!). Others follow the same model at their peril. Posted: 02/22/2021 08:31:01
Thread Title: Laowa 25mm Ultra Macro Results
This thread is to give some preliminary results from my new lens.
First up, a split view of the back of a dime: Top half is 1:1 and the bottom is 5:1. Feedback please. Posted: 02/13/2021 21:21:02
First up, a split view of the back of a dime: Top half is 1:1 and the bottom is 5:1. Feedback please. Posted: 02/13/2021 21:21:02
Here's a 5:1 shot of a sugar crystal on top and a 10:1 version created in Topaz Gigapixel AI on the bottom: Posted: 02/13/2021 21:42:41
These sugar crystals look quite soft to me. Is it real softness or just a characteristic of the object that looks this way? I find it hard to decide sometimes. I did a lot of crystal growing and photography last year as a lockdown pastime, and often got similar results. Posted: 02/13/2021 22:32:24
Try as I might, I couldn't get this any sharper without doing a stack, which was not my purpose for these test shots. Part of my problem is my eyes getting weaker as I age and I can't always trust what I see as being what the result will be. <...sigh...> Posted: 02/13/2021 23:15:41
The 5x coin shows the same feature as many "stronger" macros I've taken, I find they look "bitty", might be accused of lack of sharpness, even though they are (sometimes!) very sharp. Here I guess it's scratches on the coin, rather than fine hairs on petals, bugs etc. However your pic shows great promise.
From a pictorial viewpoint, sometimes the higher the mag, the less pictorial the result becomes, I think. Perhaps we need to throw away preconceieved ideas about pictorialism that we've learned from non-macro photography. I've been looking at the youtube electron microscope videos you posted a link to below, and they are quite different. By and large, pictorial is out. The interest is in patterns, detail invisible to the eye in any way, definitely not lacking apparent sharpness. The author doesn't give info on magnification ratios unfortunately, but I suspect many are only at our level, not needing an electron microscope. So I think there's inspiration there awaiting us. Posted: 02/13/2021 22:30:07
From a pictorial viewpoint, sometimes the higher the mag, the less pictorial the result becomes, I think. Perhaps we need to throw away preconceieved ideas about pictorialism that we've learned from non-macro photography. I've been looking at the youtube electron microscope videos you posted a link to below, and they are quite different. By and large, pictorial is out. The interest is in patterns, detail invisible to the eye in any way, definitely not lacking apparent sharpness. The author doesn't give info on magnification ratios unfortunately, but I suspect many are only at our level, not needing an electron microscope. So I think there's inspiration there awaiting us. Posted: 02/13/2021 22:30:07
Regarding the pictorial issue, I struggle with this a great deal as the magnification grows. The exception to this seems to be insects, which can be quite pictorial in nature (pun intended). Especially lately, with the weather here being very sub-freezing, I'm not going anywhere and I'm unable to find subjects that are interesting at a 1:1 level or closer beyond the exercise of refining my skill at capturing ultra macro. It's definitely a process. Posted: 02/13/2021 23:21:58
I think we have to look for things that are inherently pictorial, in that our control over composition etc is a bit limited. But finding areas of the specimen (assuming the whole is larger than that shown in the image) that are interesting is the challenge that replaces composition. Or is the macro equivalent of composition, I suppose.
I don't know if I said, but we have a Bresser microscope here. I bought this for my wife when she started doing forensic document examination some years ago, but alas I jumped the gun and she found that a USB microscope like your suits her needs much better, being portable, and she can get A4 sheets of paper under the lens which wasn't possible with the Bresser as it has a fixed structure and is fairly small. So it's sitting in its box, hardly used. It's called a "Bresser LCD micro", and currently seems to be on sale but with slightly higher MP in the camera and slightly higher mag objectives. It will do reflected light microscopy when at its lowest power, 40x. This guy http://www.microbehunter.com/ has done lots of youtube videos for beginners, from which I learned a lot today. eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr6R0lKSbQc.
Anyway, using the 40x setting, I got some interesting photos which I've focus stacked. I think I can only do one at a time here, so here's a pic of the ends of some leaves of parsley - Posted: 02/14/2021 21:47:03
I don't know if I said, but we have a Bresser microscope here. I bought this for my wife when she started doing forensic document examination some years ago, but alas I jumped the gun and she found that a USB microscope like your suits her needs much better, being portable, and she can get A4 sheets of paper under the lens which wasn't possible with the Bresser as it has a fixed structure and is fairly small. So it's sitting in its box, hardly used. It's called a "Bresser LCD micro", and currently seems to be on sale but with slightly higher MP in the camera and slightly higher mag objectives. It will do reflected light microscopy when at its lowest power, 40x. This guy http://www.microbehunter.com/ has done lots of youtube videos for beginners, from which I learned a lot today. eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr6R0lKSbQc.
Anyway, using the 40x setting, I got some interesting photos which I've focus stacked. I think I can only do one at a time here, so here's a pic of the ends of some leaves of parsley - Posted: 02/14/2021 21:47:03
As a matter of interest, extending our close-up v macro debates previously, where does macro photography and and microphotography start? Compound microscopes tend to start at 40x magnification, but are of limited use for opaque objects as I've been finding today, but stereo microscopes cover a range of about 3.5x to 70x give or take. So I think my 40x photos here are just inside the macro range!
Here is another pic - this was a petal of a small flower, 40x again. These type of subjects seem to suffer from reflections leading to the dreaded blown highlights! Something to investigate, maybe try polarised light. Posted: 02/14/2021 21:57:02
Here is another pic - this was a petal of a small flower, 40x again. These type of subjects seem to suffer from reflections leading to the dreaded blown highlights! Something to investigate, maybe try polarised light. Posted: 02/14/2021 21:57:02
The image for this didn't make it, I'm afraid. d:¬{( Posted: 02/14/2021 21:58:23
No, it keeps failing, I've tried 3 times now. Ah, 1.1 MB!`ok, downsizing it ..... Posted: 02/14/2021 22:02:45
Still getting nothing vaguely like the electron microscope images in terms of interesting shapes and clarity, though! I need to practice more. Maybe tomorrow. Posted: 02/14/2021 22:09:51
That's way cool, Stuart! That is certainly closer than I can get with the 5x setting of my Laowa lens. Here's a 5x shot of an azalea leaf from a few days ago. Posted: 02/14/2021 22:29:01
Your azalea leaf show some similar characteristics to mine. But the bright spots are less burned out, and the detail where in focus is better than mine, but it's quite target dependent and difficult to judge. The DoF is obvious in the azalea pic. I'm finding that the DoF is so small, everything has to be stacked. I've got no diaphragm control - and no idea what settings it's using! No EXIF information with the jpgs. I've been seeking some targets with sharp, defined edges to test the sharpness of the microscope lens, but it's not easy - what looks sharp to the naked eye isn't at 40x, or so the microscope want me to believe. So I photographed some copper sulphate crystals and some bee wings. I also photo'd a graticule that I'd bought to test my macro lens + additions setups - that was another pic that didn't make it. Let me try to upload some more now - here's the edge of a bee wing - Posted: 02/15/2021 09:43:43
Multiple replies getting closer to the right! Copper sulphate crystals - Posted: 02/15/2021 09:45:04
Graticule at 40x.
It seems to me that this microscope has taught me a few things -
40x magnification is OK for some things, but too much for what I was trying to do, ie comfortably go past 3:1 with camera quality pictures
3MPx might be enough, I suspect the softness in my images is a combination of lens performance and subject matter, not too few pixels.
Many stereo microscopes work over the 5-50x range which seems ideal. You can get LED ring lights which give even illumination, some can have the brightness biased to the side for some modelling. You can get dedicated "cameras" for them from 1MPx to 15MPx, but the latter are expensive relatively speaking. You can get adapters for DSLRs but they seem to have drawbacks on cheaper microscopes. Fascinating stuff, but I can't decide whether to sell this Bresser and buy a cheaper stereo microscope, or stick with 1x-3x on my camera. Maybe better the latter! Posted: 02/15/2021 09:45:47
It seems to me that this microscope has taught me a few things -
40x magnification is OK for some things, but too much for what I was trying to do, ie comfortably go past 3:1 with camera quality pictures
3MPx might be enough, I suspect the softness in my images is a combination of lens performance and subject matter, not too few pixels.
Many stereo microscopes work over the 5-50x range which seems ideal. You can get LED ring lights which give even illumination, some can have the brightness biased to the side for some modelling. You can get dedicated "cameras" for them from 1MPx to 15MPx, but the latter are expensive relatively speaking. You can get adapters for DSLRs but they seem to have drawbacks on cheaper microscopes. Fascinating stuff, but I can't decide whether to sell this Bresser and buy a cheaper stereo microscope, or stick with 1x-3x on my camera. Maybe better the latter! Posted: 02/15/2021 09:45:47
Bee wing came out good. There wouldn't be EXIF information because you're not really using a camera in the traditional sense of the word, any more than if you captured an image from a scanner.
For me, at this juncture, I've decided to search for subjects that I can make art from with my macro shots. I have the needed equipment, but I want to do more than just capture really small stuff. If I wouldn't want to see it daily on my wall, then what's the point? In a lot of ways, I find myself losing track of the art. If I'm going to spend the time to capture and process a 100-image stack of something, it should be memorable, you know? For me, this is the true challenge of macro photography. Posted: 02/15/2021 15:17:57
For me, at this juncture, I've decided to search for subjects that I can make art from with my macro shots. I have the needed equipment, but I want to do more than just capture really small stuff. If I wouldn't want to see it daily on my wall, then what's the point? In a lot of ways, I find myself losing track of the art. If I'm going to spend the time to capture and process a 100-image stack of something, it should be memorable, you know? For me, this is the true challenge of macro photography. Posted: 02/15/2021 15:17:57
Agreed, the technology is just a means to an end. I look forwards to seeing your results. Posted: 02/15/2021 21:56:39
Thread Title: Electron Microscope Videos
Couple of Youtube videos of electron microscope images:
https://youtu.be/e0FjhMROhgM
https://youtu.be/gybnwrC7JeM Posted: 12/14/2020 20:41:44
https://youtu.be/e0FjhMROhgM
https://youtu.be/gybnwrC7JeM Posted: 12/14/2020 20:41:44
Thread Title: How to Achieve True Macro
For those of you in this group using a macro lens that's capable to achieve 1:1, it's important to set your lens to 1:1 and leave auto-focus off in order to capture a true macro image. If you adjust the focus using the focus ring, you will no longer be capturing at 1:1. Once you have set the lens to 1:1, either move the camera or your subject until it is in focus before taking the shot.
New to Macro but not wanting to invest in a macro lens? There are some inexpensive alternatives: 1) Extension Tubes - these fit between a lens and the camera, allowing you to get closer to your subject; 2) Diopter Lens - this attaches to your lens like a filter and acts as a magnifying glass to get you closer to your subject; 3) Reversing Ring - this attaches to the filter threads of a lens allowing it to be mounted backward on the camera. All three of these alternatives require you to physically get the camera closer to your subject, as well as adding additional lighting to compensate for light lost in their use. Using extension tubes or diopters on a macro lens will allow you to get closer than 1:1.
Let's start a dialogue about what it takes to achieve true macro photography. d:¬{D Posted: 06/25/2020 18:28:54
New to Macro but not wanting to invest in a macro lens? There are some inexpensive alternatives: 1) Extension Tubes - these fit between a lens and the camera, allowing you to get closer to your subject; 2) Diopter Lens - this attaches to your lens like a filter and acts as a magnifying glass to get you closer to your subject; 3) Reversing Ring - this attaches to the filter threads of a lens allowing it to be mounted backward on the camera. All three of these alternatives require you to physically get the camera closer to your subject, as well as adding additional lighting to compensate for light lost in their use. Using extension tubes or diopters on a macro lens will allow you to get closer than 1:1.
Let's start a dialogue about what it takes to achieve true macro photography. d:¬{D Posted: 06/25/2020 18:28:54
Yes, I'm happy to participate as the reason I joined this group is to force myself to do "true" macro as opposed to "close-up".
During lock-down I've been trying all sorts of set-ups. I have an Olympus macro lens but it stops at 1:1. Some macro lenses do go higher, but none for micro 4/3 as far as I know `(which I use). I've recently found a good setup which can get to 5:1 (5x magnification) and similar setups with different camera systems should be possible.
I've done experiments with dioptre lenses, reversed lenses, extension tubes, using a reversed lens as a dioptre lens, combinations thereof, all with varying degrees of success - happy to discuss these. Posted: 06/25/2020 19:00:24
During lock-down I've been trying all sorts of set-ups. I have an Olympus macro lens but it stops at 1:1. Some macro lenses do go higher, but none for micro 4/3 as far as I know `(which I use). I've recently found a good setup which can get to 5:1 (5x magnification) and similar setups with different camera systems should be possible.
I've done experiments with dioptre lenses, reversed lenses, extension tubes, using a reversed lens as a dioptre lens, combinations thereof, all with varying degrees of success - happy to discuss these. Posted: 06/25/2020 19:00:24
So, Stuart, what're the specs of your 5:1 setup? Do tell! d;¬{D Posted: 06/25/2020 19:08:02
OK, Tom.
It goes -
Camera - 16mm extension tube - 1.4x converter - 36mm tubes (2x10 and 1x16) - macro lens on 1:1 - Raynox M250.
The Olympus 1.4x converter was designed for the 40-150mm pro lens and has a protruding front element which ends up in front of the mounting plate of the 40-150. So it won't fit any other M4/3 lens (well I think it fits a couple of more recent ones) and the extension tube immediately in front of the converter gives the macro lens space to mount. It seems different makes of tubes differ slightly as my Meike tube wouldn't fit on the front of the converter and I had to mill out a little plastic on the back of the first 10mm tube to clear a thing (don't know what it does!) on the front of the converter; whereas the guy who invented this on the Olympus Forum didn't have that problem but used a different make of tubes.
Anyway, only this first tube is necessary due to that protruding lens. I can play with the others and get different magnifications. Could get more with another set of tubes, I guess, but 5x leaves me searching for subjects. Without the Raynox I get about 3.5x magnification. The Raynox is distinctly better than the "close up filters" I bought some time ago - a set of 5 glass uncoated lenses in a wallet from 1 dioptre to 10 dioptres. They were ultra cheap but are a bit soft. The Raynox is about 8 dioptres and optically much better. An example will be in next month's DD! They do stronger ones up to 25 dioptres which presumably will further increase the magnification.
The biggest problems I've found is with reflections in my extension tubes (long story) and with aiming the camera using a ball head. The latter was ameliorated a lot (I won't say "fixed" as it's not perfect) by buying a Benro geared head. It's very good but still a bit jerky in its movement at this scale. The reflections caused an awful lot of softness in some photos, Initially I found some matt black masking tape which improved it. Recently someone pointed me to some self-adhesive velvet sold by a telescope vendor for doing the same job in a telescope. This just arrived yesterday, so I've not tried it yet, but it looks excellent.
I've also been trying a Novoflex "retro" adapter - with it I can mount my m4/3 lenses in reverse and still retain control of the diaphragm and auto exposure. However the working distance (from what is then the front of the lens to the subject) becomes very small even at 2x magnification. I've got it to work up to 3x but this problem makes it impractical to me. Posted: 06/25/2020 20:24:27
It goes -
Camera - 16mm extension tube - 1.4x converter - 36mm tubes (2x10 and 1x16) - macro lens on 1:1 - Raynox M250.
The Olympus 1.4x converter was designed for the 40-150mm pro lens and has a protruding front element which ends up in front of the mounting plate of the 40-150. So it won't fit any other M4/3 lens (well I think it fits a couple of more recent ones) and the extension tube immediately in front of the converter gives the macro lens space to mount. It seems different makes of tubes differ slightly as my Meike tube wouldn't fit on the front of the converter and I had to mill out a little plastic on the back of the first 10mm tube to clear a thing (don't know what it does!) on the front of the converter; whereas the guy who invented this on the Olympus Forum didn't have that problem but used a different make of tubes.
Anyway, only this first tube is necessary due to that protruding lens. I can play with the others and get different magnifications. Could get more with another set of tubes, I guess, but 5x leaves me searching for subjects. Without the Raynox I get about 3.5x magnification. The Raynox is distinctly better than the "close up filters" I bought some time ago - a set of 5 glass uncoated lenses in a wallet from 1 dioptre to 10 dioptres. They were ultra cheap but are a bit soft. The Raynox is about 8 dioptres and optically much better. An example will be in next month's DD! They do stronger ones up to 25 dioptres which presumably will further increase the magnification.
The biggest problems I've found is with reflections in my extension tubes (long story) and with aiming the camera using a ball head. The latter was ameliorated a lot (I won't say "fixed" as it's not perfect) by buying a Benro geared head. It's very good but still a bit jerky in its movement at this scale. The reflections caused an awful lot of softness in some photos, Initially I found some matt black masking tape which improved it. Recently someone pointed me to some self-adhesive velvet sold by a telescope vendor for doing the same job in a telescope. This just arrived yesterday, so I've not tried it yet, but it looks excellent.
I've also been trying a Novoflex "retro" adapter - with it I can mount my m4/3 lenses in reverse and still retain control of the diaphragm and auto exposure. However the working distance (from what is then the front of the lens to the subject) becomes very small even at 2x magnification. I've got it to work up to 3x but this problem makes it impractical to me. Posted: 06/25/2020 20:24:27
Hi Tom
Could you recommend artificial lighting for tabletop macro? Presently I have two adjustable desk lamps with 60 watt household light bulbs. I diffuse the light with a white cloth. I can't seem to get the proper lighting when I shoot inside. Your advice is always helpful.
Thank you
Barbara Posted: 11/30/2020 21:01:49
Could you recommend artificial lighting for tabletop macro? Presently I have two adjustable desk lamps with 60 watt household light bulbs. I diffuse the light with a white cloth. I can't seem to get the proper lighting when I shoot inside. Your advice is always helpful.
Thank you
Barbara Posted: 11/30/2020 21:01:49
I started with window light and a couple of cheap clamp-on dish lights, but found the lights were often clumsy and I didn't always have a good place to clamp them.
Below is a snap of my current rig for tabletop macro. It includes a pair of adjustable LED lights on flexible arms for positioning light as I need it. There are numerous continuous lighting solutions available that can get pretty pricey. The lights in my setup are: CeSunlight Clip on Reading Lights ( https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078V111B7/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 ), that are adjustable for color and intensity. The arms are long enough I can pretty much place the two lights anywhere I want, including back-lighting. They work very well for $15.00 each.
Many well-established macro photographers use one or more diffused flashes and the setups can get kinda pricey. They typically avoid LED lights for other than general scene lighting. Posted: 11/30/2020 21:44:53
Below is a snap of my current rig for tabletop macro. It includes a pair of adjustable LED lights on flexible arms for positioning light as I need it. There are numerous continuous lighting solutions available that can get pretty pricey. The lights in my setup are: CeSunlight Clip on Reading Lights ( https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078V111B7/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 ), that are adjustable for color and intensity. The arms are long enough I can pretty much place the two lights anywhere I want, including back-lighting. They work very well for $15.00 each.
Many well-established macro photographers use one or more diffused flashes and the setups can get kinda pricey. They typically avoid LED lights for other than general scene lighting. Posted: 11/30/2020 21:44:53
Thank you Tom. I ordered two lights and a tabletop tripod too. Amazon is the best. I wish I could buy more patience. Posted: 11/30/2020 23:48:55
Thread Title: Macro vs Close-up
Richard States, administrator of Close-up group #6, passed the following for us here in #95 to consider:
https://py248.infusion-links.com/api/v1/click/6527491222798336/5825099227725824 - What Is the Difference Between Micro, Macro and Close-Up Photography? Posted: 06/25/2020 15:00:23
https://py248.infusion-links.com/api/v1/click/6527491222798336/5825099227725824 - What Is the Difference Between Micro, Macro and Close-Up Photography? Posted: 06/25/2020 15:00:23
Hi Tom,
Anyway, I think it's a fair article for beginners but I don't think it presents a complete picture. It implies that macro is only 1:1 and above, which I don't think is helpful. If most macro lenses went up to 2:1 or more, I'd be less unhappy, but most only go to 1:1 so we are stuck at maximum magnification to be true to this definition. Is 0.99:1 not macro, then? I think practically, it is. Of course, that sets out on a slippery slope, and so is 0.5:1 macro? Hmm, probably not. 0.1 to 1? Definitely not, it's close-up. I think a hard definition is handy, but not helpful to apply it too rigorously. Pictorially, if 0.9:1 yields a good photo but 1:1 is over-cropped, then why throw out the baby with the bathwater?
The article has some good links. I'd love to be able to mount a lens like that Canon MP-E. Might be worth buying a used Canon body for! Posted: 11/30/2020 23:21:00
Anyway, I think it's a fair article for beginners but I don't think it presents a complete picture. It implies that macro is only 1:1 and above, which I don't think is helpful. If most macro lenses went up to 2:1 or more, I'd be less unhappy, but most only go to 1:1 so we are stuck at maximum magnification to be true to this definition. Is 0.99:1 not macro, then? I think practically, it is. Of course, that sets out on a slippery slope, and so is 0.5:1 macro? Hmm, probably not. 0.1 to 1? Definitely not, it's close-up. I think a hard definition is handy, but not helpful to apply it too rigorously. Pictorially, if 0.9:1 yields a good photo but 1:1 is over-cropped, then why throw out the baby with the bathwater?
The article has some good links. I'd love to be able to mount a lens like that Canon MP-E. Might be worth buying a used Canon body for! Posted: 11/30/2020 23:21:00
Odd, some comments I placed here last night seemed to be lost, then some others were saved, and now, this morning, those last ones have gone and a comment that had been "lost" is now here. Computers !!! Posted: 12/01/2020 08:49:50