|
I have that same humping bears statue 
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:31 |
|
|
I don't think that's as ghetto as this guy's rig: http://chaoticmind75.blogspot.ru/2013/08/my-technique-for-snowflakes-shooting.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I would love to see what kind of lighting setup you guys used for these, they are stunning shots! I don't have a photo I can show for a week while I travel but I'll try to explain my own ghetto lighting rig. I got a $10 four-armed "helping hands" thing from the electronics store. Basically four flexible bendy arms ending in alligator clips. Arm 1 holds the fly by just clamping the wings. Arm 2 holds a sheet of black background material positioned behind it. Arm 3 holds half of a white styrofoam coffee cup over the fly so that it is pretty close and sort of envelops it a bit as the main diffuser. A flash is on a $12 knockoff eBay friction arm, positioned to shoot down through the cup. Arm 4 holds a sheet of aluminum foil under the fly to bounce back up some of the light from the flash. The foil is sort of shaped like a bowl I guess. I try all kinds of lighting setups though. I have lots of pingpong balls cut up in various ways which work well for extremely even lighting. Right now I think styrofoam cups are my favorite. Good light transmission and easy to cut into shape.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
PREYING MANTITS posted:Well since I'm a huge fan of your nature photography and you asked with flattery, I figure I'll reveal my secret. Prepare yourself for probably the greatest macro lighting setup of all time. I mean it, contain your envy.... Graniteman posted:I don't have a photo I can show for a week while I travel but I'll try to explain my own ghetto lighting rig.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Thank you both for describing/showing your setups. I've tried home-made diffusers in a bunch of different configurations and I've never been able to achieve such nice smooth lighting as what you guys had in your shots. No matter what I try I still get very harsh lighting. If you post a picture of a setup you don't think worked well maybe we could offer some tips. We can at least offer useless commentary that will make us feel good about ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Thank you both for describing/showing your setups. I've tried home-made diffusers in a bunch of different configurations and I've never been able to achieve such nice smooth lighting as what you guys had in your shots. No matter what I try I still get very harsh lighting. How close do you have the light on the subject? The closer you can get, the more diffused it will be. Maybe use a second fill light?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I don't think that's as ghetto as this guy's rig: Hahaha, drat. I've seen his photos spreading around everywhere lately but I never saw what he was using to take them. That's definitely up there on the ghettometer. InternetJunky posted:Thank you both for describing/showing your setups. I've tried home-made diffusers in a bunch of different configurations and I've never been able to achieve such nice smooth lighting as what you guys had in your shots. No matter what I try I still get very harsh lighting. It's a lot of trial and error, especially with DIY. I'll echo Graniteman's post and say feel free to post what kind of setup you're using and an example or two and we'll try to figure it out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
Is anyone here using focus stacking, or is everyone mostly just using tiny apertures and a buttload of light? I figure the latter is easier for things that aren't inclined to sit still for very long.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
I've managed to focus stack one picture ever of something that wasn't dead and it wasn't even close enough that I needed to, so I'd guess that if people aren't doing the dead bugs thing it's the latter. Preyingmantits is your cheap wireless trigger the yongnuo ones? I was looking at getting those and a spare cheap flash but they kinda seem too good to be true for the price. Not that anything I'd be using them for would need them to be extremely reliable or anything. Ninja Toast! fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 07:36
|
|
|
Same experience as Ninja Toast! here regarding stacking. I've done it a few times because who doesn't love detail but I don't have any rails or anything so it's really pure luck if I get something usable.Ninja Toast! posted:Preyingmantits is your cheap wireless trigger the yongnuo ones? I was looking at getting those and a spare cheap flash but they kinda seem too good to be true for the price. Not that anything I'd be using them for would need them to be extremely reliable or anything. The ones I have are the "Cowboystudio" NPT-04 triggers, which so far haven't let me down and are probably as cheap as you can get for a wireless setup. They don't do TTL, but that's a common feature missing on the cheap ones. My flashes are all manual anyway so that's not a dealbreaker. edit: http://www.ebay.com/itm/CowboyStudio-NPT-04-4-Channel-Wireless-Hot-Shoe-Flash-Trigger-Receiver-/121031758595 Seems to be the best price for'em right now. $18. PREYING MANTITS fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:Is anyone here using focus stacking, or is everyone mostly just using tiny apertures and a buttload of light? I figure the latter is easier for things that aren't inclined to sit still for very long. Spongepuppy and I have mostly posted focus stacked images. I use zerene stacker. I haven't done any focus stack shots in the field (live subjects). Hand held I do 1:1 or 2:1 at about f/11-16.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
I do some stacking in the field. It definitely draws some attention however: Finding slow-moving bugs is the real challenge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:Is anyone here using focus stacking, or is everyone mostly just using tiny apertures and a buttload of light? I figure the latter is easier for things that aren't inclined to sit still for very long. I've seen some amazing focus stacking work done in the field, it's just not something I have the patience to do. I find that even a studio setting bugs that look dead are often not nearly as dead as they appear once you get to 3-4x life size, and small plants can dry so quickly that they move considerably over the course of a 50-80 image stack (~4-6 minutes). I get around the former problem by giving them a swim in some isopropyl alcohol for a day or so, but that causes issues of its own when the subject is furry or has certain types of pigment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
Content! HR Giger's Bathroom by spongepuppy This is a small section of the abdomen of a Bronze Orange Bug (the whole thing looks like this)
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 10:41
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:Content! pretty fantastic. Are those the spiracles (insect body breathing holes)?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:pretty fantastic. Are those the spiracles (insect body breathing holes)? Yes - they're quite prominent on this one, but I'm not sure what the little paired structures are on each segment above and to the left of each spiracle. They seem to correspond to each spiracle, but they don't look like mechanoreceptors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
I picked up the Olympus 60mm macro and have been playing around with it. No bug or plant photos yet because they're all frozen. New to this and don't have a flash yet! Are they absolutely necessary? 7.62x54 R by Cacator, on Flickr  Bezel by Cacator, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
A flash (particularly one with a softbox/diffuser and possibly off the camera) is one of the biggest things you can do to make macro easier and look nicer. I'd take a cheap flipped 50 + a decent flash over a high end macro with no flash any day, since suddenly you aren't limited to natural lighting (and being able to shoot at high speed even when stopped down will make shooting bugs way easier).
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
I built my little macro table thing! I'm pretty happy with it. There are a few things I want to tweak, but overall I love the convenience and control it gives me. I've been rolling with hacked together garbage for the last couple of years, but adding pieces slowly. Now I have it all mounted together on a couple of bits of shelving and it's really convenient. Those knock-off friction arms for positioning the flashes are really handy. Shot of an antenna from a beetle I found this weekend. This is about 15:1.   edit: to anyone seeing this and thinking you really need this much crap, you don't. Check my flickr feed. Most of that was done with way less stuff. You need one reversed 50mm lens, one flash, one pingpong ball to cut into a diffuser, one $50 macro rail, one tripod, and some tape to hold stuff in place, plus patience to fiddle it around until it works. All of the other stuff I have here is more about making things easy than making things possible. You can do the super-magnified stuff with a $70 microscope lens on any cheap ~150mm lens that fits your camera. I'm using a $1500 telephoto because I have one for other types of photography, but it's not needed. Also, I agree with Mr. Despair re: flashes. Lighting is critical. I'd make the same trade (cheap flipped 50 with flash is better than a true macro lens and ambient light in most cases). Graniteman fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Jan 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:You can do the super-magnified stuff with a $70 microscope lens on any cheap ~150mm lens that fits your camera. How do you do this? I have the 100L and love that thing, but every time I see the portrait-like shots here I get really jealous. Flashes, tripod, pingpong balls, etc. I have and understand how to use, but how do you connect the microscope lens to your zoomlens? Do you stick it into an empty filter and screw it on or something? Please explain how you move past 1:1, because it just doesn't click for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 09:23
|
|
|
BioTech posted:Please explain how you move past 1:1, because it just doesn't click for me. The best site for this high magnification macro is photomacrography.net. It's got a lot of really world-class macro photographers posting there about setups and techniques. I learned basically everything there. Here's the FAQ thread you may want to start with. http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12147 But it's not super easy to learn exactly how to make it all work, so here's the sum of what I've learned for my current best setup. Many/most microscope objectives don't give good quality on a camera because the optics are just designed for a totally different setup. Some objectives work really well, and they often sell for a fortune on ebay. But if you know the good ones there are cheap objectives to be had! My setup is two objectives: Nikon CFI BE Plan 10x / 0.25 $53 Nikon CFI BE Plan 4x / 0.1 $72 available here (seems to take a couple of months to ship both times I've ordered). These objectives are infinity-corrected, meaning you have to stick them on the front of another lens (focused at infinity). You will get the rated magnification on these two lenses with a 200mm "tube lens." More focal length = more magnfication, less focal length = less. If you use a shorter tube lens you can actually get very sharp results, for optical reasons I don't fully understand (same N.A. but less magnification = more resolving power I think). Testing at photomacrography.net has shown that the quality of the tube lens doesn't seem to have any visible effect on the quality of the image (all driven by the microscope objective). So you can get any cheapo 135mm from ebay. But I use my 100-400mm lens which is nice because I can adjust the focal length pretty finely across the full range I might want to use. The microscope objectives I listed have RMS thread. You want a RMS adapter. Here's a $16 RMS to M52 (52mm filter thread) adapter. Avoid the cone shaped adapters since they give you lots of internal reflections unless you fiddle with internal black flocking. Generally people get the best results if the objective is as close to the tube lens as possible. Be careful that if your tube lens front glass is curved you don't scratch it by threading the RMS adapter on (only happens with super curved tube lenses). If you are shooting a crop body then you can use a 100 mm tube lens no problem. I am shooting full frame and the tube lens has to be above ~300 mm to fully cover the sensor with my setup. I do shoot at 130mm sometimes but I have to crop out the edges because of severe (black) vignetting. At >1:1 magnification you will probably need to focus stack. I think Zerene Stacker is the best software. $100 but very much worth it (photoshop focus stacking does not work nearly as well, but I do use photoshop for some smart sharpen action. See earlier in the thread for some discussion between me and spongepuppy on post processing). To focus stack you will also need a macro rail. I used the ~$50 adorama X-Y stage with good results up to ~8:1. But you have to turn that drat screw knob super freaking carefully. 2-4x is pretty easy, above that becomes tough (hard to tell the difference between turning the knob the right amount and not turning it at all). A stackshot automated rail is a super nice to have thing, but it's $500 and can only be used for high magnification macro. I love mine, but it took me a year to decide I was really into this enough to buy one. You will also find that the viewfinder image is very dark through this setup. The microscope objectives are basically always "stopped down" to the final aperture, so you will need a focus aid light light. For some reason the $10 Ikea LED lamp in my picture above is the most common in these setups. There are lots of other little details you pick up. I think we all tinker with lighting modifiers non-stop (ping pong balls, shoot through paper, coffee cups, milk cartons, aluminum foil). Using different kinds of backdrops. The details of how you prefer to post process. Spongepuppy does great work and has a similar workflow to me so if he wants to chime in to correct / add anything I'd like to hear it too. Graniteman fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Jan 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
So just to be clear, you have an objective screwed on to the front of your 100-400, right? How does this get past the minimum focusing distance of the 100-400? Can I do the same with my 600 to get crazy magnification results? Even with a MPE-65 I find myself wanted to get closer than 5x and this is pretty exciting to see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:So just to be clear, you have an objective screwed on to the front of your 100-400, right? How does this get past the minimum focusing distance of the 100-400? Can I do the same with my 600 to get crazy magnification results? Yep, the objective is screwed on to the front of the 100-400. The thing about these tube lenses (like my 100-400) is that they are they are focused at infinity so the min focus distance doesn't factor in. The light rays coming out of the back of the microscope objective are parallel (i.e. they are "infinity corrected" objectives) so you need to put a lens behind them which is focused at infinity to collect those parallel light rays and focus them on the camera sensor. Note that older objectives are often "finite" objectives where the light rays converge, and you don't need a tube lens. For example many old objectives work if you just put the objective 160 mm from the image sensor (on bellows or extension tubes). Most newer objectives are infinity focused though. Both can give you very high quality you just need to know what kind you have. The specific objectives above require a tube lens. Basically you should be pretty careful in researching microscope objectives and get ones that are known to work well for photography like this. Random objectives are probably not going to be great, even if they are great on their original microscopes. If you are lucky and patient and know what you are looking for you can find good stuff on ebay, but I'm not patient. You could use your 600mm but it would probably get pretty sketchy. The deal is that these optics are designed around an assumed focal length for the tube lens (200mm in my case). The further you go from that 200mm the further you get from the design basis and generally the worse the resolution gets. In some cases people have found objectives that tolerate getting fairly far off that design basis and still give good results, but often you get crazy C.A. or loss of resolution. There are threads all over the forums I linked about people testing new objectives they find in different ways (it's a popular hobby with these folks to hunt for "hidden gem" objectives I guess). For example, some 10x objectives works amazingly well at 100mm on a crop sensor body as a 5:1 objective. Many don't work when "pushed" that far. So using your 600mm is pretty far out of "spec" and it probably wouldn't work great. Also note that the resolving power of an objective is related to the N.A. (numerical aperture, the microscope terminology for aperture). It's fixed for these objectives, and a wider NA means more resolving power at the designed magnification. If you push the magnification with a longer focal length tube lens the NA doesn't change, so I think you lose resolving power as you increase magnification, and at some point you stop gaining anything even if the optics work perfectly on the longer tube lens. Most people on the forums seem to use old 135mm tube lenses since they are cheap, common and a little less than 200mm (which gets you a little more resolution for a little less magnification). So like I said it's kind of complicated (and while I know some stuff, I'm not a real expert) so that's why I just posted "these are the things I have which I know work, and are easy to get." Graniteman fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Jan 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:...microscope lenses...
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
This was really helpful, thanks. It is also a lot more affordable than I first feared. Less than $100 for a filter and a lens is almost nothing. Gonna search for lenses tonight, but usually this stuff is a bit harder to find in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:I built my little macro table thing! I'm pretty happy with it. There are a few things I want to tweak, but overall I love the convenience and control it gives me. That looks way better than my current ~9x setup 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Saw a couple of patches of snow that looked interesting the other day: Frost Plates by venusian-weasel, on Flickr  Snow by venusian-weasel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
ah forget it posted:This is like super interesting considering the price and magnification. BE Plan seems to designate cheaper lenses for Nikon Eclipse E100 microscope. Now if I could find seller in EU... Don't forget that you can still get some fairly stellar results with finite objectives - you can stick them on the end of some $5 m42 extension tubes for a super cheap, light and stable setup. LOMO objectives can be good and cheap in Europe. Graniteman posted:Spongepuppy does great work and has a similar workflow to me so if he wants to chime in to correct / add anything I'd like to hear it too. ^^ Everything Graniteman says is true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
Been looking at this lens for a while: http://www.keh.com/camera/Minolta-Maxxum-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-MA06999003573J?r=FE but i'm wondering if it's worth it relative to the sony version (which is like 3x the price). Will I regret the purchase? Edit: pretty picture 
Un chien andalou fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Jan 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Un chien andalou posted:Been looking at this lens for a while: There are three versions of the Minolta 100/2.8; due to its age, I wouldn't recommend the first one (unless you can get a great deal), but the one you're looking at is the second - called RS (ReStyled) - and it's a fantastic lens. The third version and the Sony are pretty much identical. Anyway, the RS is great and at 275$ it's a no-brainer (assuming it's in decent condition). It's very sharp, it's solidly built and you get one of the longest - if not the longest - working distance at this focal length. Compared to the Sony, optically, you only lose on the coating; definitely not worth 3x the price. The RS does have a tiny focus ring but at high magnifications you're moving the entire thing to focus, so it's not a big deal. If you're "serious" about macro, buy it. Buy it right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
seravid posted:There are three versions of the Minolta 100/2.8; due to its age, I wouldn't recommend the first one (unless you can get a great deal), but the one you're looking at is the second - called RS (ReStyled) - and it's a fantastic lens. The third version and the Sony are pretty much identical. Thank you. I have been wanting it for a while, and already have extension tubes and a dcr-250, it will be nice to use it all together! Edit: Ordered! Un chien andalou fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Jan 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Un chien andalou posted:Thank you. I have been wanting it for a while, and already have extension tubes and a dcr-250, it will be nice to use it all together! Nice. You'll be getting around 4:1 magnification. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Super ghetto polarised light microscope setup ahoy (for 10x):  Hoping to get some 40x action happening soon. E: Super 40x photos:   Dia de Pikachutos fucked around with this message at 11:16 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Here is my setup with the new 100 mm macro. The Raynox is on there, but I managed to kinda stick the ringlight so it sits flush with the end of the Raynox. Did a couple of test stacks, one at 1:1 and one at 4:1, but they came out kinda blurry, I assume because I left my laptop running on the desk at the same time. Hoping to get into microscope objectives soon enough, and I have the setup already planned out, just need to save up some  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Un chien andalou posted:Did a couple of test stacks, one at 1:1 and one at 4:1, but they came out kinda blurry, I assume because I left my laptop running on the desk at the same time. You may need to stop your macro 1 or 2 stops, because you could be suffering from a good deal of spherical aberration with the raynox + large extension combination. On the other hand, if you're stopping down too much you'd be well into diffraction territory (effective aperture = (1 + magnification * f-stop), so f/8 at 4x is actually f/40). If you're using a ring flash, vibration from the laptop shouldn't be a huge factor in sharpness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:You may need to stop your macro 1 or 2 stops, because you could be suffering from a good deal of spherical aberration with the raynox + large extension combination. On the other hand, if you're stopping down too much you'd be well into diffraction territory (effective aperture = (1 + magnification * f-stop), so f/8 at 4x is actually f/40). Yeah, I tried it again with the laptop off and it was pretty bad still. I did the test shots at f/8, I guess i'll do 9,10 and 11 to see if it improves. Also, the raynox was mounted with a couple of step down rings, so it is a few mm further away than it would have been with the adapter, could this have made a difference? Un chien andalou fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Been trying to document snow conditions this season. Unfortunately it's been poo poo for snow so far. But here's some photos of frost. These were all taken "in the field" during a day of backcountry skiing. IMG_5873.jpg by Brian.M.K, on Flickr  IMG_5870.jpg by Brian.M.K, on Flickr Not the greatest photo, but I like this one because it shows the beginnings of the sintering process.  IMG_5868.jpg by Brian.M.K, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Un chien andalou posted:Yeah, I tried it again with the laptop off and it was pretty bad still. I did the test shots at f/8, I guess i'll do 9,10 and 11 to see if it improves. Have a go with the extension tubes / without DCR250 and with DCR250 / without extension tubes. It could be the combination of the two that is the issue. I've personally never had any luck with unreversed lenses on large extensions - in general it's better to reverse the lens before putting it on extension to switch the subject/image distance relationship. Try stopping down less, because at f8 you're likely to be visibly diffraction limited. If you could post a few examples it might help us to give you some suggestions about possible improvements. Dia de Pikachutos fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Assuming everything's in good condition, a full set of tubes + 100 Macro + Raynox 250 works perfectly fine. I used exactly that (no ring flash, though) for the fly's picture a few posts up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:31 |
|
|
Would a setup with a Sigma 70-300 (for cheap) and a reverse 50mm give me decent magnification? What would that give me? 2:1? Would those 2 lenses even work well together?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 07:09
|
|
