|
DILLIGAF posted:Is it a device to allow you to use external lighting for your microscope slide? It's a stereo microscope, this model:  e: You're right!  It's a vertical illuminator. Never heard of one before. http://www.classicoptics.com/parts/B-L/B-L-Vertical-Illuminator.html axolotl farmer fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Apr 4, 2014 |
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
axolotl farmer posted:It's a stereo microscope, this model: It looks like it would connect between the Silver eyepiece and the body of the microscope, where the gray spacing tubes are now. Since you can see through the mirror when looking straight through, a light coming in from the side would reflect from the mirror, down to the platform. It was just a guess and I cannot find anything online like it to confirm or deny. You beat me to it with your edit, but that is a cool little gadget! EDIT again, check this out! http://www.scribd.com/doc/56538603/Bausch-Lomb-Stereo-Zoom-Microscope page 23 has one installed. DILLIGAF fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
What I believe is a Tree Bumblebee (Taken in the East Midlands UK) And a Small White Pieris Rapae 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Such good weather today - managed to catch this fellow:
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
I'm currently using a lovely sigma 70-300, my issues are that it autofocus' like it's powered by steam, it weighs a ton and it's not 1:1 macro. Does anyone have any good or bad things to say about the Canon 60mm F2.8 USM Macro? It looks the part and the reviews are good but at only £250 it's one of those "too good to be true" things that makes me a little worried.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
The Tamron 60 is sharper and faster, and probably the same price if you buy used.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
Whirlwind Jones posted:The Tamron 60 is sharper and faster, and probably the same price if you buy used. Thanks, it's a stop quicker too!
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
AceClown posted:Thanks, it's a stop quicker too! The Tamron 90 is also awesome and pretty cheap if you want to not have to get as close.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:The Tamron 90 is also awesome and pretty cheap if you want to not have to get as close. The old Tamron 90mm extended so far at 1:1 that it actually has almost the same actual working distance as the 60mm, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
Would anyone know what beetle that would of been? It was still alive while old mate was having a chew  
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
 beetle face  Spider in Lemon Tree Flower  jumping spider
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Look at that little cutie. Good work I got an Asahi Pentax bellows together recently, just need to cough up the money for my ZS license (I know, priorities). Anyone have any experience shooting things suspended in clear liquid? Should I use a cuvette? Is there an easy way to keep the surface of the container from reflecting, like just hooding the lens up to the surface, and move the camera on the bellows instead of anything else?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
This is a loving dope picture but whats the deal with the soft glow effect? Is that intentional or is it an artifact of the type of shot/lens/whatever?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:This is a loving dope picture but whats the deal with the soft glow effect? Is that intentional or is it an artifact of the type of shot/lens/whatever? Thanks! I think you are talking about the kind of glowing highlights. The center of the spider was pretty overexposed, almost to blown highlights. I think maybe the focus stacking did something funny with the highly exposed white scales. Basically, I don't know what happened, but I was happy with how it looked. This was "standard" ping-pong ball diffused lighting (you can see the reflection in it's eyes of the microscope objective poking through the center of a cut up ping-pong ball). edit: it appears to be a focus stacking artifact that's most pronounced when the foreground is light and the background is dark. In this case it's white scales on a black body. http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=135042#135042 Graniteman fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Jumping spiders are loving adorable reversed "Super Paragon 28mm F2.8" that I found on an old olympus at a flee market, this thing is awesome, it has a lever on it that controls the aperture from what would normally be the back end, works really well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Carpenter bee at 6.25:1 Carpenter bee
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
What are some of the most affordable decent macro capable cameras that a person who is not planning on being a pro photographer could justify buying for fun. Preferably something with a changable lens. I've been using a canon powershot sx120 is, which takes some decent pics, but I've reached the end of my capabilities with it I think. I'm not a slave to a particular brand whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Dalai Lamacide posted:What are some of the most affordable decent macro capable cameras that a person who is not planning on being a pro photographer could justify buying for fun. Preferably something with a changable lens. I've been using a canon powershot sx120 is, which takes some decent pics, but I've reached the end of my capabilities with it I think. If you get an interchangeable lens camera you will be able to shoot macro. Most any system will have a macro lens available for it, so for casual macro photography I don't think it will be hard to be satisfied. Do you have any other kinds of shooting in mind that you'd like to do? I think you might be better off picking a camera system that is more general purpose since I think "casual macro" is easy to get. If you want to step up your macro game, beyond just buying a macro lens, I think the next step is having a decent flash which you can point at your close-up subjects. It makes a huge difference in your images, but you have to generally buy a flash gun for it. If you think you might want to do that someday then just pick a camera system which allows you to use an external flash. The simplest option which is guaranteed to work well for macro is to get an older / used canon or nikon DSLR. They are bigger than a mirrorless camera but will do everything for macro and can be pretty cheap. A used canon T2i is a good camera, and can be had for $300.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Thank you for the reply. Yeah, I should have specified; I do want to shoot landscapes and zoom stuff, but I think the most interesting stuff is small scale. I guess I just wanted some peoples favorite decent low end cameras that can accept multiple lenses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:A used canon T2i is a good camera, and can be had for $300. I recommend the T2i, based on my experience with it. The mount on the front, called Canon EF, has all sorts of iterations of adapters for drat near everything, and the Canon software will enable the camera to take the photos without flipping the mirror (keeps the images sharp, which is important with macro), and it doubles as a normal DSLR for shooting portraits, landscapes, your dick, whatever. I ended up spending about $700 altogether for my rig (using an El-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8 reversed on bellows), including the camera, with results I'm pleased with:     Not perfect, but good enough for illustration and species identification, which were my goals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Dalai Lamacide posted:Thank you for the reply. Tricerapowerbottom and I are on record for the T2i as a solid crop sensor camera that will work well for general photography, plus you have infinite growth potential for "extreme macro," which is what Tricerapowerbottom and I are posting. That's going beyond the 1:1 magnification ration you can get from a commercial macro lens. As a specific set of gear, consider this: Used Canon T2i $300 Used canon 100mm f/2.8 macro (non-L) $450 Now you are set for portaits and macro shooting with that one lens. Option: replace the 100mm macro lens with a reversed enlarging lens like Tricerapowerbottom mentioned. $40 for the lens, plus maybe $50 for a cheapo bellows. Now you are set for higher magnification macro, but it will be harder to use and you will probably need a flash (in my opinion). Option: add a flash plus ETTL cable to the kit. $200 for the flash, plus maybe $15 for the third party ETTL cable. It will help enormously to have the flash bounced off the ceiling for any indoor photography. It will also help to have the flash on a cable to point at your macro subjects for high magnification. Option: add whatever general purpose lens you want to have for landscapes etc. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is very good, but you may be just fine using one of the new STM kit lenses as well. They are actually nice, and should be really cheap to buy used since it's the kit lens. Option: if you DO get into extreme macro, buy some dedicated focus stacking software. I recommend Zerene Stacker for $100. All of the very high magnification shots you see use software like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Thank you both for the tips.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Y'all are quite incredible with the stacked studio shots, those are gorgeous. Your patience is also enviable. Fun times with bugs in the lab!  Test Subject by Icybacon, on Flickr Fun times with bugs in the road!  Crab Spider Closeup by Icybacon, on Flickr Fun times with bugs in the park! (Two flash setup, my current goal is to get better with this because it looks far more natural than one.)  Dragonfly2 by Icybacon, on Flickr  Grumpyfish by Icybacon, on Flickr I changed my diffuser from a $5 flimsy mini-softbox to binder paper and tape, and it is much better and more maneuverable around very tiny critters.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Going to make the effort this summer to stop my zero effort handheld macro; tripods and focus stacking ahoy!. I really want to improve on these shots.    What exactly is the fly up to in the bottom shot? THRILLED 2B HERE fucked around with this message at 01:29 on May 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
THRILLED 2B HERE posted:What exactly is the fly up to in the bottom shot? Looks like it's having a feed on something - possibly the plant, or something on the plant (depending on the fly species, mouthparts can have piercing functions in addition to mopping/sucking).
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 09:54
|
|
|
Something different from the usual insects - I was taking a shot of my earphones and thought it was small enough to count as macro, so I'll go ahead and take the opportunity to show off the result here. I've not really photographed "products" before, but getting the lighting and everything to not look sloppy took more effort than I thought it would. Dealing with dust is a real problem at these scales, too. Thank god for meths and Photoshop.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
dust is literally the devil hail satan
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
THRILLED 2B HERE posted:Going to make the effort this summer to stop my zero effort handheld macro; tripods and focus stacking ahoy!. I really want to improve on these shots. I really dig your lighting in all these- they look natural but the subject jumps out nicely. More from my first day of serious dual-flash use, which made a huge difference with the woolybears compared to single flash.   
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
That's really excellent, good job. The fly in the bottom shot may be taste testing, it's a calyptrate fly which are sometimes filth feeders. Just checking out whatever surface it happens to be on, maybe. D'awwwwww 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:D'awwwwww   I really want to try breeding them. One cannot have too many friendly millipedes.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
I now have extension tubes to go with a 105 macro. It's really hard to focus! First attempt:  shakespeare quote about death by blinsaff, on Flickr Here is a grasshopper:  grasshopper III by blinsaff, on Flickr Here is something different:  battle by blinsaff, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
4x objective on a raynox DCR-250 Grasshopper face I rented a MP-E 65 and MT-24 flash last weekend. Super nice. My bench setup is just about impossible to hand hold for shooting in the field, so the MP-E was really nice. People complain that the light from the MT-24 flash heads is too harsh, but I feel like it's manageable.   20140509-HA4A0804.jpg  20140509-HA4A0790.jpg  Honeysuckle pollen
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:Option: if you DO get into extreme macro, buy some dedicated focus stacking software. I recommend Zerene Stacker for $100. All of the very high magnification shots you see use software like that. I have a client who needs some huge prints of some textures (tree bark, rocks etc), which I've already shot, and tried to stack using photoshop but am unhappy with the results. Is Zerene Stacker generally considered the best stacking software? Are there many other options? If there are any that integrate with well with lightroom that would be a plus but not a dealbreaker if they don't. Would love any further advice or recommendations.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
Lon Lon Rabbit posted:Is Zerene Stacker generally considered the best stacking software? Are there many other options? The main options are Zerene Stacker and Helicon Focus. I think Zerene has the better reputation but I've never used Helicon. ZS does have a lightroom plugin but I've also never used that. There's a free trial so you can give it a shot. One of a big strengths of ZS for me, compared to photoshop) is much better ability to handle fine hair-like details, and a hugely superior workflow for cleaning up / retouching stacked images. You can easily paint in detail from specific frames onto the final image if the automated stacking algorithm messes up. Issues are common with overlapping hairlike structures (bug antennas) but rare for me with other subjects.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:The main options are Zerene Stacker and Helicon Focus. I think Zerene has the better reputation but I've never used Helicon. ZS does have a lightroom plugin but I've also never used that. There's a free trial so you can give it a shot. Zerene can also control a Stackshot, which is huge depending on how much do you this stuff. Post about ZS versus HF (written by the guy who wrote ZS, but I've never seen him overselling poo poo about ZS): http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13302
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Inspired by this thread, I found a jumping spider while we were camping this weekend and got to use my 105mm Nikkor. Jumping Spider by jdorseydesign, on Flickr Jumping Spider by jdorseydesign, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Its not an insect, and the magnification isn't that great, but I guess it is still macro. _DSC9920 by Stingray of Doom, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Handsome feller something something O'Keeffe joke Here's a Muscidae (house fly) that I have never managed to identify, it has an unusual drab on top, then baller metallic purple coloration on the side pattern to it. I forgot to put my little black paper hood on the end of the lens for this one and had to crank the contrast in post pretty hard. Before and after, if just as a warning to remember your hood and put some flocking rings in your equipment:  
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
Ordered some praying mantis egg cases for garden pest control, and they finally hatched! DSC_7446.jpg by meramsey, on Flickr  DSC_7459.jpg by meramsey, on Flickr  DSC_7475.jpg by meramsey, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
Finally had some time to take photos again. IMG_8233 by ruut103, on Flickr  IMG_8261 by ruut103, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 17:51
|
|
