Five dollar macro

Not as detailed as Bret's 5x macro's or even Paul's bellows macros, but
not too shabby. Just a bit shy of 1:1 (I don't have a focusing rail, alas).

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9791873&size=lg

Let's see those Tamron 90, Canon 100 and Nikon 105 micro shots...

(Note: the $5 was not the crispest example...)

Alan Browne wrote:
Not as detailed as Bret's 5x macro's or even Paul's bellows macros, but
not too shabby. Just a bit shy of 1:1 (I don't have a focusing rail,
alas).

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9791873&size=lg

Let's see those Tamron 90, Canon 100 and Nikon 105 micro shots...

(Note: the $5 was not the crispest example...)

And without the flash:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9791953&size=lg

I'll try another one with a softbox/flash later.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:10:10 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Not as detailed as Bret's 5x macro's or even Paul's bellows macros, but
not too shabby. Just a bit shy of 1:1 (I don't have a focusing rail, alas).

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9791873&size=lg

Let's see those Tamron 90, Canon 100 and Nikon 105 micro shots...

(Note: the $5 was not the crispest example...)

I presume that $5 bill is made of paper. Here in New Zealand they are
printed on a plastic film with no texture. Otherwise I could give you
a Nikon 105 shot.



Eric Stevens

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:10:10 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Not as detailed as Bret's 5x macro's or even Paul's bellows macros, but
not too shabby. Just a bit shy of 1:1 (I don't have a focusing rail, alas).

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9791873&size=lg

Let's see those Tamron 90, Canon 100 and Nikon 105 micro shots...

(Note: the $5 was not the crispest example...)


Hi Alan

I don't have a 105 but I do have the 60mm, which on my D90 becomes a 90mm, so
the image size should be close to yours.

The only US $5 I had with that pattern was pretty old and beat up, but I got a
shot of it. I couldn't hold it perfectly straight, so the right side is a bit
blurred, but not too bad. I shot it just now in my kitchen under the halogen
track lights, at about 70 degrees under the nearest lamp.

1/60 F 4.8 ISO 800 Self timer on tripod.

http://www.pbase.com/flintstonestudio/image/117470670

I can try later to get a way to hold the bill straight if you are interested in
the shot.

Alan Browne wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Not as detailed as Bret's 5x macro's or even Paul's bellows macros,
but not too shabby. Just a bit shy of 1:1 (I don't have a focusing
rail, alas).

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9791873&size=lg

Let's see those Tamron 90, Canon 100 and Nikon 105 micro shots...

(Note: the $5 was not the crispest example...)

And without the flash:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9791953&size=lg

I'll try another one with a softbox/flash later.

I think the f/8 on that one is fighting diffraction with your 24MP Sony.
The f/2.8 is darn sharp for *anything* at f/2.8, I just don't like
flash, but part of that is my resistance to actually learning how to use
it g. Did you go with f/8 because of tripod bounce, mirror slap, etc?
With 8 seconds, shake is not an issue unless you walked around & bounced
the floor while it exposed. The non-flash one seems kind of dull,
perhaps moving the light to the side at a very shallow angle would give
more texture.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

"Alan Browne" skrev i en meddelelse
...
Not as detailed as Bret's 5x macro's or even Paul's bellows macros, but
not too shabby. Just a bit shy of 1:1 (I don't have a focusing rail,
alas).

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9791873&size=lg

Let's see those Tamron 90, Canon 100 and Nikon 105 micro shots...

(Note: the $5 was not the crispest example...)

I was inspired by this thread and made my own test images (using my old
D2x).
I had no 5 dollar so used another note. Lenses was used on camera using
extenders.
Old enlarger lenses can give quite good results. Differences in the two
crops may be a slight difference in focus.
I did not reverse the Componon-S as it has almost a symetrical design. I
also tried with a EL-Nikkor 50/2.8 but got a little better results with the
Componon. This may also be caused by a slight difference in focus. Results
was very good with the EL-Nikkor also. I had a lot of fun doing this
test......

Full frame of note:
http://www.pbase.com/mxp/image/117494420/original

Crop of note (reversed Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 (old compensating type))
http://www.pbase.com/mxp/image/117494478

Crop of note (non-reversed Componon-S 50/2.8)
http://www.pbase.com/mxp/image/117494495

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:10:10 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Not as detailed as Bret's 5x macro's or even Paul's bellows macros, but
not too shabby. Just a bit shy of 1:1 (I don't have a focusing rail, alas).

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9791873&size=lg

Let's see those Tamron 90, Canon 100 and Nikon 105 micro shots...

(Note: the $5 was not the crispest example...)

I presume that $5 bill is made of paper. Here in New Zealand they are
printed on a plastic film with no texture. Otherwise I could give you
a Nikon 105 shot.

Cotton, actually. Can't find a US 5$ bill?

wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:10:10 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Not as detailed as Bret's 5x macro's or even Paul's bellows macros, but
not too shabby. Just a bit shy of 1:1 (I don't have a focusing rail, alas).

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9791873&size=lg

Let's see those Tamron 90, Canon 100 and Nikon 105 micro shots...

(Note: the $5 was not the crispest example...)


Hi Alan

I don't have a 105 but I do have the 60mm, which on my D90 becomes a 90mm, so
the image size should be close to yours.

The only US $5 I had with that pattern was pretty old and beat up, but I got a
shot of it. I couldn't hold it perfectly straight, so the right side is a bit
blurred, but not too bad. I shot it just now in my kitchen under the halogen
track lights, at about 70 degrees under the nearest lamp.

1/60 F 4.8 ISO 800 Self timer on tripod.

http://www.pbase.com/flintstonestudio/image/117470670

I can try later to get a way to hold the bill straight if you are interested in
the shot.

It looks good. I have to re-shoot mine with proper lighting. Maybe
today if I have a chance.

Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Not as detailed as Bret's 5x macro's or even Paul's bellows macros,
but not too shabby. Just a bit shy of 1:1 (I don't have a focusing
rail, alas).

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9791873&size=lg

Let's see those Tamron 90, Canon 100 and Nikon 105 micro shots...

(Note: the $5 was not the crispest example...)

And without the flash:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9791953&size=lg

I'll try another one with a softbox/flash later.

I think the f/8 on that one is fighting diffraction with your 24MP Sony.
The f/2.8 is darn sharp for *anything* at f/2.8, I just don't like
flash, but part of that is my resistance to actually learning how to use
it g. Did you go with f/8 because of tripod bounce, mirror slap, etc?
With 8 seconds, shake is not an issue unless you walked around & bounced
the floor while it exposed. The non-flash one seems kind of dull,
perhaps moving the light to the side at a very shallow angle would give
more texture.

I'll reshoot with the light off camera and/or a softbox. I'll loosen up
the aperture as well (got to find the resolution curve for my lens
somewhere and shoot sweet. I don't believe I'm anywhere near diffraction).

Max Perl wrote:
"Alan Browne" skrev i en meddelelse
...
Not as detailed as Bret's 5x macro's or even Paul's bellows macros, but
not too shabby. Just a bit shy of 1:1 (I don't have a focusing rail,
alas).

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9791873&size=lg

Let's see those Tamron 90, Canon 100 and Nikon 105 micro shots...

(Note: the $5 was not the crispest example...)

I was inspired by this thread and made my own test images (using my old
D2x).
I had no 5 dollar so used another note. Lenses was used on camera using
extenders.
Old enlarger lenses can give quite good results. Differences in the two
crops may be a slight difference in focus.
I did not reverse the Componon-S as it has almost a symetrical design. I
also tried with a EL-Nikkor 50/2.8 but got a little better results with the
Componon. This may also be caused by a slight difference in focus. Results
was very good with the EL-Nikkor also. I had a lot of fun doing this
test......

Full frame of note:
http://www.pbase.com/mxp/image/117494420/original

Crop of note (reversed Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 (old compensating type))
http://www.pbase.com/mxp/image/117494478

Crop of note (non-reversed Componon-S 50/2.8)
http://www.pbase.com/mxp/image/117494495

You have the same specular effect I had on my first shot. I'll be
re-shooting with a different light setup later.

Hard to compare your note with Paul/my/BobF's results as it's not the
same target.