Making really large bug prints

RichA wrote:
Guy's using a 200mm f/4.0 Micro-Nikkor in conjunction with a rather mundane microscope objective and a $10 adapter.

http://microsculpture.net/orchid-bee-side.html

That is *not* the unusual part about his work. A 200mm
lens is the standard focal length for a relay lens when
using an "infinity" design microscope objective. Zoom
lenses don't do well, but the older 200mm f/4 Ai-S lens
that has been out of production for 20 years, and is
available for $50 on eBay, is the most commonly used
Nikkor. Microscope objectives that work well are those
meant for metallurgy work, with a long working distance.
There are some that run about $200, others that are in
the $600 range are slightly better, and past that it
takes 3 or 4 times as much money to see any benefit.

All that is rather mundane. So is focus stacking using
a motorized StackShot rail shooting in 10 micron steps.

What is really unusual and worth noting is that the
images are made up of many sections and stitched. He
photographs the left eye separately from the right eye,
and that is different from the front right leg or the
back left leg. Not just separate exposures, but
distinctly different lighting in order to get the best
reproduction of the detail. Then two or three dozen
sections are stitched together for the final image.

All than mundane stuff is commonly done by many (I do
all of that myself). I've never heard of anyone
stitching together 30 sections of a bug! Fantastic.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Rich A wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 6:47:37 PM UTC-4, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
RichA wrote:
Guy's using a 200mm f/4.0 Micro-Nikkor in conjunction with a rather mundane microscope objective and a $10 adapter.

http://microsculpture.net/orchid-bee-side.html

That is *not* the unusual part about his work. A 200mm
lens is the standard focal length for a relay lens when
using an "infinity" design microscope objective. Zoom
lenses don't do well, but the older 200mm f/4 Ai-S lens
that has been out of production for 20 years, and is
available for $50 on eBay,

No, this is the lens.

Not the point.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-AF-200...IAAOSwGotWlfIo

That was understood. My point was there is nothing
special about the particular lens specified. It need
not be a macro lens, and in particular not an expensive
macro lens.

You seem to have missed everything significant about
the work of Levon Biss.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 2016-05-05 05:39:01 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

Rich A wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 6:47:37 PM UTC-4, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
RichA wrote:
Guy's using a 200mm f/4.0 Micro-Nikkor in conjunction with a rather
mundane microscope objective and a $10 adapter.

http://microsculpture.net/orchid-bee-side.html

That is *not* the unusual part about his work. A 200mm
lens is the standard focal length for a relay lens when
using an "infinity" design microscope objective. Zoom
lenses don't do well, but the older 200mm f/4 Ai-S lens
that has been out of production for 20 years, and is
available for $50 on eBay,

No, this is the lens.

Not the point.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-AF-200...IAAOSwGotWlfIo

That

was understood. My point was there is nothing
special about the particular lens specified. It need
not be a macro lens, and in particular not an expensive
macro lens.

You seem to have missed everything significant about
the work of Levon Biss.

I think, that what you are saying is the methodology used to create
these fine macro images is the important thing. The fact that he used
that particular Nikkor, together with his methodology to be able to
document those insects is what is important. What is undeniable is, the
examples of Levon Biss's work on display here are impressive.

Strangely enough I came across this story this morning, where a
non-macro lens was used by another photographer for a similar, but very
different purpose (more close up than macro to my eye). Also using the
assistance of focus stacking.
http://www.thewanderinglensman.com/2016/05/macro-without-macro-lens-using-fuji-55.html

--


Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-05-05 05:39:01 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

Rich A wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 6:47:37 PM UTC-4, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
RichA wrote:
Guy's using a 200mm f/4.0 Micro-Nikkor in
conjunction with a rather mundane microscope
objective and a $10 adapter.
http://microsculpture.net/orchid-bee-side.html
That is *not* the unusual part about his work. A
200mm
lens is the standard focal length for a relay lens when
using an "infinity" design microscope objective. Zoom
lenses don't do well, but the older 200mm f/4 Ai-S lens
that has been out of production for 20 years, and is
available for $50 on eBay,

We should stop right here and show what was actually
said, before Rich snipped part of the sentence off.

"... the older 200mm f/4 Ai-S lens that has been out of
production for 20 years, and is available for $50 on
eBay, *is* *the* *most* *commonly* *used* *Nikkor*."

Rich was simply being dishonest to be contentious.

The fact that Levon Biss used the 200mm f/4 Micro Nikkor is
of absolutely *no* *significance* *at* *all*.

No, this is the lens.
Not the point.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-AF-200...IAAOSwGotWlfIo

That was understood. My point was there is nothing
special about the particular lens specified. It need
not be a macro lens, and in particular not an expensive
macro lens.
You seem to have missed everything significant about
the work of Levon Biss.

I think, that what you are saying is the methodology
used to create these fine macro images is the important
thing.

The part of his methodology that is unusual is important,
the part that is standard practice for virtually everyone
is not.

The fact that he used that particular Nikkor,
together with his methodology to be able to document
those insects is what is important.

That particular lens is of no significance at all.
Any fixed focal length 200mm lens with decent quality
optics will work. As I noted the 200mm f/4 Ai-S lens
is the one most commonly used, simply because it has
the quality and is available for a very low price.

Levon Biss probably uses the 200mm Micro lens simply
because he has it! It is not at all special as a relay
lens (aka "tube lens"). Other commonly used relay
lenses are the Raynox DCR-250 (a 125mm lens, it is used
with APS-C sensors) and 200mm lenses such as the SMC
Pentax-m 200mm f/4.

What is undeniable
is, the examples of Levon Biss's work on display here
are impressive.

The question though is what is he doing that is special!

Since even people like myself use 10X microscope objectives,
attached to a 200mm f/4 tube lens, with a StackShot focusing
rail, it can't be that! What Biss does that is truly special
is to stitch 30 separate images (each made by stacking) that are
each made with distinct lighting of the subject.

Find anyone else who is doing that! I'd never heard of it
before. And that is what is making those impressive pictures!

Strangely enough I came across this story this morning,
where a non-macro lens was used by another photographer
for a similar, but very different purpose (more close up
than macro to my eye). Also using the assistance of
focus stacking.
http://www.thewanderinglensman.com/2016/05/macro-without-macro-lens-using-fuji-55.html

That isn't even in the same ball park, in terms of
methodology.

Biss is using the *ultimate* in a macro lens. Keep in
mind that is at 10X where everything is supercritical,
not at 1:4 where nothing is critical. Your cited example
is using f/16 and perhaps 1:2 magnification at most. The
focus stack was made using only 11 shots!

The shots of bugs by Levon Biss are at 10X
magnification, apparently with a Nikon CFI Plan 10x/0.25
objective lens that has a working distance of 10.5 mm.
The NA aperture of 0.25 translates to f/20. Biss
mentions using 10 micron steps for the stack. The DOF
at f/20 is also just about 10 microns.

Think how many shots it takes to stitch 30 different
images together if each of those 30 images is made from
a 100 shot stack!

That gives an idea what is special about the methods of
Levon Biss. And it clearly isn't the use of a 200mm f/4
Micro Nikkor!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

RichA wrote:
It's part of it. It is extremely difficult to obtain
across the field well-corrected images using a
microscope objective in conjuction with a large sensor.

There are an awful lot of photographers doing it
every day.

Maybe you should talk about something you understand...

Most microscope cameras had/have small (P&S small)
sensors which don't require a wide field of correction
from the optics used. While film worked well enough
with plan-apo objectives at least, sensors are a
different story.

There is no difference between film and an electronic
sensor for that purpose.

He obviously used the 200mm f/4.0
Micro-Nikkor because it produced a better result than
just slapping the objective on the end of a conventional
telephoto.

That is absolutely untrue. There is a vast amount of
experience well documented on what makes a good relay
lens. There is nothing special about the 200mm Micro
Nikkor. I've never seen it recommended either, and
would suspect the only reason to use it would be if it
is sitting on the shelf and available.

Anyone who wonders about this can by a
microscope objective lens holder with an m42 mount on
one end and try it.

Wrong. A converter (a step down ring) from the
filter thread on a 135mm lens if you have an APS-C
camera or a 200mm lens for a full frame, to match the
threads on whatever objective is to be used. The
objectives available have several different threads.

The objective *must* be an infinite tube design to use
this way. If it is not, then adapters and extension
tubes to equal the tube length specification minus 10mm,
is needed, with no relay lens. Current thinking seems
to be that infinite tube objectives are slightly better
than finite tube objectives.

You'll end up cropping away 60% of
the field to obtain a decent-looking image. A good

Sorry Charlie, you aren't using the right tube lens.

projection lens system for a microscope and camera will
set you back at least $600.00 and you still won't get
good full-field correction with a large sensor.

Not with the crap you are talking about!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 5/4/2016 11:47 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
RichA wrote:
Guy's using a 200mm f/4.0 Micro-Nikkor in conjunction with a rather mundane microscope objective and a $10 adapter.

http://microsculpture.net/orchid-bee-side.html

That is *not* the unusual part about his work. A 200mm
lens is the standard focal length for a relay lens when
using an "infinity" design microscope objective. Zoom
lenses don't do well, but the older 200mm f/4 Ai-S lens
that has been out of production for 20 years, and is
available for $50 on eBay, is the most commonly used
Nikkor. Microscope objectives that work well are those
meant for metallurgy work, with a long working distance.
There are some that run about $200, others that are in
the $600 range are slightly better, and past that it
takes 3 or 4 times as much money to see any benefit.

All that is rather mundane. So is focus stacking using
a motorized StackShot rail shooting in 10 micron steps.

What is really unusual and worth noting is that the
images are made up of many sections and stitched. He
photographs the left eye separately from the right eye,
and that is different from the front right leg or the
back left leg. Not just separate exposures, but
distinctly different lighting in order to get the best
reproduction of the detail. Then two or three dozen
sections are stitched together for the final image.

All than mundane stuff is commonly done by many (I do
all of that myself). I've never heard of anyone
stitching together 30 sections of a bug! Fantastic.


Thanks very much for the explanation. While I have not done any focus
stacking, I have stared down a fair number of microscopes at all sorts
of broken things, so I found the amount of detail captured to be
astonishing.

Floyd L. Davidson:
What is really unusual and worth noting is that the
images are made up of many sections and stitched. He
photographs the left eye separately from the right eye,
and that is different from the front right leg or the
back left leg. Not just separate exposures, but
distinctly different lighting in order to get the best
reproduction of the detail. Then two or three dozen
sections are stitched together for the final image.

Yes, nice pics and all. A bit too dark for my taste--he obviously
prefers a dramatic, low-key look. My aim in photographing arthropods is
to illuminate the shadows to reveal detail in the nooks and crannies.
To do that I use one or two 500 watt-second (Profoto B1 500 AirTTL)
studio flashes with light modifiers and also such white foamcore or
other reflectors as may be necessary, even when the background is dark.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Davoud wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson:
What is really unusual and worth noting is that the
images are made up of many sections and stitched. He
photographs the left eye separately from the right eye,
and that is different from the front right leg or the
back left leg. Not just separate exposures, but
distinctly different lighting in order to get the best
reproduction of the detail. Then two or three dozen
sections are stitched together for the final image.

Yes, nice pics and all. A bit too dark for my taste--he obviously
prefers a dramatic, low-key look. My aim in photographing arthropods is
to illuminate the shadows to reveal detail in the nooks and crannies.
To do that I use one or two 500 watt-second (Profoto B1 500 AirTTL)
studio flashes with light modifiers and also such white foamcore or
other reflectors as may be necessary, even when the background is dark.

I agree about the low-key look that Levon Biss goes for;
it is dramatic but not what I'm interested in. I shoot
plants rather than bugs...

This spring I'm working on a project to use studio
strobes for macro work too. I've got Paul C. Buff White
Lightning models that are 300 and 600 Ws, and an
Einstein model that is 640 Ws. As opposed to
speedlights they provide much more consistent light for
focus stacking, both in terms of color and intensity
over a series of many shots.

But I'm doing something a little different with them. I
have a snoot set up with a dozen fiber optic light guide
cables. When used on a macro bench with lots of support
mechanism (rods with clamps that are easily positioned
just about anywhere), it is much the same as shooting
portaits in a studio! A couple fiber guides over here
for a main light, a fill light over there, a "hair"
light, and a couple lights on the background, etc etc.

This has just begun to be fully functional so I have a
lot of experimenting to do with it. And this summer I
plan on having a portable (as in "army portable" that
can be transported by 4-wheel ATV) version for field
work shooting tundra plants.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Davoud:
My aim in photographing arthropods is
to illuminate the shadows to reveal detail in the nooks and crannies.
To do that I use one or two 500 watt-second (Profoto B1 500 AirTTL)
studio flashes with light modifiers and also such white foamcore or
other reflectors as may be necessary, even when the background is dark.

Floyd L. Davidson:
I agree about the low-key look that Levon Biss goes for;
it is dramatic but not what I'm interested in. I shoot
plants rather than bugs...

This spring I'm working on a project to use studio
strobes for macro work too. I've got Paul C. Buff White
Lightning models that are 300 and 600 Ws, and an
Einstein model that is 640 Ws. As opposed to
speedlights they provide much more consistent light for
focus stacking, both in terms of color and intensity
over a series of many shots.

But I'm doing something a little different with them. I
have a snoot set up with a dozen fiber optic light guide
cables. When used on a macro bench with lots of support
mechanism (rods with clamps that are easily positioned
just about anywhere), it is much the same as shooting
portaits in a studio! A couple fiber guides over here
for a main light, a fill light over there, a "hair"
light, and a couple lights on the background, etc etc.

This has just begun to be fully functional so I have a
lot of experimenting to do with it. And this summer I
plan on having a portable (as in "army portable" that
can be transported by 4-wheel ATV) version for field
work shooting tundra plants.

Sounds to me like overkill and over-complication. You've got three
powerful strobes. That's great, but you probably need two, at most.
Team them up with softboxes or other suitable modifiers and a couple of
cheap pieces of white foamcore, maybe a silver reflector (dull side of
aluminum foil attached to foamcore) and you should be set to go. Please
see https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15852579501/ and the
simple setup at https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15854582555/.
In this case I used a bare Profoto 500 W.S. flash, i.e., no modifiers.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Davoud wrote:
Davoud:
My aim in photographing arthropods is
to illuminate the shadows to reveal detail in the nooks and crannies.
To do that I use one or two 500 watt-second (Profoto B1 500 AirTTL)
studio flashes with light modifiers and also such white foamcore or
other reflectors as may be necessary, even when the background is dark.

Floyd L. Davidson:
I agree about the low-key look that Levon Biss goes for;
it is dramatic but not what I'm interested in. I shoot
plants rather than bugs...

This spring I'm working on a project to use studio
strobes for macro work too. I've got Paul C. Buff White
Lightning models that are 300 and 600 Ws, and an
Einstein model that is 640 Ws. As opposed to
speedlights they provide much more consistent light for
focus stacking, both in terms of color and intensity
over a series of many shots.

But I'm doing something a little different with them. I
have a snoot set up with a dozen fiber optic light guide
cables. When used on a macro bench with lots of support
mechanism (rods with clamps that are easily positioned
just about anywhere), it is much the same as shooting
portaits in a studio! A couple fiber guides over here
for a main light, a fill light over there, a "hair"
light, and a couple lights on the background, etc etc.

This has just begun to be fully functional so I have a
lot of experimenting to do with it. And this summer I
plan on having a portable (as in "army portable" that
can be transported by 4-wheel ATV) version for field
work shooting tundra plants.

Sounds to me like overkill and over-complication. You've got three
powerful strobes. That's great, but you probably need two, at most.

Only one, not two or three are needed or used. And
without the multiple fiber optic guide cables it isn't
possible do to.

We're talking about illumination of objects the size of
a dime or smaller. Bare strobes or speedlights are
generally used with diffusers for macro work; but that
creates flat and very unexciting non-dramatic lighting.
Reflectors can help with that, as shown in the examples
you cite below. But the functionality is relatively
limited.

This project goes in the opposite direction by providing
very small narrow light beams that allow essentially
what strobes do in a studio for objects from 2 to 6 feet
tall: multiple light sources for different directions
and for different areas, with adjustable intensity and
color for each. The functionality is tremendous!

Team them up with softboxes or other suitable modifiers and a couple of
cheap pieces of white foamcore, maybe a silver reflector (dull side of
aluminum foil attached to foamcore) and you should be set to go. Please
see https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15852579501/ and the
simple setup at https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15854582555/.
In this case I used a bare Profoto 500 W.S. flash, i.e., no modifiers.

Shooting macro with a strobe and diffusers almost
eliminates the potential for directional light to show
contours, or the ability to have a fill light to make
contours a gradient, or even the ability to
differentiate a subject from the background with a
"hair" light and to use separate lights on the
background. To some degree that can be done, but it
isn't easy and fine control just doesn't exist.