If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Making really large bug prints
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) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Making really large bug prints
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) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Making really large bug prints
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) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Making really large bug prints
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Making really large bug prints
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Making really large bug prints
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) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Making really large bug prints
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Making really large bug prints
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Making really large bug prints | newshound | Digital Photography | 0 | May 4th 16 10:13 PM |
black and white inks for making digital negatives/prints? | Matt Clara[_2_] | In The Darkroom | 21 | October 28th 09 02:43 AM |
Anyone still making commercial optical color prints? | David Nebenzahl | In The Darkroom | 1 | October 8th 06 06:29 PM |
Making contact prints without enlarger. How would you do it? | [email protected] | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 3rd 06 02:51 PM |
what computer specs for making large prints form 4x5 and 6x6 slides | Ed Margiewicz | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 14 | October 27th 05 04:46 PM |