A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Extension rings for macro



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old October 24th 09, 06:48 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
60 Yrs. Pedantry 60 Yrs. Creativity
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Extension rings for macro

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:36:50 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote:

60 Yrs. Pedantry 60 Yrs. Creativity wrote:
Also often in error when they
think that microphotography starts at subjects smaller than 1:1.
Microphotography requires one more power of 10 before its beginning range.


Most folks actually know that microphotography is what
WWII and Cold War spies did. Micro sized pictures...
that can be embedded in the period at the end of a
sentence on a piece of paper, so that nobody will
realize that it is hiding the secret to the Atom Bomb.

Photomicrography, on the other hand, is making big
pictures of micro sized little things. Page size
pictures of periods that have an embedded image, for
example... :-)


To a WWII & Spy vs. Spy film-buff or common troll with little
photomicrography nor microphotography experience perhaps. But not "most".
The two terms are used interchangeably today in scientific circles and
amongst most all who image subjects of those sizes. The usage became common
due to the prefix/suffix positioning within the words. Much more common to
say, "macro-photography" and then "micro-photography" (or vice-versa),
rather than use the lesser used or even unknown form of photomicrography.
Photomicrography being in more common usage only by lab technicians. When
was the last time that microphotography was used to transfer covert
information? The last "Mission Impossible" episode from 36 years ago
perhaps? They lost the use of that term by disuse.

Do you still think of catching fish anytime someone asks you to check out
the net? Do you think of pulling stumps out of your corn-field when someone
mentions cable?

Language evolves. Unfortunately trolls cannot.

(see: pedantic trolls, in previous post)

mi•cro•pho•to•graph \-"fo-te-'graf\ noun [ISV] (1858)
1: a small photograph that is normally magnified for viewing : microcopy
2: photomicrograph
microphotograph
verb transitive
mi•cro•pho•tog•ra•pher \-fe-"ta-gre-fer\ noun
mi•cro•pho•to•graph•ic \-'fo-te-"gra-fik\ adjective
mi•cro•pho•tog•ra•phy \-fe-"ta-gre-fe\ noun

(C)1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All
rights reserved.
  #42  
Old October 24th 09, 04:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Neil Harrington[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 663
Default Extension rings for macro


"60 Yrs. Pedantry 60 Yrs. Creativity" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:38:26 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

That never really was a universal definition anyway


Actually, it was. But it's not just 1:1.


Then it never really was.


  #43  
Old October 24th 09, 05:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Extension rings for macro

60 Yrs. Pedantry 60 Yrs. Creativity wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:38:26 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

That never really was a universal definition anyway


Actually, it was. But it's not just 1:1. There were defined ranges within
which each term embraced their subject to virtual-image size. These
were/are the scientific and optical designers' concrete definitions.

(image-size : subject-size)

10:1 to 10:1 = microphotography or photomicrography
10:1 to 1:1 = macro photography
1:1 to 1:10 = gross photography (still in common use in medical fields)
1:10 to 1:100 = photography
1:100 to 1:100 = telephotography or astrophotography


Cite source/reference. I don't see anything "wrong" with that list,
just never seen anything like it.

This has been one of your rare, possibly useful posts since you began
trolling here. Keep up the good work and hold your tongue on your other
useless diarrhea.
  #44  
Old October 25th 09, 11:39 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Gerrit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Extension rings for macro


Looks like I have inadvertently started a storm here.

Thanks to all for the replies that closely answered my query.

Maybe I should have explained the request better.

I live in Western Australia and we have very many wildflowers here which I
like to capture. I used to to this a number of years ago on my totally
manual SLR with a Zeiss 50mm prime and a set of extension rings.

Now that I have a DSLR I wised to do the same (rather than scan my old
slides). So I am able to take manual exposure photos (still have my old
light meter) if necessary but was anxious to know whether I could use my
existing zoom lens with rings and still use the built in functions of the
D50. I know I am not technical about photography but measure my satisfaction
by the resultant photos.

Anyway on balance you have convinced me that using rings with the Tamron is
probably not a good idea and I may be better off looking for a relatively
cheap 50mm prime plus the rings or even (possibly better) a second hand
macro lens.

Once again thanks.

Gerrit - Oz


  #45  
Old October 25th 09, 05:34 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Extension rings for macro

Gerrit wrote:

Looks like I have inadvertently started a storm here.
Maybe I should have explained the request better.


Regardless of the clarity of your request, there are no means to
preventing storms here...
  #46  
Old October 26th 09, 06:27 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Neil Harrington[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 663
Default Extension rings for macro


"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Ofnuts" wrote in message
...
Food for Thought wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:04:44 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote:

That's where most people will start disagreeing. When looking up close
at what comes out of my P&S (Pana FZ8), and what comes out of my DSLR
(Canon 450D), this is far from being the same quality. My rule of
thumb is that the FZ8 pictures start looking crappy at 1:3 zoom, while
the DSLR pics are still OK at 1:1...


What do you mean by "crappy at 1:3 zoom" as opposed to "still OK at 1:1"?

This is a human perception issue, and not really a true image-quality
issue. Due to so much being out of focus in a shallow DOF image, the
bits
that are sharp only appear sharper in contrast to how much in the image
is
painfully out of focus. Just as a white dot looks whiter on a black
background as opposed to when presented on a gray background. It's a
human
perception contrast between percentages of blurry and sharp image
regions.
No, I'm talking in general, when taking well focused pictures with
enough DOF on both cameras. The P&S image looks good until you get
close, while the DSLR image stays good all the way.


I am not understanding this at all. When say "until you get close," do
you mean the viewer getting close to the picture, or the camera getting
close to the subject? What sort of pictures are you talking about, taken
how?


Noise mostly but also CA, dynamic range, etc. The lenses aren't designed
for closeup. If you mount a P&S on a microscope with ample light or
exposure time, I'm not sure there would be any difference other than noise
and the loss from the built in 'relay lens' I'm sure scientists use P&S
this way sometimes but if they are really pushing the limits, that's not
optimal. Check out this discussion of how it helps to remove the relay
lens & work directly:
http://www.photomacrography.net/foru...pic.php?t=8268


Fantastic!

By "relay lens" you mean the eyepiece lens, right?


  #47  
Old October 26th 09, 06:35 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Neil Harrington[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 663
Default Extension rings for macro


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
No spam please wrote:
"Ofnuts" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:

Imagine a 1:1 image on full frame. Now imagine that same image, only
cropped to fit an APS-C sized sensor. For any given final print size,
the cropped sensor image will be magnified about 1.5x compared to the
full-frame one. This is what David is talking about when he speaks of
"magnification effect due to the crop."
Actually we should be talking of pixels per millimeter of field of view,
because in the end, what counts if how many pixels you have got to
depict your subject?

--
Bertrand


Hey guys, we should be out with our macro lenses taking photos rather
than debating definitions :-)

Anyone else remember the days when a lens on a 35mm film body was defined
as having a "macro" setting if:
The image on a 6" x 4" print was life-size or larger.
This meant that a lens was "macro" if it could project a 1/4 size image
on the film.


Never heard that definition -


Neither have I.

further, I've always accepted that 35mm macro was at least 1/2 size
(dimension, not area) on the film.


That's my understanding too, the macro lens itself capable of focusing to
1:2 but usually with some sort of adaptor (extension tube or secondary lens)
available that could take it to 1:1. My first Minola (MD mount) 50mm macro
had the former arrangement, and I have a Vivitar 90mm macro with the latter.


  #48  
Old October 26th 09, 06:39 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Neil Harrington[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 663
Default Extension rings for macro


"Outing Trolls Is FUN!" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:48:16 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

60 Yrs. Pedantry 60 Yrs. Creativity wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:38:26 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

That never really was a universal definition anyway

Actually, it was. But it's not just 1:1. There were defined ranges
within
which each term embraced their subject to virtual-image size. These
were/are the scientific and optical designers' concrete definitions.

(image-size : subject-size)

10:1 to 10:1 = microphotography or photomicrography
10:1 to 1:1 = macro photography
1:1 to 1:10 = gross photography (still in common use in medical fields)
1:10 to 1:100 = photography
1:100 to 1:100 = telephotography or astrophotography


Cite source/reference. I don't see anything "wrong" with that list,
just never seen anything like it.

This has been one of your rare, possibly useful posts since you began
trolling here. Keep up the good work and hold your tongue on your other
useless diarrhea.


Too bad you don't know all the names I have posted under.


Hardly "too bad." Why would anyone care?


  #49  
Old October 26th 09, 07:04 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Fer Cryin' Out Loud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Extension rings for macro

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:27:42 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...

Noise mostly but also CA, dynamic range, etc. The lenses aren't designed
for closeup. If you mount a P&S on a microscope with ample light or
exposure time, I'm not sure there would be any difference other than noise
and the loss from the built in 'relay lens' I'm sure scientists use P&S
this way sometimes but if they are really pushing the limits, that's not
optimal. Check out this discussion of how it helps to remove the relay
lens & work directly:
http://www.photomacrography.net/foru...pic.php?t=8268


Fantastic!

By "relay lens" you mean the eyepiece lens, right?


Oh fer cryin' out loud. I've been using P&S cameras for over a decade for
imaging through my lab-quality phase-contrast microscope.

Here's a quick example of plain ol' "creme of tartar" crystals in polarized
light at the low magnification of 120x or so. Not even one of my favorites.
One of the few snapshot examples I'm willing to share publicly.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2497/...55bc0707_o.jpg

Can't you useless DSLR trolls find at least ONE thing that makes a DSLR
superior for any photography related situations or subjects? You're
hopelessly pathetic so far. Even the OP of that referenced thread is using
the worst possible lighting for his microscope. The shallow DOF and
disastrous CA is horrendous when he cranks up the magnification beyond a
simple dissecting scope's level of magnification. Totally useless results.
Incident lighting is child's-play in the hands of someone that knows what
they are doing.

When I see idiots behaving like idiots, I call them idiots. It's a pretty
simple call.

  #50  
Old October 26th 09, 07:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Neil Harrington[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 663
Default Extension rings for macro


"Fer Cryin' Out Loud" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:27:42 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...

Noise mostly but also CA, dynamic range, etc. The lenses aren't designed
for closeup. If you mount a P&S on a microscope with ample light or
exposure time, I'm not sure there would be any difference other than
noise
and the loss from the built in 'relay lens' I'm sure scientists use P&S
this way sometimes but if they are really pushing the limits, that's not
optimal. Check out this discussion of how it helps to remove the relay
lens & work directly:
http://www.photomacrography.net/foru...pic.php?t=8268


Fantastic!

By "relay lens" you mean the eyepiece lens, right?


Oh fer cryin' out loud. I've been using P&S cameras for over a decade for
imaging through my lab-quality phase-contrast microscope.


No, you haven't.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Macro + extension tubes Gordon MacPherson Digital Photography 2 June 21st 07 12:38 PM
macro equipment: macro lens or extension tubes? [email protected] 35mm Photo Equipment 6 July 14th 06 08:13 AM
Extension Tubes or Macro Lens? Edward Holt Digital SLR Cameras 3 March 3rd 06 10:26 PM
for macro photography, which is better, extension tubes or macro diopter filters. default Digital SLR Cameras 17 January 20th 06 08:24 AM
How does adding extension affect macro lenses? Belgos 35mm Photo Equipment 2 April 28th 05 06:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.