Macro-photography

[Sam StonesParticipant @samstones42903]

Please excuse my muscling in on your thread Raphael. Close-up photography can be fascinating.

Having chosen this for my avatar, I have pondered over the colours.

There are colour bands both distinct and diffused. Are they a result of different gases, different temperatures, and/or do they show limitations imposed by a stepped colour gamut within the image file?

Sam

[DanielParticipant @daniel]

Thank's Sam, for the solution. A very good teaser indeed.

Quite amazing how the mind can be so fooled. At least I can now get some sleep.

It's really great to see the photos coming from all you others. It's completely off the scale of focus, of this forum but, that's what makes this forum such a great place to be. I just love the diversity of interests that are to be found here.

Here are a couple more from my favourites library.

ATB,

Daniel

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Colin Heseltine on 19/05/2020 11:35:01:

… came across the NISI Closeup lens …

.

It looks like NiSi has an impressive range of products, and their web page for the close-up lens is rather nicely done:

**LINK**

https://en.nisioptics.com/nisi-close-up-lens-kit-macro-photography

… Let’s see some more of your results please, Colin

MichaelG.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 20/05/2020 16:54:28:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 20/05/2020 14:14:26:

The cameras work extremely well for casual photography but blowing up their results to A4 and above reveals lots of unwanted processing artefacts.

I think you are doing down just how powerful phone cameras are, the quality of the compression is comparable to a DSLR shooting JPEG. Their main flaw is small pixels, which limits dynamic range and low light capability.

I use either my phone or a bridge camera for all my 'standard' photography, including for MEW and my books and have used photos off my phone as covers on MEW, last one being issue 291 which does show some artefacts, but it was taken indoors without flash and is cropped from a much larger frame.

I only shoot RAW for my astrophotography, because I have to tease out very faint details.

Example – right click and select 'view image'. You'll see this image at native resolution 1:1.

It's cropped out of this:

Taken on my old Nokia phone, several years ago, any sign of objectionable artefacts?

Neil

It's a good point – rather like the argument about good versus cheap tools, does the difference matter? If a camera is fit for purpose and value for money, it's a good-un. Spending loads of money on a top quality camera and using it to snapshot the family on the beach is daft. More money than sense!

Anyway, the human eye and brain are extremely good at filling in the gaps, as Sam showed with his 'spark-plug' teaser that's actually a hole! We tune out flaws, replace missing bits and basically decode what we expect to see. So in ordinary photos at ordinary scales, it's hard to see errors. JPG compresses images to save space with a fast but lossy algorithm; despite 5% of the image detail being in lost in compression, it usually doesn't show. A better test, if image quality matters, is to photograph a fine grid on a plain background. As there is no distracting content, the brain can focus on the straight high-contrast edges and any distortion due to the camera can be measured.

Anyway, the answer to the question, 'any sign of objectionable artefacts?', the answer is yes, if you look hard enough!

Interesting image because it's been processed again by copying it to the forum, and isn't 'true'. It looks both better and worse on the forum than in my photo editor (gimp). But it can be seen the plain grey background is still smooth, whilst the edges of the '6' are turbulent. For ordinary use, not a problem.

I wasn't trying to put anyone off Smart Phones – they take excellent photographs. I don't have strong feelings against JPG vs RAW either! Most of my photos are shot in jpg because it's far more convenient. RAW is wheeled out only when the very best is demanded – astrophotography is a good example. I don't know if I'm typical, but I'm more likely to produce poor images due to lighting problems than JPG.

It's a cruel world. I like being able to change lenses on a DSLR and to adjust the camera manually. I don't like having to carry a lot of kit…

Dave

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

D9016, AKA Gordon Highlander. Trouble is, I've only to see a photo, or read about this particular Deltic to have visions of it charging up the Scottish glens en route to Aberdeen puling a rake of 8 or 10 coaches. Anyone else get mental pictures like this?

I think the problem, if indeed it is a problem, is the romantism associated with the Scottish Highlands and the clan Gordon.

Peter G. Shaw (being more than usually silly)

[Raphael GolezParticipant @raphaelgolez]

Posted by Sam Stones on 20/05/2020 22:10:31:

Looking like a round solid, our brains tend to flip what we see with what we are more familiar, thus presenting a mind-confusing illusion.

Sorry Peter, in reality, it is actually a hole through what remains of a sandwich of metal ‘shims’ after an EDM wire-cutting exercise.

Crammed and riveted between two pieces of 1/16" (1.5mm) gauge plate (CSt) are several hundred pieces of thin 0.003" (0.08mm) stainless steel (SSt).

Lying about over time (more than 30 years), the high carbon steel (gauge plate) has developed interesting rust spots.

Rather than disrupt this thread, I’ll start another about the rusting.

Sam

Thanks Sam, clever use of perspective at this magnification to induce a temporary acute confusional state! Post some more pictures like that….injects more fun in photography.

[Raphael GolezParticipant @raphaelgolez]

Posted by Sam Stones on 21/05/2020 03:21:15:

Several years ago, I risked buying a couple of achromatic close-up lenses (250mm and 500mm) for my Canon Legria G40 HD camcorder. Although authentic Canon lenses threaded 58mm, I couldn’t be sure they would be fully compatible accessories in an optical sense, that was the chance I took. Later tests proved to be what I considered acceptable results.

An early opportunity to test one of them came when I was fortunate enough to find this dragonfly to take home. Thinking it had died, I placed it on the nearest silver birch branch at a convenient height. As it happened, it was still alive and actually flew off later.

It was early morning and perhaps cold enough to limit the creature’s movement but not mine. I dashed inside, grabbed the tripod and the 500mm close-up lens.

I chose to run the camera on video, later selecting the single frames seen here.

Head and shoulders?

But what about the saw-tooth edges?

What purpose do they serve?

Any clues?

Sam

Intersting adaptation. Could it be a natures equivalent of vortex generator on wings? If it is then 300 million years ago evolution gave us practical solution to help with aerodynamics.

Very interesting to learn from insects the dynamics of flight and what they evolve to be efficient in what they do. Its very much related to engineering I guess. They also use hydraulic principles. Using macro photography greatly helps appreciate this adaptation. It enables us to see and appreciate nature at this level of magnification. I say keep it all coming guys.

[Raphael GolezParticipant @raphaelgolez]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 21/05/2020 10:01:34:

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 20/05/2020 16:54:28:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 20/05/2020 14:14:26:

The cameras work extremely well for casual photography but blowing up their results to A4 and above reveals lots of unwanted processing artefacts.

I think you are doing down just how powerful phone cameras are, the quality of the compression is comparable to a DSLR shooting JPEG. Their main flaw is small pixels, which limits dynamic range and low light capability.

I use either my phone or a bridge camera for all my 'standard' photography, including for MEW and my books and have used photos off my phone as covers on MEW, last one being issue 291 which does show some artefacts, but it was taken indoors without flash and is cropped from a much larger frame.

I only shoot RAW for my astrophotography, because I have to tease out very faint details.

Example – right click and select 'view image'. You'll see this image at native resolution 1:1.

It's cropped out of this:

Taken on my old Nokia phone, several years ago, any sign of objectionable artefacts?

Neil

It's a good point – rather like the argument about good versus cheap tools, does the difference matter? If a camera is fit for purpose and value for money, it's a good-un. Spending loads of money on a top quality camera and using it to snapshot the family on the beach is daft. More money than sense!

Anyway, the human eye and brain are extremely good at filling in the gaps, as Sam showed with his 'spark-plug' teaser that's actually a hole! We tune out flaws, replace missing bits and basically decode what we expect to see. So in ordinary photos at ordinary scales, it's hard to see errors. JPG compresses images to save space with a fast but lossy algorithm; despite 5% of the image detail being in lost in compression, it usually doesn't show. A better test, if image quality matters, is to photograph a fine grid on a plain background. As there is no distracting content, the brain can focus on the straight high-contrast edges and any distortion due to the camera can be measured.

Anyway, the answer to the question, 'any sign of objectionable artefacts?', the answer is yes, if you look hard enough!

Interesting image because it's been processed again by copying it to the forum, and isn't 'true'. It looks both better and worse on the forum than in my photo editor (gimp). But it can be seen the plain grey background is still smooth, whilst the edges of the '6' are turbulent. For ordinary use, not a problem.

I wasn't trying to put anyone off Smart Phones – they take excellent photographs. I don't have strong feelings against JPG vs RAW either! Most of my photos are shot in jpg because it's far more convenient. RAW is wheeled out only when the very best is demanded – astrophotography is a good example. I don't know if I'm typical, but I'm more likely to produce poor images due to lighting problems than JPG.

It's a cruel world. I like being able to change lenses on a DSLR and to adjust the camera manually. I don't like having to carry a lot of kit…

Dave

Made me smile Dave, I would imagine that being a professional photographer you have to carry all your office device with you. On the other side you have to be physically fit to carry all those gears. I would imagine that a full combat load out for the SAS on a month long reconnaissance mission would not carry that much. He comes fully equipped with knee pads.

[Raphael GolezParticipant @raphaelgolez]

My first attempt at photo stacking. This is an essential tool to keep everything in focus especially in macro photography. I used HeliconFocus as this a a fully dedicated photo stacking software and superior vs photoshop in terms of photo stacking as per review. I then rigged up my set up to prove the concept. I scavenged most of the things I needed to set up my camera. Hopefully once my PN-11 and PK-13 extension tubes I can utilise this for closer magnification. I'm also planning to get an Ultra macro lens with a magnification of 2.5 to 5 times.

Here is my poor mans version of macro rail…… Very good use of the Emco milling machine. I used the Unimat 3 to hold the specimen.

This is the results of my first attempt at photo stacking a macro shots. Magnification is 1:1. 30 pictures stack in total

I'm surprised and very happy with the results. I will start making a more permanent set up for a dedicated macro photography slider. I will utilise this cross slide as I am not using it. It is very precise and very good control with the increments you can move.

Raphael

Edited By RAPHAEL VAL GOLEZ 1 on 22/05/2020 21:49:53

Edited By RAPHAEL VAL GOLEZ 1 on 22/05/2020 21:51:02

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 21/05/2020 10:01:34:

Anyway, the answer to the question, 'any sign of objectionable artefacts?', the answer is yes, if you look hard enough!

I think I might question if that is 'objectionable' in the context of the original shot

Astro is very fussy – you might end up stretching out details that are only a few ADU above the background in a single frame. I run my main camera at -20C to minimise the noise.

Neil

[Sam StonesParticipant @samstones42903]

Very impressive results Raphael, and a smart move to use the slide from your mill. Now here’s another to add to your list. With a little more effort, you could try some stereo pairs. I wonder too if you’d need as many as 30 per pair.

With my fascination for complex PCB layouts, here’s my one serious effort.

Unless you are familiar with the method, unaided viewing can take a bit of practice. Both eyes need to be working, and if you can’t squint (i.e. turn your eyes in), it won’t work either. In addition, although it hasn’t happened to me, the method may make you feel uneasy.

With the image pair as large as you can make it, AND your eyes positioned horizontal (parallel) cross your eyes while trying to align one of the larger components.

Your brain should suddenly ‘lock’ the two images into one. Then, in the case of the PCB layout, it should begin to look like a 3D aerial view from a drone or similar.

I’ve included the separate .jpg files in my album if you’d like to experiment with them. Our left eye will line up with the right, and vicky verka.

I'm sure other members will improve on what I've written.

If you want the original (Canon) RAW files you’ll have to PM me.

Keep up the good work,

Sam

Edited By Sam Stones on 22/05/2020 22:55:15

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Those pictures are exceptional, Raphael.

Neil

[Enough!Participant @enough]

I could never do cross-eyed well Sam. More of a wall-eyed man myself (and not very good at that any more at my age – at one time I could just drop straight in ).

In any event, I copied the pic , flipped the shots and viewed with Ritech glasses .

That's pretty interesting. Never thought of doing stereo on PCBs.

[Sam StonesParticipant @samstones42903]

Thanks Bandersnatch,

The PCB was the most interesting thing I could grab before my curiosity and energy level began to fade.

Never having seen them before, I’d guess the half-blinds in those Ritech glasses separate the left/right image pair and don’t send you cross-eyed?

Raphael,

I like you suggestion that those dragonfly leading edge serrations may be … nature’s equivalent of vortex generators. I've wondered if they are a form of weaponry or a means of defense.

There’s so much to learn from what has evolved, e.g. how some of the bones of birds are hollow, while being braced internally.

In attracting other topics, I'm pleased to see this excellent thread is holding up.

Great stuff,

Sam

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Bandersnatch on 23/05/2020 01:27:04:

I could never do cross-eyed well Sam. More of a wall-eyed man myself (and not very good at that any more at my age – at one time I could just drop straight in ).

.

Try this one, Bandersnatch :

.

I can free-view it if I get the size right [more difficult since I had my cataracts done]

but it’s very effective in a stereoscope

MichaelG.

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi Daniel, like the purple flower, some really good shadowing there.

Raphael, excellent photos and I like your set-up.

Sam, your circuit board one reminds me of the stereoscope glasses that Wheetabix offered for a number of box tops (or something like that) and the free stereoscopic pictures that came in the Wheetabix box. This was back in the early 60's when I was just a kid. I can't get your picture to work though, probably have the same problem as Bandersnatch.

Just an edit to say that I've just used these old stereoscope glasses that were my grandfather's to view both MichaelG's example and Sam's circuit board photo but had to reduce the screen view size. MichaelG's one worked very well and Sam's one also work well, but of course there isn't any gap in this photo to get the real effect, but I could see it in 3D.

Regards Nick.

Edited By Nicholas Farr on 23/05/2020 07:56:48

[DanielParticipant @daniel]

Raphael, I do like the idea of the unimat.

I'll try and have a go later on, using the lathe. I'm really supposed to be painting the kitchen, though.

Thank's Nick.

ATB,

Daniel

[Enough!Participant @enough]

Posted by Sam Stones on 23/05/2020 02:28:49:

Never having seen them before, I’d guess the half-blinds in those Ritech glasses separate the left/right image pair and don’t send you cross-eyed?

Exactly, Sam. They're made for viewing side-by-side movies I think and I've used them for that with internet offerings quite effectively. Mostly I have the blinds wide open though.

Michael, that is very effective – thanks. I still can't free-view it any more though. Back in the day I was heavily into stereo photography (Stereo-Realist, Viewmaster and other cameras). I still have most of the cameras (except Viewmaster) I think. Film's presumably a problem these days.

In those days I could free view (wall-eyed) at the drop of a hat. Ah, the delights of ageing. I'm going down the road to cataracts myself

[Chris_CParticipant @chris_c]

The mention of smartphones getting better made me wonder what mine could do with macro esque.

Thats better than I expected, those are in a 3" square pot!

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Very effective, Chris

MichaelG.

[Sam StonesParticipant @samstones42903]

Indeed, Chris.

There's something special about contre-jour (back-lighting).

Sam

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 22/05/2020 22:16:22:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 21/05/2020 10:01:34:

Anyway, the answer to the question, 'any sign of objectionable artefacts?', the answer is yes, if you look hard enough!

I think I might question if that is 'objectionable' in the context of the original shot

…

Neil

The iffy 'six' isn't objectionable at all in context of the original shot. It's a good photo. We're having a violent agreement!

I'd say the photo taken with an old Nokia Phone is a good example of an engineering solution that's both Fit for Purpose and Value for Money. Phones are excellent for capturing photo opportunities like that loco. Not necessary to spend £10,000 on a high end camera, several lenses, flash equipment, filters, and a heavy tripod in order to get 'quality'. In fact a quality camera outfit would take so long to set up the engine would have gone.

But the Nokia isn't 'Fit for Purpose' in all circumstances; many situations demand more elaborate kit to get acceptable results. That's all I'm saying – horses for courses. Even inexpensive cameras work remarkably well and you don't have to be an expert to use them. Enjoy!

Dave

[VersabossParticipant @versaboss]

Raphael, could you please tell us how much you moved the camera between these 30 images?

It would also be interesting if the stacking software says something what is sensible/necessary and what not.
Can images be stacked say with 1/100 mm distance, or is that nonsense? I hope you see what I would like to know.

Thanks, and regards
Hans

Edited By Versaboss on 24/05/2020 12:31:34

[Raphael GolezParticipant @raphaelgolez]

Thanks Neil.

Sam, tried to look hard and make my eyes crossed but no luck. Ended up feeling dizzy and sick.

Thanks Nick, just utilising what I have. Wanted a dedicated macro rail but my problem is it could not hold its position on vertical plane. Maybe a more permanent solution is to adapt a low cost cross slide which I can tighten the gib strip to hold its position on a vertical plane.

Chris, great shots here. Very nice on this small carnivorous plant (or am I just imagining things). Take another picture during feeding time.

Hans, the movement on each shot is 0.25mm. I could do less than that but the focused area is quite good. You can lessen the distance to over lap it and the stacking software will do they rest. I use HeliconFocus. I think the software can handle quite a lot of stacks, never tried it more than 30 but I might just to see.

BW,

Raphael

 

 

Edited By RAPHAEL VAL GOLEZ 1 on 24/05/2020 14:36:59

Edited By RAPHAEL VAL GOLEZ 1 on 24/05/2020 14:38:10

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Versaboss on 24/05/2020 12:27:26:

[…]

It would also be interesting if the stacking software says something what is sensible/necessary and what not.
Can images be stacked say with 1/100 mm distance, or is that nonsense?

.

I don’t know what Raphael is using for stacking, but we commonly use one or two micron increments in microscopy.

Software like Zerene and Helicon will stack small or large numbers of frames, at equal or unequal step sizes.

MichaelG.

.

http://zerenesystems.com/

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 24/05/2020 15:30:55

[Author]

Posts