Macro-photography

[Raymond GriffinParticipant @raymondgriffin40985]

A crystal in the urine of an individual with kidney disease. I took this in the 1980’s using a scanning electron microscope; so, may not be considered macro photography. Perhaps not as beautiful as some of the coloured photos already shown, but fascinating. At the time, I made 3D photos of normal and diseased tissues, which look amazing when looked at in a hand viewer or projected onto a screen. Hard to add 3D samples here.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by roy entwistle on 27/05/2020 11:56:28:

If anyone wants to have a play with focus stacking, PICOLAY is a free program. Is it better to move the camera while stacking or to use the focus ring ? Do you focus front to back or back to front ?

Have fun

Roy

.

It’s generally better to move the camera [or the subject], Roy

Order of stacking is not important, but It seems more intuitive to start at the front.

Increments should preferably be a little less than the depth of field

… but rules are there to be broken.

MichaelG.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Raymond Griffin on 27/05/2020 13:12:01:

.
A crystal in the urine of an individual with kidney disease.

[…]

Hard to add 3D samples here.

.

That’s a great image, Raymond … I would love to see it in 3D

If you post the two images separately, I’m sure we could pair them up for ourselves.

MichaelG.

[Enough!Participant @enough]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 27/05/2020 13:27:24:

If you post the two images separately, I’m sure we could pair them up for ourselves.

 

+1

Posting the images separately – or, Raymond, simply putting them in your album with a note to that effect in a post here – would be fine for me.

My breath is bated.

Edited By Bandersnatch on 27/05/2020 16:24:04

[Enough!Participant @enough]

Raphael,

Just a word of appreciation for starting this thread. It has been really, really interesting !

[Raymond GriffinParticipant @raymondgriffin40985]

I will look out some stereo pairs and post them. At present I use a stereo projector and polaroid glasses, all a bit clumsy. I will separate some pairs and put them through my Nikon Coolscan to preserve the resolution. It would be great if someone could come up with a simple way of getting them onto a computer. I think that it would need red and blue/green filters as I cannot see how polaroid separation could work on a PC.

[Enough!Participant @enough]

Posted by Raymond Griffin on 27/05/2020 17:08:09:

think that it would need red and blue/green filters as I cannot see how polaroid separation could work on a PC.

Red (L)-Blue(R) anaglyph is one way. I think most stereo3D-philes would prefer either

– side-by-side postings in:

(a) cross-eyed mode – right image on left; left image on right, or

(b) wall-eyed (parallel-eyed) mode – left image on left right image on right

or

– simply post the individual image and let the user do his/her favourite thing.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Bandersnatch on 27/05/2020 17:31:30:

or

– simply post the individual image and let the user do his/her favourite thing.

+1

… That was the essence of my original request

MichaelG.

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

By using two of my images of Jupiter, taken several minutes apart, to form this stereo image, you can view the planet in 3D with a moon suspended above the surface an another closer to you at bottom left. The relatively rapid rotation of the planet and its moons acts as a surrogate for moving the viewing position.

Just display the image quite large on your monitor (right click and 'view image&#39, relax and cross your eyes so the two planet images overlap in the middle.

http://www.stubmandrel.co.uk/astronomy/233-jupiter-in-3d

[AdrianRParticipant @adrianr18614]

Blimy I manged it, helps if you put your hand between your eyes too

[Raphael GolezParticipant @raphaelgolez]

Nice photo Sam, for a while I thought it was a tick. Never seen a beetle with that colour pattern before. Are you still using your bellows?

Lainchy, nice capture. Very interesting.

Rod, very nice. Your the first one to post a butterfly picture here. Haven't seen one yet in my garden. I'm sure i will get a cabbage white soon feasting on my packhoy.

Raymond, quite amazing to see the crystals at this magnification. Do you know what this is? Thanks for sharing.

Roy, Michael explained ways to do photo stacking, I move my camera anchored securely to my milling machine cross slide. I focus from front to back.

Bandersnatch, thanks! It is a very good experience for all of us here sharing our macro photo and everything else that needs magnification. The thread is open to related topics, that way we all can enjoy discussing things here.

Neil, Thanks. I did it after several tries. Felt dizzy. Our eye muscle acts like a yolk muscle, moving together to produce one image. Making two image turn to one is so difficult. When I do eye examination for my patient with neurological issues I test all the eye muscle and back track the cranial nerves that innervates it so I can locate more or less where the lesion is prior to scanning. Sadly the art of clinical examination in our junior doctors are taking a back seat.

Thank you all for sharing your photos here. I really enjoy the discussion here. Lets keep it going.

Raphael

 

Edited By Raphael Golez on 27/05/2020 20:44:15

Edited By Raphael Golez on 27/05/2020 20:45:06

[Enough!Participant @enough]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 27/05/2020 19:34:50:

Just display the image quite large on your monitor (right click and 'view image', relax and cross your eyes so the two planet images overlap in the middle.

No way I could ever do cross-eyed (nor much of wall-eyed these days) so I copied the image, flipped the views and looked at them with glasses.

Interesting that the feature near the edge at the 1 -2 o'clock position looks like a hole. I think it's just the colouration … light on one side and dark on the other that gives it a similar appearance to a side-lit crater.

Or maybe it's just me

[jaCK HobsonParticipant @jackhobson50760]

This is currently protecting my precious bog-roll supply:

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Bandersnatch on 27/05/2020 22:48:09:

Interesting that the feature near the edge at the 1 -2 o'clock position looks like a hole. I think it's just the colouration … light on one side and dark on the other that gives it a similar appearance to a side-lit crater.

Or maybe it's just me

.

No, not just you … that’s a direct result of parallel-viewing a cross-eyed pair

MichaelG.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

PostScript:

Here’s a copy of what I wrote on the ‘microbehunter’ forum, when a similar issue was discussed there:

[quote]

I think it’s fair to say that the the cross-eyed vs parallel viewing preference is more to do with physiology than with perception.
At the eye/brain level, both types of observer are basically seeing the same thing
The Left eye sees the Left camera image, and the Right eye sees the Right camera image

Physiology dictates our personal preference for viewing method, and that preference dictates how we need the images to be arranged.

Personally, I find it easy to set my ‘gaze’ at infinity [thus, parallel], and adjust [*] my focus to close-up
Others find it easier to first stare at a close view [thus, converging], and then exaggerate that to ‘cross-eyed’
Therefore, I need L=L and R=R and they need L=R and R=L image layouts.

Free-viewing, in either mode, results in a trio of images … The central one of which is in stereo
The ‘wrong’ layout [whichever that might be for an individual results in a concave stereo image when convex was intended.

Hope that makes sense !

MichaelG.
.

[*] This has become more difficult since I had my Cataract operations, because my eyes now have no natural focus adjustment, but the underlying preference remains.

P.S. ___ This book, published in 1935, remains a wealth of information: **LINK**

https://archive.org/details/stereoscopicphot029899mbp/page/n9/mode/2up

[/quote]

.

MichaelG.

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Bandersnatch on 27/05/2020 22:48:09:

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 27/05/2020 19:34:50:

Just display the image quite large on your monitor (right click and 'view image', relax and cross your eyes so the two planet images overlap in the middle.

No way I could ever do cross-eyed (nor much of wall-eyed these days) so I copied the image, flipped the views and looked at them with glasses.

Interesting that the feature near the edge at the 1 -2 o'clock position looks like a hole. I think it's just the colouration … light on one side and dark on the other that gives it a similar appearance to a side-lit crater.

Or maybe it's just me

I've had a think about his… I don't think it's you I think its a real effect.

That's the shadow of the moon, because the moon (Europa) above it has moved, its shadow has moved too, ideally it would have moved with the rotation of the surface rather than the motion of the moon, so it is in the 'wrong place' resulting in two slightly mis registered images if perceived as on the surface (your crater) or as floating slightly above the surface.

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by jaCK Hobson on 28/05/2020 09:06:54:

This is currently protecting my precious bog-roll supply:

I had one of those snouty things in here the other day.

Took three attempts to get it out the window.

[Raphael GolezParticipant @raphaelgolez]

Hi Michael, its interesting you mentioned cataracts. I always think that the lens in our eyes is comparable to a prime lens which provides a fixed point of focus in the back of our eyes (retina). If there are error in the general structure of the lens then the focus point of light will be altered thus causing error of focusing hence we used corrective lens to address this issue. Cataract is the "clouding" of the lens (we won't go to the causes as there are so many). If our lens is not clear then light could not pass through thereby affecting its ability to focus light properly thereby affecting vision.

Raphael

[Raphael GolezParticipant @raphaelgolez]

Posted by jaCK Hobson on 28/05/2020 09:06:54:

This is currently protecting my precious bog-roll supply:

Great picture Jack. I'm sure its a moth but what kind i have no clue.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Raphael Golez on 28/05/2020 10:47:55:

Hi Michael, its interesting you mentioned cataracts. I always think that the lens in our eyes is comparable to a prime lens which provides a fixed point of focus in the back of our eyes (retina). If there are error in the general structure of the lens then the focus point of light will be altered thus causing error of focusing hence we used corrective lens to address this issue. Cataract is the "clouding" of the lens (we won't go to the causes as there are so many). If our lens is not clear then light could not pass through thereby affecting its ability to focus light properly thereby affecting vision.

Raphael

.

This is probably taking things too far off-topic, Raphael … but please let me briefly explain my understanding:

• The majority of the refractive power in our eye comes from the Cornea, which is ‘fixed focus’
• Focusing is effected by the flexible lens within the eye, whose focal length is changed by muscles … relaxed it provides our personal ‘infinity’ and when the muscles contract, it bulges to give close vision.
• This process is called ‘accommodation’
• Ageing causes the flexible lens to harden, which is why our range of accommodation reduces
• Cataract [which, as you say, covers a multitude of defects] is typically cured by replacement of the defective flexible lens with a fixed-focus item.
• This means that whilst cataract surgery dramatically restores vision, it also reduces accommodation to zero.

The problem I now have with parallel free-viewing stereo pairs is caused by my inability to change focus without adding corrective spectacles. … It is difficult to maintain the distant gaze whilst selecting the appropriate optical aid.

There is no such problem when using a stereoscope.

MichaelG.

[Raphael GolezParticipant @raphaelgolez]

Correct Michael. That is how it works physiologically in a "normal" functioning lens. Our lens make sure that it is focusing in the same fixed area (focal point) which is our retina. Im not 100% sure but the focal length is dependent on the shape of the eye (any opthamologist here) .The plot thickens if you add the Iris which i would compare similarly to the aperture. All in all our eyes behave similarly to the camera lens or should I say we copy the eye and incorporate it in the lens design. The other thing we have to factor in is how we perceived each image from each eyes to be analysed in our visual cortex to produce a single image, that's if our eye yolk muscle works normally. To me this is not far off-topic as it is relevant to the subject and we all learn. That is how we have conversation in real life. Thanks for the input Michael.

Raphael

Edited By Raphael Golez on 28/05/2020 11:40:51

Edited By Raphael Golez on 28/05/2020 11:44:57

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 28/05/2020 10:29:33:

PostScript:

Here’s a copy of what I wrote on the ‘microbehunter’ forum, when a similar issue was discussed there:

[…]

.

Here’s a direct link to that discussion: **LINK**

http://www.microbehunter.com/microscopy-forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9387

Saul kindly provided both versions of his stereo pair … and the difference in effect should be quite evident

MichaelG.

[Enough!Participant @enough]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 28/05/2020 09:29:52:

No, not just you … that’s a direct result of parallel-viewing a cross-eyed pair

Ah, but I wasn't. As noted, I download the original image and flipped the pair before parallel-viewing.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Bandersnatch on 28/05/2020 16:28:24:

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 28/05/2020 09:29:52:

No, not just you … that’s a direct result of parallel-viewing a cross-eyed pair

 

Ah, but I wasn't. As noted, I download the original image and flipped the pair before parallel-viewing.

.

I stand corrected

Evidently mis-understood, because I didn’t properly read your preceding post. 

MichaelG..

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 28/05/2020 17:23:29

[Martin ConnellyParticipant @martinconnelly55370]

I had not trouble viewing the 3D image, too much messing about with SIRDS.

Martin C

[Author]

Posts