Bifurcator wrote:
... that the disturbance of an insect by the size color and proximity of an object is at least affected by that objet handler's confidence, beliefs, will, and assumptions in disallowing it.
That's it -I'll use the Jedi critter trick! "This is not the photographer you're looking for". Brilliant!
Bifurcator wrote:
How much information is subdued by photographing an object illuminated by 5000K light filtering through a material which measures about a degree or less thermal radiation on a standard HSL/HSV color wheel ... lots of stuff here that made my head spin... on a cloudy day, under a canopy of any kind, or with any kind of common lights - even daylight would be out of the question in actuality. So just flash?
Well this kinda gets back to your earlier statement about changing the white balance in post -something I'd like to avoid. It just makes more sense to me to get it right with the camera. I've got nothing against using off the shelf stuff for a diffuser -I've used plenty of assorted household plastics. But a milk jug isn't designed to diffuse light, and from what I've seen a lot of common plastics do more to block the light coming from the flash than to diffuse it. Not a big deal if you only shoot up to life size, of have a very powerful accessory flash. But when shooting with the tiny flash heads on the MT-24EX at 2x and higher magnification I just don't have light to waste...
Bifurcator wrote:
We're talking entirely about the visible light spectrum here so with only our cameras we should be able to compile very convincing test results just by setting it up logically and comparing the two results. If either produces a noticeable amount of data loss the results have spoken.
I think the differences would, in some cases, be subtle and just looking at a histogram wouldn't be enough. You'd have to take identical shots with the camera on a tripod, print then both out, and compare them side by side.Your not going to see differences in glare an diffusion by looking at a histogram. Even resizing images for a web site can cause problems -in the recent MT-24EX Diffusion Test that I did it would be difficult to see the difference between the images if I had turned the highlight warning indicator off...
Bifurcator wrote:
The second major difference I would assume to be the lens and bucket density differences between our respective image sensors. I'm using a tiny little 2/3" Interlaced RGBG CCD sensor with 8.3 megapixels crammed on. That's half the area of a common 4/3'rds sensor.
Honestly if you are shooting in good light, and I'm not (or I don't know the difference between good light and bad light), then your images would look better than mine -the quality of the light in a scene is critical to getting good photos. As for what can be done with a bridge camera look no further than my mentor Professor Mark Plonsky. His macro photography with a Canon G3 has inspired a number of macro shooters. Although he uses a DSLR and the MPE-65mm macro lens now...
Well, you're right that "color balancing" in ACR and others, does cause information loss. It is a linear operation. If it wasn't then the entire hue wheel would rotate. Anyone can test this by sliding the "Temperature" slider all the way over to one end - tint too and sliding it all the way in combination should blow away a LARGE portion of pixels in most images. A true "Hue" adjustment on the other hand is 100% lossless and you can change it as often as you want as much as you want and always be able to rotate it back into place for 100% recovery. My argument is based on the assumption that there's likely less than a few degrees Kelvin (less than 150 for sure!) difference between an "official" piece of plastic and one my eyes tell me is "white". This is not even considering all the chromatic pollution introduced by bounced light and alternate light sources adding into the mix.
Light source color temperature, size, and intensity or "good light" as you call it is also is very important. We can do the "extreme example" thing in order to test this too. Shooting under a 100% red light will kill 100% of your greens and blues resulting in a comparative information loss. Likewise a light source that produces 50% more red will kill a large percentage of greens and blues. etc. etc. And of course we're all aware of how our sensors or film emulsion behaves under low intensity light - or sources that produce intense specular reflections and/or dispersion with some materials.
All of these properties and mechanisms additively factor into the conditions which can indeed affect the quality of a photograph (IQ). How much depends of course on their relative amounts combined with the limits of human perception and the limits of the lenses and sensors being used. If we single out only color temperature difference of the plastics used between you and I my guesstimate is that the differences are not perceivable. Certainly using two light sources would make a VERY big difference as would the lens and sensor being used. For example my lens is just not capable of these kinds of magnification powers without additional attachments:
For canon EOS - - EOS reverse lens mount adapter . I just bought a 52 and a 58 off ebay . Mine were 10 dollars each out of texas .
You can do a search on ebay starting with EOS reverse lens and add / change wording to find what you are looking for .
Get an old minolta, pentax, nikon, takamar, manual focus lens , set f stop , and simply hold it up to the camera body and take a few shots of a static object and see what you get it's that easy . you can use your 60 macro , set f stop , Mash DOF preview button,while removing the lens from the camera and it will stay fixed at that f stop , rev and hold to body face , put camera in AV mode meter and take the shot.
.
Thanks for this Tom. Utter genius! Works a treat with my 50mm 1.8 mk1. Having fun. Results later.
Yes on ebay . About 10 with s/h
. EOS 58 ADAPTER
EOS 52 ADAPTER
EOS 55 ADAPTER---- EVERYONE WAS OUT LAST WEED
EOS screw adapter .
lens reversing adapter
There are a bunch of names they are listed under .
Thanks a lot Tom. I wish to do more macro shooting this year, and I will remember your advise. It's photographers like you who are generous in spirit
and realize there are many photo opportunities out here. Sharing knowledge
improves us all as people first and photographers second.
Really great thread. Don't stop by often enough. Usually hang out in wedding forum. Lots of great tips and inexpensive ways to do macro and make it fun.
My fave is a set of Kenko tubes. I purchased a set in B&S in great shape for $115 and I have seen them go for less. A bit more than your $45 Nikkor zoom, but worth it and attach your fav sharp lens and go! Toobz are your friend for macro-
Btw, I tried the Canon and they are nice too, but not worth the extra, IMO, build is good on the Kenkos and the air inside the Kenko is of equal quality to the Canon.
;-)
This question is mainly aimed at Tom Hicks since it was his work earlier in the thread that raised this.
In terms of DoF are you racking the f-stop as wide as it will go or are you letting off a whole load of shots, shifting the focus each time and then stacking them?
One of the closest and best shots I have is one I made with the head of my Elmarit Leitz mounted on an adapter on bellows to my Canon. I don't know the magnification but over 5:1 and sharp as could be. The little bugs, so small I could barely see them with my eye, never looked so good. The cost was almost nothing as no one wanted the bellows, the adapter was found in some misc stuff and it all worked great.
Hahaha, I wish that I'd read this before spewing 350 dollars on my 90mm tamron. I'm still going to use my Tamron but when I'm going to try that this method for sure on my 50mm f1.8!
So to give this a go and get more than 1:1 magnification I should go with a lens wider than 50mm, right? And I assume picking up an older Canon FD or similar MF lens with an aperture ring will make my life easier when it comes to manually setting the aperture with the lens reversed? If so, it sure beats shelling out for a dedicated macro lens
Mike Scott wrote:
In response to lighting. It doesn't have to be expensive. Here I've used a foam disposable bowl and a piece of aluminum foil along with the pop-up flash. Total cost around $0.10
Nothing fancy, but it shows that You can get descent lighting with short money. Snapped this between the time I got home and 5 minutes later when the thunder shower started.
CORRECTION: Make that "Yet another !@#$% thunder shower started!"
Mike
Mike, that is the most ridiculously clever contraption I have ever come across. I would have been a loooong time thinking that one up. Awesome! Thank you very much for sharing!!!
Ok so I'm trying to understand something. The lower the focal length, the more magnification you get? I want to buy one of those reverse rings. There are tons on ebay for $20. Should I get one for my 50mm f/1.8 or for my 18-55mm kit lens (been sitting in a box for 3 years lol). Thanks for any info, I'm excited to step into the world of macro!!!!!
.gif "2026 © dschill"){kind=small}
