By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more
Forum sponsored by:
Forum sponsored by Allendale Jan 24th

Macro-photography

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
Daniel21/05/2020 08:05:11
avatar
294 forum posts
48 photos

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. laugh

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.

dsc_0014-001 (2).jpg

dsc_0044-001 (2).jpg

ATB,

Daniel

Michael Gilligan21/05/2020 08:48:09
avatar
15481 forum posts
668 photos
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.

SillyOldDuffer21/05/2020 10:01:34
5633 forum posts
1157 photos
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.

deltic crop.jpg

It's cropped out of this:

Deltic

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!

enginesix.jpg

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. Shaw21/05/2020 10:55:26
avatar
1077 forum posts
44 photos

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 Golez21/05/2020 12:11:21
110 forum posts
77 photos
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.

crw_7189 - puzzle.jpg

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

crw_7185---block.jpg

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 Golez21/05/2020 12:17:31
110 forum posts
77 photos
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.

img_0185---dragonfly.jpg

Head and shoulders?

img_0187---dragonfly---ed.jpg

But what about the saw-tooth edges?

img_0188 - scalloping.jpg

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 Golez21/05/2020 12:21:53
110 forum posts
77 photos
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.

deltic crop.jpg

It's cropped out of this:

Deltic

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!

enginesix.jpg

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 Golez22/05/2020 21:48:11
110 forum posts
77 photos

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.

_dt14522.jpeg

_dt14523.jpeg

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

2020-05-22 20-58-47 (b,radius18,smoothing6).jpeg

2020-05-22 21-15-36 (b,radius26,smoothing6).jpeg

2020-05-22 21-20-30 (b,radius26,smoothing6).jpeg

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 Wyatt22/05/2020 22:16:22
avatar
Moderator
17729 forum posts
697 photos
77 articles
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!

enginesix.jpg

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 Stones22/05/2020 22:54:06
avatar
726 forum posts
288 photos

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.

crw_7135---stereo-pair---pcb---both-sides---for-web.jpg

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 Wyatt23/05/2020 00:03:49
avatar
Moderator
17729 forum posts
697 photos
77 articles

Those pictures are exceptional, Raphael.

Neil

Bandersnatch23/05/2020 01:27:04
avatar
1595 forum posts
58 photos

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 blush.

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

Sam Stones23/05/2020 02:28:49
avatar
726 forum posts
288 photos

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 Gilligan23/05/2020 07:02:07
avatar
15481 forum posts
668 photos
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 :

d55ae060-32a5-4b80-8c86-a73138c793f0.jpeg

.

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 Farr23/05/2020 07:22:31
avatar
2215 forum posts
1066 photos

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.

cimg2818.jpg

Regards Nick.

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

Daniel23/05/2020 07:40:31
avatar
294 forum posts
48 photos

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

Bandersnatch23/05/2020 18:45:13
avatar
1595 forum posts
58 photos
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_C23/05/2020 19:39:25
23 forum posts

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 Gilligan23/05/2020 22:04:55
avatar
15481 forum posts
668 photos

Very effective, Chris

MichaelG.

Sam Stones23/05/2020 23:26:16
avatar
726 forum posts
288 photos

Indeed, Chris.

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

Sam

All Topics | Latest Posts

Please login to post a reply.

Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of Model Engineer or Model Engineers' Workshop? Use our magazine locator links to find your nearest stockist!

Find Model Engineer & Model Engineers' Workshop

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
ChesterUK
Eccentric July 5 2018
cowells
Ausee.com.au
Allendale Electronics
emcomachinetools
Warco
Eccentric Engineering
Subscription Offer

Latest "For Sale" Ads
Latest "Wanted" Ads
Get In Touch!

Do you want to contact the Model Engineer and Model Engineers' Workshop team?

You can contact us by phone, mail or email about the magazines including becoming a contributor, submitting reader's letters or making queries about articles. You can also get in touch about this website, advertising or other general issues.

Click THIS LINK for full contact details.

For subscription issues please see THIS LINK.

Digital Back Issues

Social Media online

'Like' us on Facebook
Follow us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter
 Twitter Logo

Pin us on Pinterest