Liverwort Macro
Paul Furman
-original size is worth clicking
This was made from a stack of 300 frames at about 7 microns per step for
a total depth of 2mm. These little cups hold water for young plants to
get started then a raindrop splashes them out to spread.
A few more here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/sets/72157623505759735/detail/
Richard
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:hnobjf$546$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Now that is impressive.
OG
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:hnobjf$546$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> -original size is worth clicking
>
> This was made from a stack of 300 frames at about 7 microns per step for a
> total depth of 2mm. These little cups hold water for young plants to get
> started then a raindrop splashes them out to spread.
>
Very impressive. How does stacking work with macro photography? I assume
it's done to widen the DOF, just not sure of the theory and practice behind
it.
no66y©
"Paul Furman" wrote in message
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4436917187/sizes/l/in/set-72157623505759735/
> -original size is worth clicking
Wow, impressive.
--
no66y©
no66y AT gmx DOT co DOT uk
Alan Browne
Great detail.
I'd punch up the contrast a tad.
--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
Alan Browne
>
> -original size is worth clicking
>
> This was made from a stack of 300 frames at about 7 microns per step for
> a total depth of 2mm. These little cups hold water for young plants to
> get started then a raindrop splashes them out to spread.
How did you control the focus steps?
Paul Furman
> "Paul Furman"<paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
> news:hnobjf$546$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4436917187/sizes/l/in/set-72157623505759735/
>> -original size is worth clicking
>>
>> This was made from a stack of 300 frames at about 7 microns per step for a
>> total depth of 2mm. These little cups hold water for young plants to get
>> started then a raindrop splashes them out to spread.
>>
>
> Very impressive.
Glad you all enjoyed, it's a lot of work and many less exciting results
preceded. I think these liverworts (little moss/fern type plants) have
particularly large cells so it looks like 50x or something.
> How does stacking work with macro photography? I assume
> it's done to widen the DOF, just not sure of the theory and practice behind
> it.
Right, the DOF is just a few microns (thousandth of mm's). That's with a
35mm f/2 lens but at 10x magnification, that's f/22 which is starting to
suffer from diffraction, even on 12 MP full frame. More than that & you
need a microscope objective, then DOF *really* gets ridiculous.
The software & technique can get very involved but with a suitable
subject and good luck, you basically just push a button & it runs. I use
Zerene Stacker which has a nice feature for scrolling through the set
cloning parts of different layers for final cleanup and to remove dust
streaks. Flat subjects are easy, hairy spiders with overlapping legs are
real tough. Lighting is a challenge. Composition can be very challenging
because you can't really see what it's going to look like and focus
steps change the scale so there's always some cropping; not always easy
to predict.
Paul Furman
> On 10-03-16 12:28 , Paul Furman wrote:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4436917187/sizes/l/in/set-72157623505759735/
>>
>>
>> -original size is worth clicking
>>
>> This was made from a stack of 300 frames at about 7 microns per step for
>> a total depth of 2mm. These little cups hold water for young plants to
>> get started then a raindrop splashes them out to spread.
>
> How did you control the focus steps?
I bolted a micrometer to the front of the bellows:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4172437271/
It's basically just a finely threaded screw that pushes the bellows
closed. There are lots of ways to go, probably the best would be mount
the camera or subject stage on a focus block salvaged from a microscope,
or a small machinist's table. The rest of my rig is for positioning x,y
& tilt.
Tim Conway
FANTASTIC! Let's see the P&S troll say something about this. NO point and
shoot that I've ever seen is capable of this. Bellows and a good lens etc.
always does macro best. You took it to the next level. :-)
Charles E Hardwidge
news:hnp4cp$k1u$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>>> On 10-03-16 12:28 , Paul Furman wrote:
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4436917187/sizes/l/in/set-72157623505759735/
>>>>
> FANTASTIC! Let's see the P&S troll say something about this. NO point and
> shoot that I've ever seen is capable of this. Bellows and a good lens
> etc. always does macro best. You took it to the next level. :-)
No idea what that twerp would say but this is probably as good as it gets
for the Canon G series with a macro lens and adaptor:
http://www.lensmateonline.com/newsite/G7macro.html
CHDK looks like it can handle focus control. I only skimmed the page so
don't know how it can be tweaked or scripted.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/DoF_Stacking
FU trimmed to alt.photography cuz I hate crossposting.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
LOL!
wrote:
That's because you're an inexperienced moron.
> Bellows and a good lens etc.
>always does macro best. You took it to the next level. :-)
Best? There's enough hazy softness in these images to emergency-land an
airplane safely.
Had he used the right equipment he could have obtained the DOF required
without any of the ugly soft edges by using larger apertures, as well as
only needing 1/10th the frames or even less than that. What a shame he
wasted all that time to get such dismal results. Oh well.
If nothing else I got a good laugh out of it. And even more laughs over you
fools fawning over such poorly done macrophotography.
LOL!
Paul Furman
P&S can generally work fine, you just can't get the lens off to focus a
macro lens directly. I'm tempted to get a micro 4/3 camera for this,
because frankly all that mirror slapping is a pain. Microscope
objectives are hard to get to cover a 35mm frame but the best macro
bellows lenses project a larger image circle probably better suited to
medium format or even large format. Microscope objectives however
deliver more resolution in the center than a DSLR sensor can make use of
<sigh>.
Panorama stitching presents major problems because of the same parallax
issues, when stepping the zoom, it would be ideal to not move the
position of the entrance pupil but in practice that usually means large
magnification changes. You just keep running into limitations whichever
direction you turn with macro/micro stuff. Fun challenge though!
Noons
Very nice. Do you reverse the 20mm or use it straight with the bellows?
Tim Conway
"LOL!" <l...@lol.org> wrote in message
news:fj80q5124hcbger33...@4ax.com...
Well, I'll echo most everyone else here....let's see your images to refute
this.
What? None to show? Oh my...
Tim Conway
reason. Not just *tradition*.
LOL!
wrote:
Why bother? You DSLR-Trolls will yell the same things over and over again,
"It's STOLEN!" The EXIF was edited!" "It wasn't taken with a P&S camera!"
Really, do you even have to ask, when knowing full-well what your replies
will be? 100% guaranteed.
You're really not worth my time.
LOL!
LOL!
wrote:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and believing a foolish thing, it
remains a foolish thing."
Alan Browne
I almost suggested a macro rail with a micrometer movement...
I like the light difuser. Very high tech. Watch that budget!
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>> made from a stack of 300 frames at about 7 microns per step
>> for a total depth of 2mm.
>
It's designed to be used straight, from around 4x to 13x.
Charles E Hardwidge
> Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>> No idea what that twerp would say but this is probably as good as it gets
>> for the Canon G series with a macro lens and adaptor:
>>
>> http://www.lensmateonline.com/newsite/G7macro.html
>>
>> CHDK looks like it can handle focus control. I only skimmed the page so
>> don't know how it can be tweaked or scripted.
>>
>> http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/DoF_Stacking
>>
>> FU trimmed to alt.photography cuz I hate crossposting.
>
> P&S can generally work fine, you just can't get the lens off to focus a
> macro lens directly. I'm tempted to get a micro 4/3 camera for this,
> because frankly all that mirror slapping is a pain. Microscope objectives
> are hard to get to cover a 35mm frame but the best macro bellows lenses
> project a larger image circle probably better suited to medium format or
> even large format. Microscope objectives however deliver more resolution
> in the center than a DSLR sensor can make use of <sigh>.
>
> Panorama stitching presents major problems because of the same parallax
> issues, when stepping the zoom, it would be ideal to not move the position
> of the entrance pupil but in practice that usually means large
> magnification changes. You just keep running into limitations whichever
> direction you turn with macro/micro stuff. Fun challenge though!
Macro photography doesn't interest me much (at the moment). I've got no idea
if your images are good or bad as I don't have much to compare them to but
you seem to be getting good results and sound like you know what you're
talking about to my ears.
Have you thought about building a motorised platform and tethering to
automate the process, and is there plug and play kit to do this?
It's orthogonal to the subject but I read about processing shots taken
through opaque filters to render images. Apparently, that may be good for
stuff shot at the cellular level as the processing can penetrate cell walls.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Paul Furman
>
> FU trimmed to alt.photography cuz I hate crossposting.
Then don't cross-post - just reply here.
Atheist Chaplain
translation
"I'm scared Mummy, the big bad real photographers are picking on me again
and because I have no valid reply I will resort to name calling and make up
ludicrous excuses for my lack of talent"
does LOL stand for Loser of Losers ??
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi
Atheist Chaplain
in your case its only one person saying foolish things, that one person
being you. It may be correct in your deluded little world, but the rest of
us live in a place called reality, you should move out from your parents
basement and experience it sometime :-)
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote
>
>> You just keep running into limitations whichever
>> direction you turn with macro/micro stuff. Fun challenge though!
>
> Macro photography doesn't interest me much (at the moment). I've got no idea
> if your images are good or bad as I don't have much to compare them to but
> you seem to be getting good results and sound like you know what you're
> talking about to my ears.
I think the one I linked to came out excellent. Most haven't.
> Have you thought about building a motorised platform and tethering to
> automate the process, and is there plug and play kit to do this?
Ugh, yeah some people do that. I have no clue how to build & operate a
robot though <g>.
> It's orthogonal to the subject but I read about processing shots taken
> through opaque filters to render images. Apparently, that may be good for
> stuff shot at the cellular level as the processing can penetrate cell
> walls.
Microscopy is *way* over my head. There are all sorts of sophisticated
and unlikely sounding techniques and hurdles. It's like if a creature 40
miles tall landed on our planet; they would need very advanced equipment
to even see us, let alone communicate. If they tried dropping a
microphone into our city, there would be so much noise, they'd never
hear us talking <g>.
Paul Furman
> Tim Conway wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4436917187/sizes/l/in/set-72157623505759735/
>>>>> -original size is worth clicking
>>>>>
>>>>> This was made from a stack of 300 frames at about 7 microns per step for
>>>>> a total depth of 2mm. These little cups hold water for young plants to
>>>>> get started then a raindrop splashes them out to spread.
>>>>
>>>> How did you control the focus steps?
>>>
>>> I bolted a micrometer to the front of the bellows:
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4172437271/
>>> It's basically just a finely threaded screw that pushes the bellows
>>> closed. There are lots of ways to go, probably the best would be mount the
>>> camera or subject stage on a focus block salvaged from a microscope, or a
>>
>> FANTASTIC! Let's see the P&S troll say something about this. NO point and
>> always does macro best. You took it to the next level. :-)
My comment on that... lost in a followup re-direct:
P&S can generally work fine, you just can't get the lens off to focus a
macro lens directly. I'm tempted to get a micro 4/3 camera for this,
because frankly all that mirror slapping is a pain. Microscope
objectives are hard to get to cover a 35mm frame but the best macro
bellows lenses project a larger image circle probably better suited to
medium format or even large format. Microscope objectives however
deliver more resolution in the center than a DSLR sensor can make use of
<sigh>.
Panorama stitching presents major problems because of the same parallax
issues, when stepping the zoom, it would be ideal to not move the
position of the entrance pupil but in practice that usually means large
magnification changes. You just keep running into limitations whichever
direction you turn with macro/micro stuff. Fun challenge though!
> Best? There's enough hazy softness in these images to emergency-land an
> airplane safely.
Yeah, it's very difficult to rival the pixel level sharpness of
conventional photography. I was already at f/22 which is diffraction
limited on my sensor and I've taken it to 36x f/74 to get a little more
detail however with *very* poor pixel level sharpness:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4419802663/in/photostream/
-that seems ridiculous but it resolved more detail in the tip than
anything short of a microscope objective.
I could stop down a little to reduce the glow/halo artifacts but would
lose some detail with that move. I've tested it. Soft lighting helps.
Microscope objectives are sharper but also faster so the halos & stuff
get worse and you have to be even more careful with lighting, even
smaller steps. Aperture is what buys you detail.
> Had he used the right equipment he could have obtained the DOF required
> without any of the ugly soft edges by using larger apertures
Uh, nope. The lens I used stops down from f/2 to f/16 (as a theoretical
infinity metric) - f/16 would translate into f/176 for this shot. That
would be smart if I only wanted a postage stamp though: a lot less work.
Or shoot at less magnification & crop.
Troy Piggins
Nice work. Good stack. 300 frames - whoah...
--
Troy Piggins
Charles E Hardwidge
> Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>> Have you thought about building a motorised platform and tethering to
>> automate the process, and is there plug and play kit to do this?
>
> Ugh, yeah some people do that. I have no clue how to build & operate a
> robot though <g>.
>
>> It's orthogonal to the subject but I read about processing shots taken
>> through opaque filters to render images. Apparently, that may be good for
>> stuff shot at the cellular level as the processing can penetrate cell
>> walls.
>
> Microscopy is *way* over my head. There are all sorts of sophisticated and
> unlikely sounding techniques and hurdles. It's like if a creature 40 miles
> tall landed on our planet; they would need very advanced equipment to even
> see us, let alone communicate. If they tried dropping a microphone into
> our city, there would be so much noise, they'd never hear us talking <g>.
Just mentioning this stuff it to show I'm paying attention and to see if any
ideas shake out.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Tim Conway
"Troy Piggins" <usene...@piggo.com> wrote in message
news:2010031...@usenet.piggo.com...
I think it's quite an achievement - way over my little head. ;-)
Walter Banks
Paul Furman wrote:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4436917187/sizes/l/in/set-72157623505759735/
> -original size is worth clicking
>
> This was made from a stack of 300 frames at about 7 microns per step for
> a total depth of 2mm. These little cups hold water for young plants to
> get started then a raindrop splashes them out to spread.
>
> A few more here:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/sets/72157623505759735/detail/
Wow,
high tech, low tech and the skills to put it all together and make it work.
I am impressed.
Gotta love your set-up picture complete with light diffuser.
This is pushing the envelop and getting results
Walter Banks
Paul Furman
There was a guy working on a motorized kit for sale...
Here's one for $1500:
http://www.saphicon.com/focus-drive-integrated-s.htm
CNC milling for $2300:
http://www.sherline.com/8400pg.htm
Charles E Hardwidge
> There was a guy working on a motorized kit for sale...
> Here's one for $1500:
> http://www.saphicon.com/focus-drive-integrated-s.htm
> CNC milling for $2300:
> http://www.sherline.com/8400pg.htm
Ouch.
Some cheaper kit stuff for stepper motors and CNC:
http://www.piclist.com/tecHREF/io/stepper/linistep/index.htm
http://www.diycnc.co.uk/html/cnc_systems.html
Links including discussion forums:
http://www.diycnc.co.uk/html/links.html
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Albert Ross
<smit...@btinternet.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
>news:hnobjf$546$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4436917187/sizes/l/in/set-72157623505759735/
>> -original size is worth clicking
>>
>> This was made from a stack of 300 frames at about 7 microns per step for a
>> total depth of 2mm. These little cups hold water for young plants to get
>> started then a raindrop splashes them out to spread.
>>
>> A few more here:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/sets/72157623505759735/detail/
>
>Now that is impressive.
>
>
Me too!
Damnation, I can't find it on my bookshelves which means it's still in
the garage, but there's a UK photographer who does work like that
using very powerful, very fast electronic flash
Give me a couple of years to either find the book or remember his name
and I'll get back to you
Annika1980
wrote:
>
> CHDK looks like it can handle focus control. I only skimmed the page so
> don't know how it can be tweaked or scripted.
>
> http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/DoF_Stacking
The Magic Lantern firmware for the Fab 5D2 incorporates some focus
stacking.
It is my understanding that much of the code is ported over from the
CheckDick program.
Albert Ross
Walter Banks
Paul Furman wrote:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4436917187/sizes/l/in/set-72157623505759735/
> -original size is worth clicking
>
> This was made from a stack of 300 frames at about 7 microns per step for
> a total depth of 2mm. These little cups hold water for young plants to
> get started then a raindrop splashes them out to spread.
>
> A few more here:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/sets/72157623505759735/detail/
What did you use to post-processes 300 frames?
Walter..
Paul Furman
Well, I didn't shoot in raw so getting the exposure right is important
and a custom white balance. Stacking tends to increase contrast and it's
hard to know if some important bright shiny spot will appear at some
point so a little underexposure is wise.
From above: "I use Zerene Stacker which has a nice feature for
scrolling through the set cloning parts of different layers for final
cleanup and to remove dust streaks." 300 frames takes a pretty powerful
computer, I had a 64 bit loaner for that, it probably would crash on my
3-year old laptop but they can be broken down in smaller subsets and
stack the results. There is no way I could open more than a dozen 12 MP
layers in photoshop for masking but this does quite well.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Walter Banks
Paul Furman wrote:
Walter Banks wrote:>
> What did you use to post-processes 300 frames?Well, I didn't shoot in raw so getting the exposure right is important
and a custom white balance. Stacking tends to increase contrast and it's
hard to know if some important bright shiny spot will appear at some
point so a little underexposure is wise.From above: "I use Zerene Stacker which has a nice feature for
scrolling through the set cloning parts of different layers for final
cleanup and to remove dust streaks." 300 frames takes a pretty powerful
computer, I had a 64 bit loaner for that, it probably would crash on my
3-year old laptop but they can be broken down in smaller subsets and
stack the results. There is no way I could open more than a dozen 12 MP
layers in photoshop for masking but this does quite well.
A mind boggling amount of work overall.
Thanks
w..
Willarojo
news:hnobjf$546$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4436917187/sizes/l/in/set-7
> 2157623505759735/ -original size is worth clicking
>
> This was made from a stack of 300 frames at about 7 microns per
> step for a total depth of 2mm. These little cups hold water for
> young plants to get started then a raindrop splashes them out to
> spread.
>
> A few more here:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/sets/72157623505759735/deta
> il/
Paul,
Great job! Love the translucent on 2 (3?) different planes of
interest.
Too much work for me, I like chasing bugs, but stacking sounds
like hard work.
Willa