Need macro indoor camera advice

[Tannin]

Price?

 

[Tannin]

Weird. The index says last post by Doug, but the thread itself only has my previous post. Huh?

No matter. I forgot to answer Buck's question. I think I was at ISO 200 Buck, but I'd have done better to use 100, so as to increase the effective shutter speed. (Yes, increase - i.e., more flash, less natural sunlight. Yup: 200, I just checked.)

 

[Buck]

I'm guessing that at 250th and f/16 you're hand holding the camera. Have you tried macro shots with a tripod? Works nicely for some of the macro work I've done.

 

[P5-133XL]

I have to admit that my shots with a 100mm macro lens and a flash have almost universally been undesirable. If, I've really needed it to be a closeup then the lens itself will get in the way of from a camera mounted flash. Side holding the flash, it is a really hard thing to properly judge the correct angle. Then there is the light falloff, which is proportional to the square of the distance, makes it difficult to judge overexposure/underexposure of either the foreground or the background (your choice). But then I've never had to ability to use a ring light either. But, then Ring lights because of their location tend to produce bland, uniform, front on, shadowless images which are rather undesirable. To deal with that last issue, there is the dual Ring light at $600 bucks or so... I've also not had the ability that are on newer cameras, to be able to dial-in the forground vs the background light levels for a flash: a possible save for some shots but then the light fall-off is still gonna be a bear to deal with, even for a computer.

Now yes, tripods are a necessity. You also might find that a screw-gear, to get precise positioning, is very usefull too. The real problem here is how much time it takes to get proper positioning. Be prepared to spend time getting just the right shot.

For shiney objects, like jewlery or coins, a light tent is the only way to go. I also found that there are definate issues with color balance but those can easily be delt with by getting proper film for the light one is working with, or to get a light filter, or for those with digital camera's you can use white/color balancing.

If you want to add that little something extra to the shot, try adding a star filter. It can sometimes add that lilttle sparkle in an otherwise bland shot. But don't over do because it is very easy to do.

So all in all, I've just don't have to proper techniques or skills for flash photography combined with macro work. It takes far more skill than I have to produce consistantly good results. Good luck to all you trying.
Macro work is really fun and you can get some really amazing shots and I really like doing it. But it is its own speciality which requires unique skills for consistant results and its not easy to do well.

 

[P5-133XL]

My favorite Picture taken using my 100mm macro lens:
Xmas97

It was taken in a dark room (multi-second exposure) focused on a clear glass candle holder a couple of inches away from the lens with a lit Xmas tree in the background. Equip: Canon Eos-2E, 100mm 2.8f Macro, tripod, f4 (I preferred seeing the lens shutter shape rather than the round shape at f2.8).

The moliere patterns in the Xmas lights were not visible (to me) when I took the photograph, but are definitely in the negative. The best I can figure they are from dust inside the lens combined with the high contrast of the photo. For a long time I tried to figure out where they came from and how to get rid of them (they were not part of the vision I was trying to get. However, I have become resigned to their existence and the fact that they add interest to what would otherwise be bland solid blotches of color.

 

[ddrueding]

I'm getting more and more serious about getting a nicer camera and macro lens. The pictures are getting better, and their applications more demanding.

So I need to learn some more about macro photos. I've read all there is on Canon's website, but would like more info about "1x lifesize" vs "5x lifesize" and on the importance of 60mm vs 100mm when the subject is right in front of me.

My experiments have shown that shooting from farther away with a bit of optical zoom gave me a higher f-stop (5 vs 4 - deeper field of focus, right?) but the best rendering of the textures was from the camera being as close as possible (12-15cm) with the camera zoomed out to the max and f4.0.

On top of that, my home-made light-tent is begginging to show flaws. When I get right on top of the piece I can see the support mechasisms in the reflection (I'm shooting onto a piece of non-glare plexi with a gradient under). I'm considering having a translucent dome fabricated and an area removed in my shooting angles, any comments?

TIA

 

[LunarMist]

The moliere patterns in the Xmas lights were not visible (to me) when I took the photograph, but are definitely in the negative. The best I can figure they are from dust inside the lens combined with the high contrast of the photo. For a long time I tried to figure out where they came from and how to get rid of them (they were not part of the vision I was trying to get. However, I have become resigned to their existence and the fact that they add interest to what would otherwise be bland solid blotches of color.

I don't recall anything about that in Tartuffe. I think you meant moire, but that does not look like it. The spots could be from processing, scanning (Newton rings), or most likely the unevenness of the light source in combination with the bokeh. Did you also shoot any frames wide open to eliminate the "stop signs?" Have you tried to reproduce the phenomenon?

 

[Santilli]

David:

Next time I'm down, you can play with the Nikon D50, and see if that helps.
18-55 mm and 55-200 zooms.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D50/D50A.HTM

http://nikoncamerareview.blogspot.com/2005/05/nikon-d50-preview-digital-photography.html

Should be sometime this week.

Motherboard, processor, and video cards are due March 1.

Greg

 

[LunarMist]

I'm getting more and more serious about getting a nicer camera and macro lens. The pictures are getting better, and their applications more demanding.

Which macro are you using? The 60/2.8 EF-S on an APS-C sensor should be fine for most perspectives and the optics are impressive. How large are you trying to print the images?

 

[P5-133XL]

The moliere patterns in the Xmas lights were not visible (to me) when I took the photograph, but are definitely in the negative. The best I can figure they are from dust inside the lens combined with the high contrast of the photo. For a long time I tried to figure out where they came from and how to get rid of them (they were not part of the vision I was trying to get. However, I have become resigned to their existence and the fact that they add interest to what would otherwise be bland solid blotches of color.

I don't recall anything about that in Tartuffe. I think you meant moire, but that does not look like it. The spots could be from processing, scanning (Newton rings), or most likely the unevenness of the light source in combination with the bokeh. Did you also shoot any frames wide open to eliminate the "stop signs?" Have you tried to reproduce the phenomenon?

Yes, I did shoot some that are totally wide open: I actually prefered the stop sign look. The color blotches are totally round rather than hexagonal but the moire rings (if that is what they are) still exist. To my knowledge this is film so there is no scanning involved. Theoretically, it could be processing but what in processing would cause them over multiple rolls of film that otherwise came out perfect. No, I have never tried to reproduce it: Though at the time, I did use several different lenses with several rolls of film and they all had the same pattern.

Though, I agree, that bokeh can cause strange effects and there is some uneveness of the light source, but I don't see either of these creating concentric rings. Further more, while the light source is uneven in that there is a filiment, that unevenness is hidden by the the difuse nature of the colored film over the light bulbs: One does not normally percieve that the base end of a colored christmas light bulb is brighter than the tip.

They definately do look like newton ring diffraction patterns. Perhaps a diffraction pattern from reflecting light in glass-air interfaces of the lenses or a diffraction pattern around dust particles inside the lens.

 

[ddrueding]

I'm getting more and more serious about getting a nicer camera and macro lens. The pictures are getting better, and their applications more demanding.

Which macro are you using? The 60/2.8 EF-S on an APS-C sensor should be fine for most perspectives and the optics are impressive.

That's just it, I'm still using a Casio 7.2MP P&S. I'm looking at either the 10D, Rebel XT, or 20D. Wondering if the more expensive ones would be worthwhile for my very specific needs. I'm also looking at the 60mm, 100mm, or super-macro lenses and wondering if the more expensive ones would be better for my application.

How large are you trying to print the images?

That's one of the reasons I'm looking at a better camera. Many are already converted to slides and projected onto a screen to be judged by a panel of experts, and some will be reproduced very large to be used in the sales booth (6'x8').

These judges make the decision to allow or reject entry into the show, each show could be thousands of dollars in jewelry sales. Considering that there are thousands of applications and typically 5-15 slots, competition is pretty fierce.

 

[ddrueding]

Here's my latest attempt. I figure since the image is only 800x800 and 55k I'll thow it in the thread. If anyone is interested in looking at a larger (7.2MP) copy for critique, I can post it.

As you can see, I blew clear through the focal range of the camera.

ISO 100
1/320th
f4.0
craploads of undiffused light, trying to get some life in the picture

Comments? Criticism is most appreciated.

 

[Handruin]

I think the picture looks good.

Have you tried a higher F-stop and a slower shutter to get more in focus? If F/4 is the widest your camera goes, you might not be getting the clearest image. At least from what I've read, not all lenses take the best picture when they are open to their max aperture.

 

[mubs]

I agree with handy. In my eyes, there's enough focus throughout the image to get a really good feel for what the real thing's like. What the judges will think is another matter of course.

 

[P5-133XL]

It is always nice to have a very fast lens, highly stopped down to give you an increased focal range. But, the range will still be very small, no matter what the lens. So, when doing macro work, you need to learn that blowing through the focal range of the lens is gonna happen. Effectively, the only way to stop it is if everything is in the same plane as the film. The problem with that, is that every shot starts looking the same -- A little bit of angle, can give interest. So, you are just plain have to decide what is going to be in perfect focus, and what can be a little out of focus (What is to be the center of attention).

As a side note, you can get away with an infinite focal range with a pin-hole camera. I have had very little experiance with them, so I will not say much.

Just like, totally defused light tends to be dull, but just a little undefused light can give some highlights that add interest. There is the art of compromise and experiance involved.

All that being said, I think you are doing a fine job.

 

[LunarMist]

That's one of the reasons I'm looking at a better camera. Many are already converted to slides and projected onto a screen to be judged by a panel of experts, and some will be reproduced very large to be used in the sales booth (6'x8').

These judges make the decision to allow or reject entry into the show, each show could be thousands of dollars in jewelry sales. Considering that there are thousands of applications and typically 5-15 slots, competition is pretty fierce.

Image quality needs to be at a certain level, but presumably the viewers are interested in the mechandise as well. A 20D and the 60/2.8 EF-S macro or the 100/2.8 macros should be fine. The 100 may be better if the subject is very small since the working distance would be short as well. If you are not locked into any particular system, the Nikon D200 is very nice with the 105/2.8 micro. The controls are easier to use for many people, the viewfinder is somewhat better, and there are a few more megapixels.

Of coures if you are not adept at PP, it is probably best to take the chosen RAW files to a lab and have them convert and make the large prints.

 

[LunarMist]

It is always nice to have a very fast lens, highly stopped down to give you an increased focal range. But, the range will still be very small, no matter what the lens. So, when doing macro work, you need to learn that blowing through the focal range of the lens is gonna happen. Effectively, the only way to stop it is if everything is in the same plane as the film. The problem with that, is that every shot starts looking the same -- A little bit of angle, can give interest. So, you are just plain have to decide what is going to be in perfect focus, and what can be a little out of focus (What is to be the center of attention).

Canon has the 90TSE and Nikon has the 85/2.8 PC. Neither is a true macro, but both provide enough tilt to help control DOF (less, more, and desired direction) and are reasonably corrected for close focus. Metering and exposure are not straighforward (4x5 users understand ), but the histogram saves the day.

 

[P5-133XL]

It is always nice to have a very fast lens, highly stopped down to give you an increased focal range. But, the range will still be very small, no matter what the lens. So, when doing macro work, you need to learn that blowing through the focal range of the lens is gonna happen. Effectively, the only way to stop it is if everything is in the same plane as the film. The problem with that, is that every shot starts looking the same -- A little bit of angle, can give interest. So, you are just plain have to decide what is going to be in perfect focus, and what can be a little out of focus (What is to be the center of attention).

Canon has the 90TSE and Nikon has the 85/2.8 PC. Neither is a true macro, but both provide enough tilt to help control DOF (less, more, and desired direction) and are reasonably corrected for close focus. Metering and exposure are not straighforward (4x5 users understand ), but the histogram saves the day.

100% Right! I didn't even consider Tilt-shift lenses. They will help the situation if you can get enough magnification.

 

[ddrueding]

I just put away an entire bottle of chianti while criticising my own pictures on a 5'x5' projector...damn I suck. I need better lighting, better diffusing, and a better camera with better focus and better control of the background.

Of course, a better photographer would not need these things, but I feel they are a great excuse.

PUI.

 

[LunarMist]

I'm not sure what you mean by "better focus." Almost all macro work is done in the manual focus mode. Any DSLR will have far less DOF than your P/S so I think you will have plenty of control.

 

[mubs]

This "PUI" thing you keep using, what does it mean?

 

[Mercutio]

It means ddrueding was drunk/stoned-posting.

 

[mubs]

Thanks Merc. Dare I guess what the acronym stands for? Posting Under the Influence?

 

[ddrueding]

Thanks Merc. Dare I guess what the acronym stands for? Posting Under the Influence?

Quite so. Though I haven't been stoned in quite a few years.

 

[LunarMist]

Photographing under the influence is never a good idea.

 

[ddrueding]

Photographing under the influence is never a good idea.

I wasn't taking pictures, just criticising them

 

[ddrueding]

I'm thinking of taking this to the next level. By "next level", I mean spending a significant amount of money in an attempt to mask my inferior skills.

I've been toying with all kinds of light tents, and all kinds of lights, diffusers, reflectors, etc. The materiels I'm trying to shoot are just really tricky to deal with. The different degrees of reflectivity, smooth angles, rounded stones and everything else are driving me crazy.

Right now I'm considering buying one of these light boxes. It looks like it would cure all my ills for the low, low price of $3,500! Is anyone familiar with other brands of similar products? I'm particularly looking for all the nifty lighting options and camera angle possibilities. I saw quite a few that only allowed you to shoot from the top; and I'm not interested.