Something's wrong here

A forum to ask questions, post setups, and generally discuss anything having to do with photomacrography and photomicroscopy.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

osbourne
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:41 pm

Post by osbourne »

Thank you. I've got a lot to learn now, as everything is getting mixed in my head. So, even in mirrorless, I can manage delayed exposure?

I've been observing other's photos without flash and they get perfect results. Have to find where I do mistakes...

Thank you for help!

BugEZ
Posts: 850
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 7:15 pm
Location: Loves Park Illinois

Post by BugEZ »

Delaying exposure till after the shutter is open is a bit tricky as the light must be turned on and off. I tinker with electronics as a hobby so enjoy making the rig to accomplish the switched light approach.

A simpler approach that is nearly as effective is to use a longer exposure than 1/30 of a second. On my rig a 2 second exposure with continuous light provided a good result. A quarter second exposure may be long enough. Some experiments would tell.

Keith

osbourne
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:41 pm

Post by osbourne »

Been playing with light and settings. This is better result but yet not the one I want to get:)

f4, 1/125...reversed componon-s 50mm on ext tubes, 2 led diffused with oiled a4 paper and Sony a6000 flash difused with diy diffuser.
Pic looks fine, but not sattisfying when I zoom it in.

p.s. this is JPEG, was unable to upload heavy tiff

Image

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23562
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

osbourne wrote:this is JPEG, was unable to upload heavy tiff
If you had succeeded in uploading a heavy tiff, you would not have liked the result.

Images hosted at photomacrography.net are restricted to pixel dimensions 1024x1024 or smaller, with file length 300 KB or shorter.

Images that are larger than 1024 pixels on each axis are automatically shrunk to 1024 pixels on the long axis, usually taking a big quality hit in the process. Images that are OK by pixel count, but have file length greater than 300 KB, are simply rejected.

By far the best approach is to reduce images yourself to 1024 pixels and 300 KB, and upload that small version. In that case what the forum serves back will be exactly what was uploaded, so you can trust that what you see is the same resolution and sharpness that other users see. (Color is another issue, of course, since everybody's monitors and viewing conditions are different.)

If you want us to see something like camera-resolution pixels, then you'll need to make a crop of 1024 pixels or less, and upload the crop as a separate image.

--Rik

Yawns
Posts: 400
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:18 am
Location: Benavente, Portugal

Post by Yawns »

in my opinion and looking at the pictures of your setup , my guess is

- your light sources are too small in area...
- your lights are to far away from the subject (that creates hotspots)
- the "diffusers" you placed in the lamos are merely dimming the light .. making very little "diffusion" or no diffusion at all ...
that white board you have behind the subject I I guess it's doing nothing but a mess with reflected light back (not sure about this)

try getting your lamps closer to the subject ...
figure a way to place a diffuser surface as close as possible to the subject...
(it works for me this way)

have a look at this if you like :

https://acmakro.weebly.com/light--diffuser.html
YAWNS _ (Y)et (A)nother (W)onderful (N)ewbie (S)hooting

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic