Drosophile ? (Drosophila melanogaster)

Images of undisturbed subjects in their natural environment. All subject types.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

bluefish
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:20 am

Drosophile ? (Drosophila melanogaster)

Post by bluefish »

Good evening
Here are my last shots today of a fly commonly called "gnat" at home.
Parameters: PENTAX KP (APSC)
electronic trigger
NIKON 20X ELWD Lens
field width: 1.4 mm (16.7x) and 1 mm (17.2x)
step: 2 micrometres

Image

Image


I thank you for judging these photos and suggest some improvements because I think they are very perfectible.
retired from the wine and vine, amateur of macro photography and who speaks English with difficulty. Mr Google will help me. Thank you for your indulgence.

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

I think they're very nice.
And no, a Mitutoyo wouldn't make them look very different!
The eye "hairs" show very well.
Chris R

bluefish
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:20 am

Post by bluefish »

thank you for this appreciation but I have the impression that the definition is not as good as I can see here especially as I always hesitate to force on the contrast and sharpness

The first pile has 75 photos and the second has 280 photos.
I do not use an automatic rail.
retired from the wine and vine, amateur of macro photography and who speaks English with difficulty. Mr Google will help me. Thank you for your indulgence.

Ken Ramos
Posts: 7208
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:12 pm
Location: lat=35.4005&lon=-81.9841

Post by Ken Ramos »

These little flies have been model organisms for so much that they ought to have their own postage stamp. Great set of images, like the details. :)

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23561
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

bluefish wrote:thank you for this appreciation but I have the impression that the definition is not as good as I can see here especially as I always hesitate to force on the contrast and sharpness
You may get better results by using lighting that is more diffuse. The reflections of your lights in the eye facets indicate that the lights do not wrap very far around the subject. This can reduce the image resolution.

Also, be aware that images shot at this magnification can often benefit from strong sharpening. This is because diffraction has softened the images a lot.

With carefully chosen strong sharpening, you can take out much of the softening that was added by diffraction, without adding unpleasant artifacts such as halos.

--Rik

bluefish
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:20 am

Post by bluefish »

Thank you @rjlittlefield for your wise advice.
Actually, I do not use diffused lighting like the yoghurt pot. There is a reason for this: before using the microscope lenses, I only worked with LUMINAR (25 mm and 16 mm). However, these objectives whose frontal lens are not treated "multi-coat" and do not like at all this type of light that completely crushes the contrast. However, I did a few days ago, a trial with the yoghurt pot with the same Drosophila.
What do you think?
Drosophila is a relatively easy subject with the exception of eye hair but on other subjects that show in particular many white hairs, the result seems to me much less good.

I started working with the yoghurt pot but keeping a darker background to avoid clear lighting in front of the lens. I will post the results later.


I must also admit that I am not a champion for retouching photos with the softwares spacialized and it takes ................ a lot of time!

Image
retired from the wine and vine, amateur of macro photography and who speaks English with difficulty. Mr Google will help me. Thank you for your indulgence.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic