1st 10x with objective

Starting out in microscopy? Post images and ask questions relating to the microscope and get answers from our more advanced users on the subject.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

dhmiller
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:42 am
Contact:

1st 10x with objective

Post by dhmiller »

Here is my first ever super macro taken with a 10x objective (the image is slightly cropped to remove the out of focus areas). Very interested in comments/critiques. The eye does not have the pizzaz (brightness/sharpness/clarity/blackness) that I am seeking, which I assume is a lighting issue (is that usually done in post?), though it may have to do with the condition of the specimen itself (bought online and not cleaned or relaxed in any way). Thanks for any suggestions (the composition's not great either ... too centered...).
Taken with a modified MJKZZ variable tube clamp system and an MJKZZ-provided 10x objective.Image

Lou Jost
Posts: 5933
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

That looks really good to me, especially as it is your first. My first 10x images were much worse.

dhmiller
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:42 am
Contact:

Post by dhmiller »

Thanks, Lou,. I've been doing non-macro photo for some time and have spent the last few weeks working with the Mitakon 4.5 and getting great advice from you and others. Still need a better specimen holder, and still on a tripod (with gimbal attached). So a few basics need upgrading.
Will try my DX/cropped camera with the same shot and look for difference. And will also explore lots of lighting/diffusion options.

Lou Jost wrote:That looks really good to me, especially as it is your first. My first 10x images were much worse.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23543
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

This looks like a good start. I'm glad to see those tubes are now working well for you.

One aspect that I don't recall discussing with you is that high mag images are always very softened from diffraction, especially if you go pixel-peeping. Your 10X NA 0.25 objective is designed to be used with a 180mm tube lens, so on Raynox at infinity focus it's actually giving about 10*208/180 = 11.56X, and then the effective f-number is 11.56/(2*0.25) = f/23 . That is far into diffraction territory on your D850. To bring out all the available detail, you'll have to apply an amount of digital sharpening that would turn an ordinary f/8 image into junk. See the discussions at https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 774#208774 and https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 198#203198 .

In addition to sharpening, it's common for high mag pictures to be improved by adding an S-shaped curves adjustment that darkens the darks, brightens the brights, and leaves the midrange untouched. I'm guessing that this technique is partly a way of compensating for the high levels of diffusion (i.e., "flat lighting") that we have to use to avoid other issues with the stacking.

--Rik

dhmiller
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:42 am
Contact:

Post by dhmiller »

Thanks, Rik. I found your reference to RAWTHerapee elsewhere and downloaded it, but I don't see a Deconvolution feature per se... Is there actually a feature by that name, or is that just the process that is used for the sharpening?

I'll be trying the D500 with the same subject this afternoon and see if I can tell the difference.
rjlittlefield wrote:This looks like a good start. I'm glad to see those tubes are now working well for you.

One aspect that I don't recall discussing with you is that high mag images are always very softened from diffraction, especially if you go pixel-peeping. Your 10X NA 0.25 objective is designed to be used with a 180mm tube lens, so on Raynox at infinity focus it's actually giving about 10*208/180 = 11.56X, and then the effective f-number is 11.56/(2*0.25) = f/23 . That is far into diffraction territory on your D850. To bring out all the available detail, you'll have to apply an amount of digital sharpening that would turn an ordinary f/8 image into junk. See the discussions at https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 774#208774 and https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 198#203198 .

In addition to sharpening, it's common for high mag pictures to be improved by adding an S-shaped curves adjustment that darkens the darks, brightens the brights, and leaves the midrange untouched. I'm guessing that this technique is partly a way of compensating for the high levels of diffusion (i.e., "flat lighting") that we have to use to avoid other issues with the stacking.

--Rik

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23543
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

dhmiller wrote:Thanks, Rik. I found your reference to RAWTHerapee elsewhere and downloaded it, but I don't see a Deconvolution feature per se... Is there actually a feature by that name, or is that just the process that is used for the sharpening?
As of April 2017, which may be the last time I spent a lot of time looking, RL Deconvolution was one of two processes that can be selected for the sharpening.

See my description at https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 143#209143 . That whole post was to record some difficulties that I had to overcome in running my experiments. I use Raw Therapee so seldom that I have to struggle with it every time I do.

--Rik

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic