Further to my recent image of this ant, here it is again but this time 10x mag of the mandible region only.
I have made modifications to the lighting set-yo to even out the hot spots as best I can with limited resources.
Canon 5D Mk2 - 10:1/0.03 objective
Meat Ant (Iridomyrmex sp) 10x magnification
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Meat Ant (Iridomyrmex sp) 10x magnification
John
A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times the memory.
A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times the memory.
Truly excellent picture, John.
This one look less 'hot/blown out' than the previous posted ant and uses good diiffusion.
Any additional info on the "10:1 N.A.0,30 from Germany" ?
This one look less 'hot/blown out' than the previous posted ant and uses good diiffusion.
Any additional info on the "10:1 N.A.0,30 from Germany" ?
Fred
Canonian@Flickr
Canonian@Flickr
Thank you Fred. I took note when you mentioned about the blown out part and decided to try to fix it. The lighting consists of a flash suspended over subject that has a Pringles can to direct the light through a screw on diffuser. The lens mount also has a circular diffuser around the top section to further diffuse the light. Then I modified a large plastic fruit container to lock onto the lens mount. I then cut an aluminium covered card to form a semi-circular reflector board underneath the lens. It seems to work as the lower part of the mandibles seem to be illuminated.canonian wrote:Truly excellent picture, John.
This one look less 'hot/blown out' than the previous posted ant and uses good diiffusion.
Any additional info on the "10:1 N.A.0,30 from Germany" ?
This is the lighting setup.
This is how I manually stack the slider with the aid of a verier.
I know it is a very crude setup but I have to live within my means.
Thanks Fred for your interest.
John
A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times the memory.
A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times the memory.
Thanks for asking Chris. I don't really need the vernier for the stack, but it does come in handy for starting and finishing the stack. It can be set to zero to get a fairly accurate depth in mm of the final stack.ChrisR wrote:Fine picture, John.
The micrometer head is pulling the stage? What's the vernier part doing?
John
A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times the memory.
A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times the memory.
That is a spectacular image John.
I am surprised it only took 88 frames at 10x. I recently gave 10x a try and after 1,100 images for three stacks (400, 400, 300 images). And they all suck. Unfortunately it takes 7 hours to convert, align, and stack any one set before knowing how much the final image sucked.
I find this image very inspirational.
I am surprised it only took 88 frames at 10x. I recently gave 10x a try and after 1,100 images for three stacks (400, 400, 300 images). And they all suck. Unfortunately it takes 7 hours to convert, align, and stack any one set before knowing how much the final image sucked.
I find this image very inspirational.
I'm in Canada! Isn't that weird?
Thanks for looking abpho. This was my very first stack at 10x. I had just finished a stack of this subject at 4x and swapped over to the 10x to get a close up of the bitey parts. If I was to redo it, I certainly would attempt more increments to try to improve this image.abpho wrote:That is a spectacular image John.
I am surprised it only took 88 frames at 10x. I recently gave 10x a try and after 1,100 images for three stacks (400, 400, 300 images). And they all suck. Unfortunately it takes 7 hours to convert, align, and stack any one set before knowing how much the final image sucked.
I find this image very inspirational.
I have just completed a stack of 453 images with took over 10 hours from start to finish (I need a faster computer). Then again, I am retired, so I have all the time in the world.
John
A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times the memory.
A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times the memory.
Thank you for your comments Mike. I want to find a really big Ant and shoot the individual part if I can but it seems only smaller ones here. This little ant is small enough to hide behind a match head.Pizzazz wrote:John Super cool!! Hey, how about shooting a "jumper" ant? (JackJumper??? What is the name of it?) I hear they are really bad insects and pack a powerful bite. Your result is amazing! Mike
John
A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times the memory.
A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times the memory.