Nikon 10x halos.

[Billy B]

10x adaptor arrived a few days ago and I've been testing the objective ever since. So far I'm not too happy and think this may just become a paper weight. The one problem I'm having is not being able to overcome is the amount of halo I'm getting. I've looked around on the forum and it seems to be a common problem. Not sure if that's all 10x or just the Nikon. I have it attached to a 55-200mm kit lens and have noticed that even fully extended, I'm getting slight vignetting in the corners, so that might be some of the problem. Is anyone else having the same problem with their Nikon 10x? If so, is there any solution to reduce or eliminate halos? ( Really don't want to use it as a paper weight !) lol

[JKT]

The vignetting should not be related to halos and it could be either due to the microscope objective, your tube lens [objective] or the distance between the two ... though technically it would then be due to the latter. A picture would make estimation easier.

[Billy B]

UPDATE : Problem resolved. After many hours of testing and experimenting I 've come to find out light was leaking in between the adaptor and 200mm lens and objective to adaptor. I wrapped tape around both areas and it seems to have improved by 95%. Tomorrow I'll purchase some plumbers putty and roll a thin bead and seal the threads off better. I've found with Helicon it's better to use the P method rather than A method, although P method does leave wiggle artifacts. These can be cleaned up in PS with the healing tool. ( Tried to submit photos, but when I use the image icon, all I get in the message is [/img]. Help !

[rjlittlefield]

For discussion of image uploading procedures, see viewtopic.php?t=41917 .

--Rik

[Billy B]

Thanks Rik.
Here are before and after photos of Root Beatle antenna segments. All settings were the same using method C rather than A in Helicon. Just sealing the threads on both objective and adaptor made a huge difference.

[Lou Jost]

I'm not sure I understand. Surely light leaks and loose threads could not cause the differences between these two pictures. One shows glare on the subject due to lack of diffusion. This could not be caused by light leaks.

Maybe there was a source of reflected light near your subject in the bottom picture?

[rjlittlefield]

2020-08-28-19-14-22-(C,Smoothing4)-1.jpg2020-08-27-23-04-51-(C,Smoothing4)-1.jpgThanks Rik.
Here are before and after photos of Root Beatle antenna segments. All settings were the same using method C rather than A in Helicon. Just sealing the threads on both objective and adaptor made a huge difference.

I'm glad to see that you got past the hurdles of posting images.

About the images themselves, I will ask "before and after what?"

There is a striking difference in illumination quality between the two images.

In the bottom image (your "2020-08-27-23-04-51-(C,Smoothing4)-1.jpg"), the illumination was quite "hard", meaning that it struck the subject from only a narrow range of angles. This type of illumination results in a lot of blown out specular highlights, which then interact with the stacking algorithm to produce those fuzzy starburst effects that I think you're calling halos.

In contrast, in the top image (your "2020-08-28-19-14-22-(C,Smoothing4)-1.jpg"), the illumination is well diffused ("soft"). This means that light strikes the subject from a wide range of angles. It results in an absence of blown-out specular highlights, which in turn produces a better rendering that is mostly free of stacking artifacts.

Having seen the images, I very much doubt that your problems were due to light leaks in the adapters. Such leaks are rare in the first place, and when they do happen, they generally result in overall lost of contrast ("fog" or "veiling glare"), rather than localized problems like those starbursts. Instead, I think that the illumination changed -- perhaps something as simple as repositioning a diffuser -- at the same time that you applied tape to the adapters, and you've attributed the improvement to the wrong change.

I see that Lou has been posting at the same time that I have. Same ideas, different words.

--Rik

[Billy B]

I'll change diffusion and see what I get. I took a number of photos a few days ago and got the same bad results as posted above. You may be correct regarding directional light. Back to the drawing board!

[Billy B]

Aren't I the fool! You were correct regarding light bouncing in. In the " bad " photo, I had a speed light coming in 90% from the side as well as overhead diffused light. Here is a photo I just took with tape removed and side speed light off. This was a stack of 36 shots done quickly. I think I can get a much better image with more shots and tighter increments . Think I'll keep the objective now . Thanks for all your help.