Urania riphaeus wing scales, at 20X

dmillard · Post by **dmillard** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:55 pm

Urania ripheus, Nikon D200 w/ Nikon M Plan 20/0.4 ELWD at 210mm nominal extension, 26 images stacked in HF

This is called the Sunset Moth, but I think Mardi Gras Moth would be an equally apt name. Thanks to Charles Krebs for alerting me, via this forum,to the potential of this particular objective and for reminding me of the beauty of this moth, which I hadn't explored since my Kodachrome days.

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:10 pm

David,
Excellent! Great shot of a magnificent subject.

Yes, the Nikon 20/0.40 ELWD M Plan is great for this, better than any of the "micro" lenses I've tried. (At least as far as resolution is concerned, due to the aperture size). But until we had image "stacking" there would be little point in using it because of the ridiculously shallow DOF.

puzzledpaul · Post by **puzzledpaul** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:59 am

Superb pic - but it's just as well you guys don't enter this sort of thing, bcs - for this current theme especially - us mortals'd never stand a chance

(digital manipulation allowed, btw )

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=97569

pp

nto · Post by **nto** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:34 am

David,
this good colors composition, quantity yelow and very good position for appreciating less attractive colours
Good Work!

g4lab · Post by **g4lab** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:54 am

Beautiful image!
Was there any ocular or projective lens or coupler used?
Or direct projection from the objective onto the imaging chip?
Gene

dmillard · Post by **dmillard** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:15 pm

Thank you all for voicing your appreciation -

g4lab wrote:Beautiful image!
Was there any ocular or projective lens or coupler used?
Or direct projection from the objective onto the imaging chip?
Gene

This was photographed directly with the objective, with no intermediate lenses used.

David

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:31 pm

A natural colour chart!

This seems to be a moth which, when you see the whole insect, looks more like a butterfly than most butterflies.

Harold

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:36 am

Here is an update on the name and systemics of the beast. It is a moth:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedi ... a-rhipheus

Just to confuse matters, here is a member of the same family, which looks more moth-like, refered to as a butterfly:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedi ... terfly.jpg

Here is its confirmation as another moth:

http://www.answers.com/topic/uraniidae

Harold

lauriek · Post by **lauriek** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:58 am

I didn't think there was a proper taxonomic difference between butterflies and moths - but we generally consider night flying ones to be moths and day fliers to be butterflies - is that wrong, is there a specific anatomical difference?

Spectacular picture!

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:11 am

lauriek wrote: I didn't think there was a proper taxonomic difference between butterflies and moths - but we generally consider night flying ones to be moths and day fliers to be butterflies

It's not that simple, there being plenty of day-flying moths (but I have never heard of night-flying butterflies). Most differ in the form of antennae and the way they fold their wings. However, as discusssed in another thread, some, such as the skipper butterflies have intermediate forms. There is also a tendancy for the brightly coloured ones to be butterflies but that is probably an even shakier criterion, not least because many of them are plain white, dull brown, etc. and not all night-flying moths are.

If we call them all lepidopterans we cannot go far wrong.

Harold

rovebeetle · Post by **rovebeetle** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:58 am

Excellent! I guess I have to convince my director to extend my photographic equipment for yet another item

(he recently allowed me to buy a D3!).

Harold Gough wrote:A natural colour chart!

Good one, and very true. Now just put in a few scales in neutral grey and it would be perfect

Cheers

augusthouse · Post by **augusthouse** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:04 pm

David,
This question is for you. Did you use your setup and positioning of the subject in a similar arrangement as demonstrated in your post Here.?

This question is for all.
What does m = here, with consideration of sensor size, extension, objective...subject? Magnification m = Image size on Film/Sensor divided by Subject Size.

or do we need to look at the following formula - which relates the bellows extension, v, to the magnification obtained with a lens of a given focal length, F.

v = (m+1) F (I haven't got my head fully around this one yet)

How is the Focal Length (lens to image distance) determined for a microscope objective and what's that m doing in there before we have a value to assign to it?

Forgive me, it's just that I have my head buried in two textbooks at the moment and this is the matter I am exploring...so it seemed like a good place to ask. I just found another formula - this is getting scary...

Craig

beetleman · Post by **beetleman** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:21 am

They are a beautiful butterfly in their natural size, but magnified, they are incredible

dmillard · Post by **dmillard** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:36 am

augusthouse wrote:David,
This question is for you. Did you use your setup and positioning of the subject in a similar arrangement as demonstrated in your post Here.?

This question is for all.
What does m = here, with consideration of sensor size, extension, objective...subject? Magnification m = Image size on Film/Sensor divided by Subject Size.

or do we need to look at the following formula - which relates the bellows extension, v, to the magnification obtained with a lens of a given focal length, F.

v = (m+1) F (I haven't got my head fully around this one yet)

How is the Focal Length (lens to image distance) determined for a microscope objective and what's that m doing in there before we have a value to assign to it?

Forgive me, it's just that I have my head buried in two textbooks at the moment and this is the matter I am exploring...so it seemed like a good place to ask. I just found another formula - this is getting scary...

Craig

Hello Craig -

In answer to your first question, I used my vertical setup (not yet pictured), with similar lighting as the one portrayed in your link but with a modified Leitz Ortholux base and focusing stage.

In response to your other questions, both equations are valid for different purposes. Perhaps the more precise way of determining magnification, m, is image size/object size. This could be done by using a stage micrometer, and dividing the width of the sensor displayed on the viewfinder screen(on a Nikon D200, 95% of 23.6mm gives approximately 22.4mm) by the measurement visible on the micrometer across the screen.

As far is determining the approximate focal length of a microscope objective, if you assume an optically symmetric lens, then the focal length is equal to the distance of the lens to the image plane when the lens is focused at infinity. The focal length is also equal to the distance of the lens to the image plane (V) divided by (m+1) when focused at closer distances. For example, with the lens used for the image above, V=210mm at 20X (given), therefore f=V/(m+1), =210mm/21=10mm. Differing magnifications can then be obtained by varying V, the extension distance from the image plane, remembering to include the flange focal distance, the distance of the lens mount to the image plane. Off the top of my head, I think the FFD with Nikon F mount cameras is 46.5mm. I hope this is helpful!

Best regards,
David

augusthouse · Post by **augusthouse** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:15 am

Thanks David,
Your explanation and examples are appreciated and understood.

I'm working on the foundation of my understanding of these matters and your reply has been of considerable help.

Craig