macro setup not working

A forum to ask questions, post setups, and generally discuss anything having to do with photomacrography and photomicroscopy.

Moderators: ChrisR, Chris S., Pau, rjlittlefield

Lou Jost
Posts: 4525
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Why do you have extension tubes on the lens?

hotrodder19
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 6:36 pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

macro setup not working

Post by hotrodder19 »

Thanks for the comment RJ, the spacers you see are the two lens to camera adaptors.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20977
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

I'm sure this is a silly question (I'm mostly a Canon guy), but if you're using a Nikon lens and a Nikon camera, why do you need adaptors?

--Rik

Deanimator
Posts: 828
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: Rocky River, Ohio, U.S.A.

Post by Deanimator »

rjlittlefield wrote:I'm sure this is a silly question (I'm mostly a Canon guy), but if you're using a Nikon lens and a Nikon camera, why do you need adaptors?

--Rik
I know zip about Nikon, but is he trying to do something like FD lens to an EF body on a Canon?

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1276
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Borgholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by enricosavazzi »

Deanimator wrote:
rjlittlefield wrote:I'm sure this is a silly question (I'm mostly a Canon guy), but if you're using a Nikon lens and a Nikon camera, why do you need adaptors?

--Rik
I know zip about Nikon, but is he trying to do something like FD lens to an EF body on a Canon?
Not really, it should be possible to attach an old AI-S Nikkor to a Nikon DSLR without adapters and without problems. I know that it is necessary to switch the mechanical AF off when attaching certain lenses and adapters to a Nikon DSLR, but this should not be a problem in this case since the lens is not meant to AF in any case.

And the aperture ring should be turned to fully open in this case (as mentioned above), which may not play well with some automatic exposure modes on some Nikon cameras. I remember I always had to turn the aperture ring to fully closed on my Nikon DSLRs, but this was several years ago. This might be a reason for the "extra" rings between lens and camera, to uncouple the camera and lens aperture cams.
--ES

hotrodder19
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 6:36 pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

macro setup not working

Post by hotrodder19 »

RJ, just thought I'd throw that in to see if everyone is awake ! I had the adapters attached to a bellows in past which I dont use and since the F4 Nikkor lens had been in the cupboard I hadn't taken it off which I have now done--thanks. Now to see if I can get some action going after tea, I guess breakfast for you ?

Cheers hotrodder19

hotrodder19
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 6:36 pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

macro setup not working

Post by hotrodder19 »

Rik, thanks for the latest comment. Have removed the adapters and set up now I can at least see a subject . Now, in respect to seeing a subject (lighting), at present I am using 2x 9w (60w) LED lights as my light source over the subject area but visibility is lacking. Things are not clear or bright as when I shine my book reading LED light onto the subject it becomes a lot brighter. So I am learning once again as a beginner that I need a bright light source DIRECTLY onto the subject and not just have an overall bright overhead light source as can be seen reasonably from one of my pics shows.Is there a particularly bright light source that is readily available or can you suggest such and alternatives. Am I correct in assuming that the light source has to be more direct onto the subject rather than an (around) light ? Look forward to furthering my knowledge,

Cheers hotrodder19

RDolz
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:32 am
Location: Valencia (Spain)

Post by RDolz »

You need a strong light but not DIRECTLY on the subject.

You will get better results if you put a diffusing material between the light source and the subject.

In the forum you can see many examples according to the size of the subject. Glasses of styrofoam, ping-pong balls,.... or a simple white paper.

Best
Ramón Dolz

Deanimator
Posts: 828
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: Rocky River, Ohio, U.S.A.

Re: macro setup not working

Post by Deanimator »

hotrodder19 wrote:Rik, thanks for the latest comment. Have removed the adapters and set up now I can at least see a subject . Now, in respect to seeing a subject (lighting), at present I am using 2x 9w (60w) LED lights as my light source over the subject area but visibility is lacking. Things are not clear or bright as when I shine my book reading LED light onto the subject it becomes a lot brighter. So I am learning once again as a beginner that I need a bright light source DIRECTLY onto the subject and not just have an overall bright overhead light source as can be seen reasonably from one of my pics shows.Is there a particularly bright light source that is readily available or can you suggest such and alternatives. Am I correct in assuming that the light source has to be more direct onto the subject rather than an (around) light ? Look forward to furthering my knowledge,

Cheers hotrodder19
I use 300w equivalent CFLs in studio lamp sockets. I made reflectors using plastic waste baskets lined with strips of metallic heating duct tape.

The easy way to diffuse the light is to make a hole in the bottom of a styrofoam drink cup. The hole should be just big enough to slip over the objective for a friction fit. Cut away enough of the cup to allow the objective to get close enough to the subject while providing diffusion.
Last edited by Deanimator on Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20977
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

You need the subject to be illuminated very brightly. It's best if light reaches the subject from a wide variety of angles. This condition is what macro photographers mean by "diffused" illumination. For explanation, see “The Art of Successful Focus Stacking”, especially slides (pages) 37-46. I emphasize "reaches...from" because a lot of people think of diffusion in terms of spreading light over a larger area. That's not the point here.

For continuous illumination, good when setting up, I tend to use Ikea Jansjo gooseneck LEDs (like HERE), placed close to the subject, with Kleenex tissue as a diffuser. One of this forum's best mineral photographers uses this same general approach, but carried to an extreme -- see https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 073#231073.

However, when you start getting images, you'll discover that at 10X, vibration is a huge problem. That's because it takes only 0.001 mm of movement at the end of the objective, to produce a 2-pixel smear back at the sensor. Your camera does not provide electronic shutter, so you will inevitably be having to deal with mechanical shutter vibration that will blur your images. For most people, the best solution for that problem is to use electronic flash, dialed back to low power so as to get short light pulses. A typical consumer-grade flash, dialed back to 1/16 power, will produce light flashes that are around 1/5000 second, and still bright enough to give a good exposure at base ISO setting. Diffuse that with some paper or a foam cup or white plastic yogurt container placed close to or around the subject as suggested by Deanimator, and the illumination will be in good shape.

An alternative, if your environment is free of vibration, is to use relatively dim continuous illumination and a long shutter time -- several seconds -- so as to get most of the exposure after shutter vibration has died out.

The final problem is DOF. Your 10X NA 0.25 objective gives DOF a little less than 0.01 mm. So for most subjects it will require focus stacking, and the step size has to be that small or smaller. That is, at least 100 steps per mm, uniformly spaced. I expect you'll find it fiddly at best to make such small movements with your Velbon Super Mag Slider, but at least that will provide a way to get started.

--Rik

hotrodder19
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 6:36 pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

macro setup not working

Post by hotrodder19 »

Thanks again Rik for the comments. The velbon slider doesn't move the carriage, there is a 2 way micrometer under the velbon which does all the movement so I hope that is ok.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20977
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Re: macro setup not working

Post by rjlittlefield »

hotrodder19 wrote:there is a 2 way micrometer under the velbon which does all the movement so I hope that is ok.
Ah, I see. Yes, that should be workable. Bear in mind that 1/100 mm is about 0.0004 inches, that is, 4/10,000 inch, so depending on your micrometer, making small enough steps may still be somewhat fiddly.

--Rik

hotrodder19
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 6:36 pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Post by hotrodder19 »

RIK, thanks again. Help again is needed with respect now to my lighting problem. I have a variety of possible light sources avail at present. Currently I am using two desk lamps fitted with 9w LED globes which are equal to 60w each in standard globe output, these lamps are just positioned across the subject area but I cannot see anything thru the camera lens suggesting my lighting is poor ? It was suggested on the site that I try and get a 300watt equivalent CFL globe for use. Now when I throw that possibility up here in Australia they seem lost. Your comment re the Jansjo lights puzzled me as they do not seem very bright. Am I after very bright globes ? These Jansjo lights only seem to put out a small amount of light compared to what I thought was needed. Also their lumen output would not be high. I seem to be missing some technical aspect here in respect to being able to light up my subjects. As I said with my current broad overall light I cannot see anything thru the lens. Can you enlighten me further. To get a 300watt equivalent CFL would require a LED globe of approx 45w producing 200w and about 2800 lumens--confused !

Look forward to hearing from you, cheers hotrodder19

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20977
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

hotrodder19 wrote:RIK, thanks again. Help again is needed with respect now to my lighting problem. I have a variety of possible light sources avail at present. Currently I am using two desk lamps fitted with 9w LED globes which are equal to 60w each in standard globe output, these lamps are just positioned across the subject area but I cannot see anything thru the camera lens suggesting my lighting is poor ? It was suggested on the site that I try and get a 300watt equivalent CFL globe for use. Now when I throw that possibility up here in Australia they seem lost. Your comment re the Jansjo lights puzzled me as they do not seem very bright. Am I after very bright globes ? These Jansjo lights only seem to put out a small amount of light compared to what I thought was needed. Also their lumen output would not be high. I seem to be missing some technical aspect here in respect to being able to light up my subjects. As I said with my current broad overall light I cannot see anything thru the lens. Can you enlighten me further. To get a 300watt equivalent CFL would require a LED globe of approx 45w producing 200w and about 2800 lumens--confused !

Look forward to hearing from you, cheers hotrodder19
When there's an objective involved, and somebody says "I cannot see anything thru the lens", it usually means they have not yet found and focused the subject.

From the standpoint of image brightness, the objective + telephoto is like looking through a lens stopped down to f/20. The viewfinder will be dim, but not hopelessly so.

Here's a collection of pictures that may help you to understand.

First, here's an overview showing a setup similar to yours, except that this one's vertical on an optical breadboard.

Image

Here's a closer view of the business end of the objective, just like yours, plus two Jansjo lights wrapped in Kleenex, shining on a pinned fly. No, the Jansjo's do not put out much light, but when you put them close to a subject, they're pretty bright.

Image

Now, here's the view looking down into the optical viewfinder of the camera. Notice that the viewfinder image is not terribly dim. I haven't done any magic to brighten it up; this is just a cell phone picture. But to be fair, the optical breadboard you can see in the background is a lot less bright than the fly itself, as you can see in the setup image just above.

Image

Here's a closer view of the objective and fly. Notice how close together they are. It's that 6.7 mm working distance I was talking about.

Image


Here's a crop from the middle of that cell phone picture, showing what the optical viewfinder image looks like. You can see the camera's reticle markings.

Image


Here's the full frame as shot by the camera, ISO 100, 1/8 second. Notice that I don't even have the whole eye in frame. At 10X onto an APS-C camera, the field of view is only about 2.2 mm x 1.5 mm, and anything more than 1/10 mm out of focus is hopelessly blurred. That's why it's so easy to "not see anything".

Image


Now, moving in to details of the captured image, here are three ways of making the exposure. These are actual-pixel crops from the camera images. The one on the left was shot with EFSC (Canon's Electronic First Shutter Curtain). That capability is not available to you, but it's about the same sharpness as you would get with flash. The one in the center was shot with mirror lockup but normal mechanical shutter. Your camera can do this too. Notice that even with a rig as rigid as mine, there's a bit of softening just due to shutter vibration. The one on the right was shot with no mirror lockup and normal mechanical shutter. Despite the system's rigidity, this one is blurred to trash.

Image


And finally, I tried working with the Jansjo's turned off, and the whole setup lit only by a single 45 watt incandescent flood located about 2 feet away from the camera.

Here's the overview,

Image


and what my cell phone sees from the back of the camera:
Image

As I said earlier, the viewfinder image is dim but not hopelessly so. My best guess is that you still don't have a framed and focused subject to look at.

If you're still convinced that you have a problem with brightness of your light, then change your setup so that your subject is a piece of ordinary paper, and put the light close behind it. That should make the frame bright enough that even when everything's completely out-of-focus you'll still be sure to notice some light. From there you can work on framing and focus. After you get your subject framed and focused, you can move the lights to the front to see how that changes the view.

One last reference, see this article from 2005 and take a look at Figures 4 and 6. Those are from my early days. The setup was fiddly and the lighting was crude, but it made some pretty good images when handled gently.

--Rik

hotrodder19
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 6:36 pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

macro setup not working

Post by hotrodder19 »

MMMMM ! Rik thanks. Now with all this dimness thru the viewfinder how do you assess whether the subject is in focus clearly to begin taking pictures ? Are you saying that looking thru the cameras viewfinder the subject is clear, just that from the phone shot it looks fuzzy ?

Cheers hotrodder19

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic