Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon and macro photography  (Read 6002 times)
Walter Schulz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


« Reply #20 on: April 13, 2012, 12:53:59 PM »
ReplyReply

No, it would have been no use to post or link an image file done with an aperture number that big, because of diffraction. If you're in macro photography you will have to learn this.

I've done 2:1 and 3:1 with 100/2.8. Tack sharp (in the very, very small DOF area at f/7.1 and below).
Don't blame the lens, you have to learn the limitations in the macro world and work your way around them as all macro photographers have done.

Please take a look at Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk
The smaller the aperture is (bigger number) the bigger the airy disk.

Ciao, Walter
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3752


« Reply #21 on: April 13, 2012, 01:32:41 PM »
ReplyReply

what do you mean by ' Diffraction causes severe resolution loss 'diffraction in the object ?

Hi Alan,

Here I've posted an example of the diffraction effect, caused by the narrow aperture.

Although it's with a different macro lens, the effect only depends on the aperture number (and wavelengths of light). Any sharp lens will suffer equally bad at such a magnification factor. Truth be told, some of the losses can be recovered by finely tuned (e.g. to the sampling density of the sensor) deconvolution-sharpening methods.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: April 13, 2012, 04:00:41 PM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
Alan Matuka
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 13, 2012, 02:32:38 PM »
ReplyReply

@ Walter and Bart
thank you both for your help  Smiley

I know that small aperture such as f 22 is linked to a loss of resolution, but didn't know it's that critical in macro world...

I guess focus stacking is the only real solution.
could you please have a look at the link I posted and comment  Smiley
my question is - could those images be done without stacking ? and could they have been shot on 100 macro, or it is likely that they're shot on sometnihg like 39 megapixel Hass ?

thanks
Logged

HarperPhotos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1249



WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 13, 2012, 03:10:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Walter,

Here is an image I shot last week for a manufacturing jeweller client I have.

I shot it with a Rodenstock APO-Rodagon N enlarging lens mounted to a Horseman VVC adaptor with a Nikon D3x attached.

It was shot at F11 and it is a combination of 8 images in Helicon Focus and there wasn’t any tilt used.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

Simon
Logged

Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand
K.C.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 653


« Reply #24 on: April 13, 2012, 10:16:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Anything narrower than f/7.1 on a sensor with 6.4 micron sensel pitch will start to lose contrast due to diffraction.

This is irregardless of lens/focal length for the 5DII and would apply to the Canon 180 Macro as well ?

Great information in this thread. Trying to understand it.


Logged
K.C.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 653


« Reply #25 on: April 13, 2012, 11:11:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I shot it with a Rodenstock APO-Rodagon N enlarging lens ...
 

In addition to being an APO lens, would the flat field design of an enlarging lens lend itself to stacking ?

I'm thinking about the 120mm and 210mm AM-ED Nikor large format lenses I have sitting here and wondering how well they'd be suited to this type of work.
Logged
Walter Schulz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


« Reply #26 on: April 13, 2012, 11:54:21 PM »
ReplyReply

In addition to being an APO lens, would the flat field design of an enlarging lens lend itself to stacking ?

I think you misinterpret the lens design issue. If a lens has a flat field design (= no/minimized field curvature) it doesn't indicate a smaller DOF for a given magnification. "All lenses are created equal" = The laws of optics apply to all lenses.

Ciao, Walter
Logged
Alan Matuka
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 14, 2012, 01:48:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Alan,

Here I've posted an example of the diffraction effect, caused by the narrow aperture.

Cheers,
Bart

I just had a look at your test, it's real eye opener  Smiley
thank you for that  Smiley
Logged

Alan Matuka
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



WWW
« Reply #28 on: April 14, 2012, 01:51:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Walter,

Here is an image I shot last week for a manufacturing jeweller client I have.
I shot it with a Rodenstock APO-Rodagon N enlarging lens mounted to a Horseman VVC adaptor with a Nikon D3x attached.
It was shot at F11 and it is a combination of 8 images in Helicon Focus and there wasn’t any tilt used.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

Simon

could you say how much postproduction did you do on this shot ?
i.e. did you have to do much retouching ?
details look very clean  Smiley
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3752


« Reply #29 on: April 14, 2012, 03:52:07 AM »
ReplyReply

This is irregardless of lens/focal length for the 5DII and would apply to the Canon 180 Macro as well ?

Yes. The f/# number is a ratio, focal length / aperture size. Therefore diffraction is constant because the angular dimensions of the diffraction patterns in the focal plane remain the same, regardless of the focal length. At f/7.1 the diffraction pattern diameter equals 1.5x the 6.4 micron sensel pitch, i.e. the signal from the sensel itself is mixed with parts of its 4 orthogonal neighbors and is beginning to add parts of the diagonal neighbors as well. That will begin to reduce microcontrast at the pixel level.

Mind you, if the shooting scenario forces one to use a narrower aperture (e.g. moving subject), and thr post-processing goal allows to downsample the image, we can reduce the apparent loss of contrast, because we will reduce the size of the blur as we downsample.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: April 14, 2012, 03:54:31 AM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
HarperPhotos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1249



WWW
« Reply #30 on: April 14, 2012, 04:14:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Alan,

The only retouching was cleaning up some scratches and blemishes.
The Rodenstock APO-Rodagon N enlarging lens is the same lens configuration as the Rodenstock 120mm f/5.6 Apo-Macro-Sironar Lens. I also use the 80, 105, 120, 135 and 150 Rodagon's for table top, food, architecture, art reproduction photography.

Cheers

Simon
Logged

Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand
haefnerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 624


WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 14, 2012, 06:04:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Walter,

Here is an image I shot last week for a manufacturing jeweller client I have.

I shot it with a Rodenstock APO-Rodagon N enlarging lens mounted to a Horseman VVC adaptor with a Nikon D3x attached.

It was shot at F11 and it is a combination of 8 images in Helicon Focus and there wasn’t any tilt used.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

Simon, That's impressive!!!

Simon
Logged

K.C.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 653


« Reply #32 on: April 14, 2012, 10:25:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes. The f/# number is a ratio, focal length / aperture size. Therefore diffraction is constant because the angular dimensions of the diffraction patterns in the focal plane remain the same, regardless of the focal length.

Thank you Bart.

I think you misinterpret the lens design issue. If a lens has a flat field design (= no/minimized field curvature) it doesn't indicate a smaller DOF for a given magnification. "All lenses are created equal" = The laws of optics apply to all lenses.

Ciao, Walter

No, I understand that but I it's easier to visualize where you depth of field will be with a flat plane in a macro shot.


The Rodenstock APO-Rodagon N enlarging lens is the same lens configuration as the Rodenstock 120mm f/5.6 Apo-Macro-Sironar Lens. I also use the 80, 105, 120, 135 and 150 Rodagon's for table top, food, architecture, art reproduction photography.

Simon your work on you site is quite impressive. Clearly you could work with whatever lenses you like. Would you be kind enough to explain why you chose the Rodagons and what advantage they offer ?
Logged
HarperPhotos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1249



WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 14, 2012, 11:33:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello,

I use the Rodenstocks lenses which are optically suburb and with the old version Horseman VVC adapter I have they supply lens boards designed for enlarging lenses to screw in.
The Horseman VVC unit I have can mount either Nikon or Mamiya 645 which give me all the camera movements I would get with my Sinar P2 front standard.

Cheers

Simon
Logged

Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand
Deardorff
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 109


« Reply #34 on: April 15, 2012, 10:32:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Why don't you just uses the Sinar? Sure seems a lot easier.
Logged
HarperPhotos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1249



WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 15, 2012, 02:37:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello,

The Sinar is to cumbersome and slow for me. I like the ability to have a bright view finder which make focusing and composition much faster. The Horseman VCC adapter is perfect for this sort of photography.

Cheers

Simon
Logged

Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand
K.C.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 653


« Reply #36 on: April 16, 2012, 11:27:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Why don't you just uses the Sinar? Sure seems a lot easier.

I have a SINAR P and an Arca Swiss Metric M. I've used both with digital backs and a DSLR mounted on the rear standard. Looking at the Horseman VCC it's obvious it would be much easier to use. With the shorter bag bellows I'm sure the image is much brighter to work with as well.

http://www.komamura.co.jp/e/VCCpro/index.html

« Last Edit: April 16, 2012, 11:29:36 PM by K.C. » Logged
Alan Matuka
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



WWW
« Reply #37 on: April 17, 2012, 04:24:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Another question about macro, and jewelry in particular...

lot of photographers prefer continuous light, but I find flash better.
Main reason is that I use combination of different heads ( Bowens, Multiblitz and others ) and colour temperature of the flash bulbs should be almost the same...
of course, there is some cast but I guess using modeling instead would produce more of it...

maybe the answer would be to just use tungsten...
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad