Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

mollyc

macrumors G3
Original poster
Aug 18, 2016
8,064
50,727
My creation tonight. Chicken Thigh Curry with red skin potatoes and carrots. Served with Shanghai bakchoi and brown rice. The aroma is strong with us tonight. Curry, garlic, and shallots. View attachment 2166643 Was a lovely dinner. View attachment 2166609

"Dinner" - 2/28/2023 - iPhone 13PM
View attachment 2166291

Are you getting close enough in to the subject that the phone switches over to macro mode? This doesn't seem very macro-ish?

I like the elephant. The photo creates mystery, because one has to imagine the size of the elephant and what it is standing on.

My only point about the elephant photo is that as a macro challenge, one should get as close to the subject as possible.



I like the juxtaposition and double meaning here. 🙂

I've been out of the project for a few weeks, but figured I'd jump back in.

Here are two that I think have room for improvement, but mostly were me pushing the limits of what I have on hand.

These were all taken on my D800 with an ancient 55mm AI-converted Micro-Nikkor-P f/3.5 lens, my personal favorite macro lens. I have a bunch of Nikon F era(probably 60s and 70s) macro accessories. The one thing in storage that I'd love to pull out are my PB4 bellows, which in addition to having a lot of extension do incorporate stop down by a cable release for easy full aperture viewing.

Here's my full stack to get to this one-

PB-11, 12, and 13 rings stacked, which are 8mm, 14mm, and 27.5mm respectively(49.5 total extension). The Nikon tubes are nice in that they keep full aperture viewing. On top of those is a generic set of tubes that measure 60mm to me. Then I have an M2 tube, which was shipped with the 55mm Micro lenses and is 27.5mm to allow them to go to 1:1(the built in helical is 27.5mm). The generic tubes lose stop-down coupling, so to that stack I added an E2 ring, which allows stop down by a cable release(or rather push/lock the release for open aperture focus, release for stop down). It's also a 14mm tube.

This is a total of 151mm of extension. Adding the helicoil racked all the way out gets to 178mm, which I think should put me in the 2.5x lifesize range, but I really need to measure focal plane to subject to calculate exactly(if you really want to get exact about this, and forgive me if this has been mentioned, but your camera should have the Φ engraved on the top plate to get exact plane, and magnification is measured from here to the point on the subject in focus).

Lighting is by a couple of strobes. I need to get a stronger power pack out, as I had to raise the ISO to 1600 to get the exposure in the ballpark. The lens nominally was set to f/32, but I think that's an effective aperture of f/160? Forgive me for being fuzzy on the math.

View attachment 2166649

Then, just to get fun, I stuck a 1.4x teleconverter on the back. As some back of the envelope math, if you place extension tubes in front of a teleconverter, you can treat it like the TC multiplies the effective length of the extension tubes by its magnification power, so this would give me ~250mm of extension, or nearly 4x lifesize.

Miraculously, I did this all handheld. It really should be done on a tripod with a macro focusing rail, and I'll try that later.

This also has the lens nearly covering the subject. Reversing should help with that, and it's something I'll play with later. I do have a BR2 reversing ring, which works with 52mm filter thread macro lenses.

View attachment 2166650

And here's the full unwieldy set-up

View attachment 2166651

I still am continually baffled as to how you know so much about all this stuff. You are highly technical. I'd be afraid to piece that many parts together for fear of shearing off at one of the junctures!

Is your subject part of a watch?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bondr006

oblomow

macrumors 601
Apr 14, 2005
4,508
18,898
Netherlands
f8f01c3ccc326c8647aab6467112.jpg

21c07eaaf21977e0a2024b8d188f.jpg


I've never been into macros. I have a lens but it has only been used to scan old slides.
The close up of the watch reminded me to correct the date. It count only count to 31 for every month.
The second is a bird that my daughter made me years ago as a present.
 

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,352
6,495
Kentucky
I still am continually baffled as to how you know so much about all this stuff. You are highly technical. I'd be afraid to piece that many parts together for fear of shearing off at one of the junctures!

Is your subject part of a watch?
I honed in on the technical stuff because it interests me and I can(mostly) understand it. I just wish that I had even 1/10 of the artistic skills as you and several others around here!

This kind of macro(or really some people will say that once you get past lifesize you're into micro range) really lets me get into the nuts and bolts of how this stuff works. Even using a relatively modern camera, it also makes you get very hands-on and manual with making all the pieces work together.

Yes, it's the balance wheel out of an 1883 model Waltham.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: mollyc and bondr006

Janichsan

macrumors 68040
Oct 23, 2006
3,125
11,902
GxQ8GVF.jpg


I found the article that photo is from; they are using a wider than 50mm lens for their images, so that explains the larger magnification. So no, they aren't cheating. 🙂


Same source, different article.

Oh, interesting technique. Inspired me to experiment a bit:

Ny2l3ed.jpg


I'm already keeping an eye out for a suitable adapter for my camera… ;)
 

mollyc

macrumors G3
Original poster
Aug 18, 2016
8,064
50,727
f8f01c3ccc326c8647aab6467112.jpg

21c07eaaf21977e0a2024b8d188f.jpg


I've never been into macros. I have a lens but it has only been used to scan old slides.
The close up of the watch reminded me to correct the date. It count only count to 31 for every month.
The second is a bird that my daughter made me years ago as a present.
You can share slides here then! 😉

But it's okay if it's not a technique you will use very often. I wasn't a huge fan of fill the frame last week, but found myself doing that today on my walk, so you never know.


View attachment 2166698 View attachment 2166697 View attachment 2166696
Mini Rabbit and mini bear in two versions with effect and without

CC welcome

Fun! I prefer the bear without the streaky things, but I like that you are experimenting with different processing.


So many good signs of spring here!

GxQ8GVF.jpg



Oh, interesting technique. Inspired me to experiment a bit:

Ny2l3ed.jpg


I'm already keeping an eye out for a suitable adapter for my camera… ;)

Wow, these are really clever! Did you take the second photo through the glass shown in the first?


18X loupe on the .5X lens of my iPhone 13PM. Interesting.

View attachment 2167298

18X loupe on the 1X lens of my iPhone 13PM.

View attachment 2167308
Great experiment!
 

mollyc

macrumors G3
Original poster
Aug 18, 2016
8,064
50,727
Web_March_01_2023_001.jpg


This is a stack of two different images with my 105mm macro.

I did try reverse freelensing with the 35mm yesterday but didn't like any of my attempts. I was getting too much light in since my adapters are different and don't line up perfectly, so they all kind of came out hazy.
 

katbel

macrumors 68040
Aug 19, 2009
3,632
32,566
View attachment 2167334

This is a stack of two different images with my 105mm macro.

I did try reverse freelensing with the 35mm yesterday but didn't like any of my attempts. I was getting too much light in since my adapters are different and don't line up perfectly, so they all kind of came out hazy.
Wasting some time with the reverse lensing too but for now decided to postpone it
Stacking your photos does it mean using two photos as they were layers?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bondr006 and mollyc

mollyc

macrumors G3
Original poster
Aug 18, 2016
8,064
50,727
Wasting some time with the reverse lensing too but for now decided to postpone it
Stacking your photos does it mean using two photos as they were layers?
yes. I caught focus in one but the composition was slightly off with one petal cut off, so I just blended two together. 🙂
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: bondr006 and katbel

Janichsan

macrumors 68040
Oct 23, 2006
3,125
11,902
Wow, these are really clever! Did you take the second photo through the glass shown in the first?
No, it took it with this reverse freelensing technique. I tried a couple of more pictures of other objects this way. But as the focusing was a bit tricky, this was the one that did not come out completely blurry. But I'm intrigued enough to try this again with a proper adapter. These aren't very expensive as I found.
 

mollyc

macrumors G3
Original poster
Aug 18, 2016
8,064
50,727
View attachment 2167418

With an EF 100mm macro, adapted

experimenting with /not/ stopping down, so that the edges fade out

a spent blossom just before the sun came out, at the southern tip of Manhattan (the Battery)

Oh, this is really interesting. A lot of people like macro because you can get a ton of details (even if it requires stacking images) but I like to see you move out of your comfort zone for an image or two. 🙂



I mean, even if it looks like a regular photo, this is technically a macro image. My daughter is in a darkroom class right now at school; they made pinhole cameras this week. I might have to try this in the summer and see what happens as I don't have any experience with them. Anyway, as I assume they all work, there is developer paper inside the camera, but it came out reversed when out of the box. The kids were told they could just scan them on the scanner at school, then invert them in PS or whatever and reprint them. My daughter wasn't happy with this because the paper they used was glossy and the scanner quality poor, so she brought them home and I shot them with the macro lens and reversed them for her. Her originals were about three inches square but we printed them at about 8x10 and had plenty of resolution left over. She is actually messaging me right now with her classmates confused as to how hers came out so well and so high res. 😂 (Mind you, the original "negatives" are not great because there is a lot of motion blur, but the fact that I could upsize the small squares to full print is what has people amazed.)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.