Ted, This is where "long-distance debugging" gets tricky. In your image, the highlights I'm talking about are not on the insect, they're on the background. So I'm pretty comfortable with the diagnosis that the camera moved (unless the glass did). One of the difficulties of shooting macro is that it'...
What about an image taken with a camera and a microscope objective on a bellows or extension tubes :?: These were not designed to work together, methinks. Let's see, are "by accident" and "by design" the opposites of each other? If so, then I'm going to assert that all my equipment must be designed...
Most of what you have provided I can understand, some, at this stage, I need to sit down and study further. I took a pic for example: this fly measures about 0.6cm, I used a ring light on my Macro 100. Naturally would very much appreciate a critique, what I need to do to improve what I know is a ve...
Macroman, welcome aboard! :D (It's not like Ken to miss a first-post welcome, but since this one slipped through the cracks, I get the honor. It's a treat!) It seems like I should know this subject, but I can't quite put my finger on it. :-k Oh well, we have other members who can probably ID it imme...
Will the result be Macrography in your opinion? Well, I'm not quite sure what you're asking, Ted. You might be asking whether your equipment can take pictures suitable for posting in our forums. In that case, the answer is simple: Yes! Assuming that your Canon 100 mm lens is the one I'm thinking of...
Too much red? :D Yes, and not just because it makes my eyes feel funny. :lol: Do you see that bluish hue in the brightest areas of the petals? When you took the picture, those were actually the same color red as the rest of the petals, only brighter. What's happening is that the exposure is so brig...
I see that Charlie has already covered many of these points, but let me put my own spin on things. I also save the source images for most of my stacks, even a lot of them that don't work out. There are several reasons why I do that: It's cheap. Even a long stack consumes less than $0.10 of disk spac...
Yes, the terminology is a mess. Every word I know in this area has different meanings to different groups. The best way to avoid confusion is to just say how big the subject is and what equipment it was shot with. By the way, a lot of people fall into the trap of assuming that other people will be f...
Ted, There are several different galleries in the forum. One main gallery is labeled "Photography Through the Microscope". The definition of that one is pretty precise. It's for anything shot through a microscope, regardless of magnification. The other main gallery is labeled "Macro and Close-up Pho...
Alliec, welcome aboard! These look great. :D :smt023 Have you been hanging out with LordV? One thing about your BBCode tags... To make the images act like links, you need a slightly different format for the tags. Drop the quotes and be sure there's no newline inside the tags. I have edited your post...
With water I suppose interact would not be so bad, as you might think of one wave lifting another but unless you believe in the ether that works less well for light. As I said, pedantry and certainly not as bad as saying the light interacts with the aperture. Hmm! I don't have any trouble saying/he...
"Interact?" Um, yeah, "interact". Superposition is a special kind of interaction from which the original waves eventually emerge unchanged. At least that's the way articles in the SIAM Journal talk about it. (SIAM = Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics.) That model gives a nice transition t...