Flash & Flash Metering By Proxy, Using 35mm Hardware

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

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

Harold Gough wrote: Before my OM days I had a Canon A1. This coincided with my introduction to macro. With no TTL to tempt me, I used a pair of flashguns, a Vivitar 283 and a Sunpak (can't remember the model offhand but it had about half the power of the Vivitar) on a Kennett Macro Flash ring.

I had calibrated that for all magnifications/distances out from 1:1 to 1:10 for my Tamron 90mm plus x2 TC with Kodachrome 25. That gave the equivalent of incident light i.e it gave correct exposure irrespective of the subject being dark, light or mid-tone. I once impressed a moss expert, during a foray, by holding identified samples of moss on my left palm and holding the camera/flash in my right hand to shoot at 1:1, successful every time.

I still have the ring and the guns. It is on my to do list to recalibrate that for at least film use. (Just to turn what I am now doing on its head, I could use the E-P2 to do that, rather than all those calculations I had to do last time).
I had considered that a kind of reveresal of the current technique would be a good way to calibrate that system using the E-P2 to check the manual exposure setting for the pairs of flash-guns for different magnifications, apertures and ISOs. It would have been a complete mess because of the huge difference in the flash sensitivity. I could now do it, based on the new information.

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

Here is a shot of a lichen on an apple twig about 30mm long:

Image

It was shot with the system described earlier in this topic, the E-P2 and Elmarit 60mm macro on a tripod, f11, ISO 100, a single diffused flash controled as previously. This was the detail of the subject setting, on a beanbag, the exposure metered of the (rather gaudy) green envelope* protruding below, as was this shot (camera moved back from position used for close-up). * My grey card had gone walkabout. :roll:

Image

Thus, the subject had no influence on the exposure.

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

Health Warning

This topic is about developing a system for delivering accurate flash exposure indirectly (not from the camera taking the picture) and independent of the colour/contrast of the subject. It is not about producing images here which would be worthy of posting in the galleries nor is it a test of performace of hardware, not least of the lenses.

I have said earlier that further refinement is required and that remains the case at the end of this post, perhaps all the more so.

Having dabbled with 1:1, up to 3:1 via cropping, I now take a leap to 7:1, 10:1 by cropping. (All sizes and measurements here have some degree of approximation).

The lens used here should not be judged by the results of this rough testing. It was a Leitz Wetzlar 50mm f2.8 Photar, purchased, at a generously affordable price from a member of this forum.


Limitations in this test:

I have no dedicated adapter (one is on its way), such that the 39mm thread was made to fit my M42 adapter by means of layers of plumbers' thread tape - not recommended!. Thus it was not fully secure and did come lose more than once. Also, the aperture ring is fairly stiff and the only way to operate it was to detach the lens, alter the aperture and re-attach it. As I needed to focus at full aperture on several occasions this had implications, including for disturbing the focus.

I did not use time delay, such that some vibration might have affected even flash exposure.

The lens was used at f11, not its optimum aperture but necessary for DOF.

There was no helical focusing provision in the set-up, focusing done by moving the envelope on which the subject was resting with my finger tips. A focusing rack will be using for refining the system.

Apart from the lens not being fully controllable, the subject was not ideal, being very three-dimensional, and much better suited to stacking, not an option here.


That, said, I was pleased with the working distance of about 55mm.

The setup had the lens on 215mm total extension, giving a FOV width on the sensor (x2 crop factor) of 5mm, cropped in some images to about 3mm wide. The subject was placed on a projector stand, at about 108 cm above floor level.

To allow for the extra magnification factor, some trial shots showed that the metering lens (previously used at f2.5) needed to be set at f8, with the ISO at 100.

The E-P2 was set at ISO 100 and shutter speed 1 second

The metering was direct, off the subject but over a FOV about 1:2.

The images have been processed in Topaz software but I am a novice is using it. I mainly used default settings.

5mm FOV:

Image

Image

I don't know exactly why this differs so much from the colours in the other images but it was shot in an earlier sesssion. It is almost certainly because some parts of the colony have a yellow bias, others are more green:

Image

3mm FOV

Image

Image

Image

Image

Allowing for the need for considerable refinement, I now have the capability (magnification, flash, resolution) I have wanted since I fisrst considered digital (some years before I took it up).

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

Yann E.
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:32 am
Location: France

Post by Yann E. »

If my calculations are correct, the relative aperture at f11 nominal with 215mm of extension is in the f48 range (close to 220mm from the optical center, ratio about 3.4:1). Considering the resolution loss to diffraction, those are pretty good results !

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

Yann E. wrote:If my calculations are correct, the relative aperture at f11 nominal with 215mm of extension is in the f48 range (close to 220mm from the optical center, ratio about 3.4:1). Considering the resolution loss to diffraction, those are pretty good results !
Thanks, Yann.

I'm not at all displeased. I just want to caution that they could be even better when I have the specified additional controls in place and can use a larger aperture.

About 30 years ago I used an effective aperture of f90 (f8 on lens) with a Canon 20mm bellows lens on a long extension. That was with Kodachrome film, probably K25. The flash was fully manual (my pre-TTL OM days).

The subject was a commensal, blind, wingless fly Braula coeca on the backs of honeybees. At the highest magnification it was a head shot.

I must sort out the transparencies. If I remember correctly, they were better images than any my Google search found.

https://agdev.anr.udel.edu/maarec/honey ... es/?pid=63

http://blog.insectmuseum.org/?p=45

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

Yann E.
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:32 am
Location: France

Post by Yann E. »

Harold,

to be perfectly honest, the preliminary results you are getting are actually better than what I got at first with this lens. I think the way you intend to use it is much better suited to its optimum working conditions than the way I used it. I'm glad it found a good home :wink: !

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

Yann E. wrote:Harold,

to be perfectly honest, the preliminary results you are getting are actually better than what I got at first with this lens. I think the way you intend to use it is much better suited to its optimum working conditions than the way I used it. I'm glad it found a good home :wink: !
Not a coincidence, the lens being obtained specifically for this range of magnification. It is used here near the limit of the range my Zuiko 38mm bellows lens and has a longer working distance. My Zuiko 20mm bellows lens covers the higher magnifications (and beyond), with a working distance of about 20mm and seems not to have such a good reputation as the 38mm. Between the three, and with the Zuiko 80mm bellow lens, I must have my likely needs covered.

I am keen to investigate back-lighting with my system before spending much time at high magnifications.

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

Harold Gough wrote:I am keen to investigate back-lighting with my system before spending much time at high magnifications.
I did a quick, half-hour session this morning.

Yesterday I noted a lump of moss with fruiting bodies which would be good for baclighting, so I fetched it. It was not an ideal specimen, in terms of alignment of stems, etc. but it was adequate. I started with a fairly thick (horizontally) piece and then sliced off the distracting backgound section.

I did some "thinking outside the box". My grey card was still on its walkabout so I inverted a grey plastic washing-up bowl, normally resident in our kitchen sink, the closest I have come to actually using the kitchen sink in this project! :D . I inverted it and placed the moss on the bowl's upturned bottom. Thus, it acted as both support and metering surface.

For backlighting I obviously needed to keep light off the side of the moss facing the camera while lighting the far side. So I did some more thinking, this time "thinking inside the box". I took an empty card coffee filter box and cut it to be about 10cm high, its other dimensions being 10cm x 10 cm. Thus, it was bottomless and topless but self-supporting. I cut an archway out of the bottom of one side, just higher and wider than the field of view (1:1)

The setup was as previously, except that the flash, hand-held, detached from either camera on a TTL dedicated cord, was pointed down into the top of the box, likewise the lens of the metering camera.

The operating aperture for the metering camera needed to be about f8. I used the flash initially undiffused then with a diffuser.

The lighting was moderated by moving the box backwards and forwards in relation to the moss. Focusing was partly with the helical of the framing lens and partly by sliding the plastic bowl.

The biggest difficulty was in getting enough of the subect aligned and in focus.

Here are the images (some slightly cropped for format) in the sequence shot. I have given tha same sort of processing that I would normally for images but the aim was not top produce exhibition qualty images but to roughly test the setup.

'Blue sky thinking' gives a blue 'sky'. A section of the blue-coloured box was fitted as a background over the whitish interior:

[Edit] Image further cropped, slightly, to remove excess black area, lower right. [Edit ends]

Image

Whoops! I seem to have created a half-decent image!

[Edit] The following images each had a tiny white spot in mid air in the same position, possibly a tiny reflection from the background.This has been cloned out.[Edit ends]

Blue background, but image considerably darkened for effect:

Image

Similar with some darkening

Image

Similar without darkening

Image

I then replaced the blue card with some matt black flock material I recently obtained for removing reflections from inside my lens to camera adapters. This is likely to be the standar background.:

Image

This is well on the way to the kind of result I wanted:

Image

Essentially, this project is ended, having demonstrated the versatility of my system. All aspects of it need to be refined and may have to be tailored to specific subjects.

That said, I have some thoughts on an outdoor version. What I have not actually done, but know will be no problem, is to mount, say, a ringflash on the E-P2-mounted lens, and trigger and meter it from the OM4.

I hope this has been of interest, and possibly might help someone. I have use one film camera and one digital but I don't see why it could not work for two of either.

Before long I should be posting images of subjects illuminated by flash, using this system.

Harold
Last edited by Harold Gough on Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:43 pm, edited 6 times in total.
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23626
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Harold Gough wrote:Whoops! I seem to have created a half-decent image!
Much better than half-decent, I'd say. That one image (HERE) is strikingly good -- sharp, interesting viewpoint, interesting contrast of details between the smooth pods and the hairy leaf, and the largely side/back illumination gives a bit of "mystical" impression. I find the black area at bottom right to be a bit distracting, but that could be addressed with some crop and clone if desired.

Definitely a keeper!

--Rik

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

Thanks, Rik.

That was the one I meant. When you consider that I couldn't see properly to focus (in spite of using the Live View Boost and lighting, during focusing only, with a so-called "one million candlepower" torch (flashlight) there was quite an element of luck involved*. I was wondering whether I would be breaking any rules if I were to also post that one in a gallery, where it is more likely to be seen.

* I have a monster of a diode lamp I have used only once and not as a modelling lamp. I have to find a way of mounting it in a suitable way, not having a permanent studio location. (I may be able to clear a workbench in our garage, not a minor undertaking! :roll:

Although the technique was the priority, of course I made the best of the material in front of me, short of spending a great deal of time on selecting and framing it. That can come later, in ongoing flash photography.

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23626
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Harold Gough wrote:I was wondering whether I would be breaking any rules if I were to also post that one in a gallery, where it is more likely to be seen.
Not at all -- go for it. Just cross-link it back here as you have been, so that it's easy for interested viewers to follow the story.

--Rik

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

rjlittlefield wrote:
Harold Gough wrote:I was wondering whether I would be breaking any rules if I were to also post that one in a gallery, where it is more likely to be seen.
Not at all -- go for it. Just cross-link it back here as you have been, so that it's easy for interested viewers to follow the story.
Done. I also followed your earlier suggestion to crop out some of that black, above and in the new topic. Further, I cloned out a white spot in mid-air in the other images.

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

Harold Gough wrote: Further, I cloned out a white spot in mid-air in the other images.
Looking back through images not posted that was a highlight off a tiny drop of water (?) on the left side of one of the moss stems.

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

DQE
Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:33 pm
Location: near Portland, Maine, USA

Post by DQE »

Harold,

I especially enjoyed the last batch of photos, partly because we have qualitatively similar things show up in our yard at certain times of the year. One type shows up almost exactly at the same date each year, at least for the past 5 or so years (August 8th). Your lighting techniques are inspiration for some things I'd like to try this year - previous attempts using more conventional lighting works OK but does not produce the interesting ambiance that your photos provide.

----
Our local weather is slowly improving, with small leaf buds appearing on trees and some bushes about 2 weeks early. It will likely be the usual mid-May before full leaf growth appears, as usual. It's still below freezing at night many nights, which presumably prevents most living things from showing up in force. My partner thought she saw our resident hummingbirds a couple of days ago, which always makes us feel spring-like.

Thanks again for posting both your progress with complex flash setups and your latest results.
-Phil

"Diffraction never sleeps"

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

DQE wrote:Your lighting techniques are inspiration for some things I'd like to try this year - previous attempts using more conventional lighting works OK but does not produce the interesting ambiance that your photos provide.
Thanks for the complement, Phil but there is nothing new in this topic, no new piece of kit or way of lighting subjects. All I have done is to look at my existing kit an consider how I employ it to get the kind of results I was getting two decades or so ago with film, this time with digital. Perhaps I am applying daylight metering principles to flash more than most photographers would but light is light!

I would not like to have a shot posted here of my empirical way of lighting and metering the shots. At times I had a flashgun in one hand, TTL OTF cable dangling and likely to knock the box over, the OM4 dangling from my neck, having to grab and aim it after pressing the release button on the E-P2. A second tripod would overcome this but I wanted the flexibility. When I say that what I have done needs refinenment that is a huge understatement.

You may like to improve on my back-lighting by using a light guide funnel (snoot) to place the light more accurately on the subject and to reduce stray light reaching the framing lens diirectly. I will do that at some stage, maybe tomorrow, maybe next week or next month. I have more to do with multiple flash but back-lighting would probably have limited scope for that.

The surprise was the huge difference in sensitivity to flash between film and a sensor. I have tried a Google search for that but with no success so far.

What I have done this year is to update some of my lenses. I happen to have gone with Leitz. (One of the best things I did was to decide that AF was not for me).

I have enjoyed some of the better images my rough and ready approach has obtained. What I really enjoy is that, in this working relationship, the digital camera is very subserviant to the film camera and is totally reliant on the latter's (1980s) technology for correct exposure. That, to a film user, is oh so sweet! :smt041 :smt023

Our weather has been wet and windy (the wettest April for 100 years)and cold for weeks. Today was sunny and about 10 degees warmer, too late for our apple, pear and plum blossom but maybe just in time for the cherries. I was photographing a Cardinal Beetle on our rhubarb leaves today. It seems to have set up a territory there, having been there for at least three days.

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic