Lacewing stacks

lauriek · Post by **lauriek** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:58 pm

A green lacewing shot with the usual setup.

First with Nikon 10x objective at minimum OM bellows extension;

Posed on Moss... (69 images in stack)

Secondly at maximum OM bellows extension (same lens);

(102 images in stack)

A bit of overexposure on this second one, it was very difficult to balance the light, enough to light the thing but not flare out sections... I need a more shapeable, variable diffuser of some kind!

augusthouse · Post by **augusthouse** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:05 pm

Laurie,

The first image is especially 'eye-catching'.

Laurie wrote:

I need a more shapeable, variable diffuser of some kind!

I've recently begun using diffuser cylinders made from Rosco Gels - they have an extensive range and application potential. In addition to using them as diffusion cylinders, they can also be applied to speedlights, etc.

http://www.rosco.com/ (select your region, then via the main menu goto Products > Products for Lighting.

Do your flash units have a variable/selectable flash output duration adjustment?

Craig

lauriek · Post by **lauriek** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:39 pm

Thanks Craig for the kind words and the Rosco link, I've asked for one of their swatches...

The twinflash I use can go down to 1/512 power (Not sure what the power output but I normally use it around 1/2 - 1/16 depending on the amount of diffusion material... I just couldn't get enough light onto this subject without blowing tiny sections, my camera doesn't perform well if I underexpose badly, the noise gets quite bad when you push the exposure in raw processing, and although NeatImage can get rid of a lot of it I'm sure it also reduces detail so I'm averse to getting the noise in the first place!

btw I should mention now that it's public, this and all of my posted stacks for the last couple of months or so have been done with Zerene...

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:02 pm

Nice images, Laurie -- as usual.

I wonder, given the blown highlights in the second image, if your illumination is as diffused as you're intending it to be.

If you're using plastic foam, you might consider trying paper.

I ran an experiment a few months ago that showed some surprisingly large differences between plastic foam and tissue paper. See HERE for those results.

--Rik

lauriek · Post by **lauriek** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:27 pm

That's very interesting, thanks Rik.. Somehow I missed the end of that thread.. I will be running some tests over the weekend if I get a chance!

lauriek · Post by **lauriek** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 12:32 pm

Heck lacewing eyes lose their 'sheen' quite soon...

I tried to shoot a comparison shot with a paper diffuser, and it does definitely diffuse more than the foam I was using. But the character of the eye has changed unfortunately, so it's not a great comparison. There is no glare on the antennae base though!

I also changed lens, my OM38/2.8 arrived today and I _had_ to test that out!

First impressions are _nice_. At the upper end of magnification I was previously achieving with a reversed OM50/1.8@5.6 this lens looks to be quite a bit sharper to me (First tests done at f2.8 ). I'll have to do a proper comparison one of these days. (there are _loads_ of different things I want to test out properly but my shooting time is quite limited at the moment so I just cannot get round to it!)

I've looked more carefully at the foams I have (I have loads of little diffusers made of loads of subtly different foam) - and I can see that some of them will work less well than others. I suspect the one I was using on the lacewing before is one of the worst ones, large hunks of stuff make up the foam but it's quite transparent. The original foam I made my original arch and cylinder from look much better, less transparent and much smaller 'grain'.

Moral of this story is - test your foam! Don't assume because it looks vaguely similar to one you used before that it will work as well...

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:09 pm

I assume you're talking about an Olympus bellows macro lens, 38 mm f/2.8? If so, it's a sweet lens -- my favorite in its magnification range. The one I tested is sharpest wide open, though not by much. Frequently I use it at f/4 because the improvement in DOF and focus step is worth more than the slight cost in resolution.

--Rik

lauriek · Post by **lauriek** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:58 pm

That's the lens, I've been after one for an absolute age now and finally picked one up for a reasonable price (compared to the going rate at the moment anyway!).

I'm certainly impressed from the couple of stacks I ran as tests tonight, it really is noticeably better than the reversed 50/1.8, which I was quite happy with before!

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 5:39 pm

Laurie,
Really like that top shot! Great background.