my first stacks (hope not the last)

[maciek]

Hello everybody
It is my first post here, always been interested in macro but only recently started the search how on earth people got those precise and sharp pictures of insects. I always thought of some extremely pro setups and equipment.
Then there came the focus stacking technique and the thought I will have a try.
Rather quickly constructed an ad hoc first setup consisting of "will be used someday" parts, my universal lens adapter and 42mm bellows, as can be seen on first picture. The lens was Jupiter-8 and objects were old mummified and rotten insects I was able to find on the window sill in the basement (since its winter in north of northern hemisphere and have no fresh ones) as seen on photos 2 and 3. The light source was a table lamp or two of them.
1.first setup Jupiter-8

2.Jupiter-8 f/5.6 15 stacked, fourth stack ever done, no cleaning, CombineZP

3.Jupiter-8 f/5.6 24 stacked, eigth stack ever done, no cleaning, CombineZP



Then trying to became a real macro stacker I approached the eye of an insect theme.
Since the normal photo lens is insufficient and I have no real macro lens so reading this forum gave me the knowlegde of applying microscope objective as a lens. I had three of them by my hand: Swift x6.5 25mm NA 0.25, PZO 10:1 0.24 and PZO 10/0.24 160/-.
Started with Swift mounted as can be seen on photo 4. At this time not beeing aware of 160 mm the distance was not optimal.
4. first setup Swift x6.5 microscope objective lens

5. Swift x6.5 microscope objective lens, mummified and fungus infested fly, head diameter circa 1 mm, 23 stacked, CombineZP

6. Swift x6.5 microscope objective lens, closer look, mummified and fungus infested fly, head diameter circa 1 mm, 32 stacked, CombineZP


So I think I've reached some limit since viewing the 1024 pix resolution is satisfactory (I hope) but 100% crop has rather no better detail.

Any comments and suggestions would be much appreciated.
Sincerely
Maciek

[rjlittlefield]

Maciek, welcome aboard!

It looks like you have the basics under control. A few things catch my attention:

1. There is some interesting "posterization" or "contouring" in the out-of-focus background of the high mag shots. Is this present in the original images, or was it added somehow during processing by CombineZP or afterward?

2. The last image gives me an impression of vertical smearing, something that might be due to motion blur. Can you post out an actual-pixels crop of the eye so that we can see what's going on?

3. "At this time not beeing aware of 160 mm the distance was not optimal." In this magnification range, the extension is not very important in terms of adding aberrations. The biggest problems are that a) at too low magnification the corners will go soft because the lens does not cover a large enough area to fill the sensor with high quality image, b) at too high magnification the whole image will go soft due to diffraction, and c) at any unusual magnification you'll probably get some added curvature of field, but that doesn't matter much when stacking.

4. In the last image it appears you have focus banding in a few places. To avoid this you will need finer control over lens or subject positioning.

I hope this helps. What you have so far look very promising.

--Rik

[Chris S.]

Maciek, welcome to the forum!

You are off to an excellent start. That you’ve achieved these nice results with the equipment you have suggests that you have a good eye, solid skills, and lot of patience. I like your universal lens adapter! Did you make it yourself?

I also like the look of the pictures of your rig, especially the bokeh. Would you mind telling us what lens you used for those images? (If it’s an iPhone, I’ll just have to laugh—but I’m thinking perhaps an older lens.)

A few thoughts: When you photograph above life size (that is, subject size on sensor large than subject size in reality), your Jupiter-8 might perform better if you reverse it (simply turn it backwards in your adapter.)

You seem to be good at difficult skills, such as keeping things still, lighting subjects pleasantly, and working with CombineZP, which can be daunting. On the other hand, my monitor also shows the posterization that Rik mentions, but it’s probably an easily-solved problem of jpeg compression or something similar.

Your future probably will require a finer focus step mechanism—either a modified microscope stage, or—if funding permits, a StackShot. Also perhaps in your future, a more motion-resistant camera and subject platform. You did this work on a camera and subject supported on rods. Wow! You must have been very patient and careful to manage this.

Cheers,

--Chris

[maciek]

Thank you very much for the replies and very positive encouragement.

Firstly I would like to present continuation of the progress. It was done before creating this topic.

Here is the link to 100 crops of picture 5 and 6 of my previous post, (posterization due to upload limits, I did not play hard with it):

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-C9Qe ... .jpg?gl=PL

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-gEQm ... .jpg?gl=PL

Now I see motion blur.

Here are some more of a fly (Swift lens):


100% crop:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-1gVl ... .jpg?gl=PL

Is there a motion ?

another one I think no focus banding (PZO 10x lens):


again 100 crop:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-No1q ... .jpg?gl=PL

I think no motion blur.

As Rik noticed there are focus gaps.
The XY table of a microscope I use hasn't enough precision when taking, I would say casually, high magnification pictures for stacking, so next setup was constructed on the basis of Z movement of a microscope. It has theoretical accuracy of 0.01 mm, practical is better.
The setup 02 based on reorganized microscope parts:


It can be seen that rods are mounted on a cast iron bench. There is a need for precision Z movement but I think it might add some unwanted play. One may consider the deletion of rods in order to stiffen the construction but it is rather solid already.

When viewing Zerene Stacker site I saw Rik's picture of a filament of a halogen automotive light source: http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=6816

It was very well done, so testing my current limits I tried the same, firstly on overused H7 lamp (with my first setup).
Although technically not appropriate but pictures present the growth of tungsten crystals on filament supporting element (stacking done with Zerene Stacker):

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-nV6w ... .jpg?gl=PL

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-QvWF ... .jpg?gl=PL

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ZlKS ... .jpg?gl=PL

Here are presented pictures of H4 passing beam molten filament utilizing second setup and PZO 10/0.24 lens.
Picture was taken with camera flash unit and kind of a cardboard diffuser some PP and BW done (CombineZP):



almost full res: https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-RuEW ... .jpg?gl=PL


The same picture stacking done in Zerene Stacker (PMax):



almost full res: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Xu6W ... .jpg?gl=PL


and finally the same theme but with my conventional lighting setup (table lamp) exposure times 1 - 1.5 s Zerene Stacker (PMax):



almost full res: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-5D5W ... .jpg?gl=PL

In my opinion stacking pictures of metallic surfaces, giving very specular reflections is a challenge, much depends on lighting arrangement.
I have played with Zerene also DMax adjustments but frankly didn't get much better.

The universal adapter is my one, mainly for old bellows cameras' lenses since as Chris noticed I have a certain weakness for vintage optics but not so universal as to enable reverse mounting of Jupiter-8. Also my thinking was that since microscope objectives are designed for strong magnifications then in the terms of resolution it would be better to use them but mine do perform or it is a motion blur?
I am not very much attached to Pentax but Chris what do you mean by saying: more motion-resistant camera ?
Yes stepper motor is an ultimate solution (also for shutter mechanism), maybe I will couple it to the micro movement knob of subject table someday when the resolution of my pictures improves.

Uhh... it took me two days to complete this post.

Sincerely
Maciek

[Pau]

Maciek, very good start!

I want to comment few points about your macro setup:

- The russian bellows is not very solid (I bought one when beginning) and holding the camera/bellows at the end of a long rod may amplify the vibrations.

- You may figure how to modify the setup in order to use the microscope focusing block to do the z axis movement because it undoubtly has more precision than the slide holder. This will give you enough precision to avoid focus banding when stacking. (please ignore this paragraph)

- About the camera, to avoid vibration you can
+Use a camera with EFSC (most Canon EOS and newer Sony NEX models)
+Use electronic flash at low power to freeze the movement, best if syncronized at second curtain.
+ Use long exposure times (1s or larger) to do most the exposure when vibrations are damped

[rjlittlefield]

posterization due to upload limits

Normally the upload limits are not a problem. What software are you using to prepare the <300 KB version for posting?

There is a need for precision Z movement but I think it might add some unwanted play.

For a simple but elegant solution, see the vertical positioner at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=15711.

Although technically not appropriate but pictures present the growth of tungsten crystals on filament supporting element (stacking done with Zerene Stacker):

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-nV6w ... .jpg?gl=PL

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-QvWF ... .jpg?gl=PL

The first link does not work for me (404). Second one works OK.

Those are very interesting crystals! I had never thought to look closely at the filament supports.

In my opinion stacking pictures of metallic surfaces, giving very specular reflections is a challenge, much depends on lighting arrangement.

Yes. In general the combination of a small-angle light source and a highly reflective surface gives problems because of the way the reflections behave when they go out of focus. See discussion at "Reflections of hard and soft light in a spider's eye"

To get a good image of the lamp filament, I ended up with a more-than-half-sphere light tent made by draping Kleenex tissue around the lens, subject, and subject holder.

Uhh... it took me two days to complete this post.

Welcome aboard!

Since I often do long postings with lots of comparisons, I can well appreciate the time and trouble this one took.

It's well done. Thanks for posting!

--Rik

[maciek]

Hello

My last attempts, built-in flash with diffuser-reflector, second setup (still some focus banding):

Swift 6.5x, 27 stacked, Zerene PMax, 30 um step:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-RVTX ... .jpg?gl=PL

PZO 10/0.24, 60 stacked, Zerene PMax, 10um step:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-deUQ ... .jpg?gl=PL


the correct link is:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-nV6w ... .jpg?gl=PL

is there a possibility to correct the original post ?


sincerely
maciek

[ChrisR]

Coming along well!

Those crystals are indeed intriguing.
If you google "Tungsten Crystals" there are some SEM photos for comparison.
I assume they're condensed from tungsten vapour, the filament was hottest in the centre so those crystals grew fastest, and they're growing in the direction of the electric field. Cool! (Well, cooler than the filament, anyway!)

[rjlittlefield]

is there a possibility to correct the original post ?

Sure, you can do that yourself using the Edit button that should appear at the upper right of your own posts.

Unlike most forums, photomacrography.net freely allows all users to edit their own posts. The Posting Guidelines say that

"Editing and Deleting Posts. Errors and omissions in any post can be corrected by its author using the editing function. A post can also be deleted by its author if there have been no later posts in the same topic. For other situations, please contact an administrator and allow the administrator to delete the post at his/her discretion. "

A post that has been edited after there's been another reply in the same thread will include an automatically generated footnote that gives just the number of edits and a timestamp for the last one. Previous content is not stored, so it's a nice touch to include a footnote of your own that says why the edit was done.

--Rik

[maciek]

Pity, tungsten crystals fell on the floor, I have them no more, otherwise I would try to make something more decent.
I think I will stick to flash light or should I try to use mirror up photo sequence ? My camera has in built shake reduction system which was disabled.
Is the resolution of my last pictures OK ? (had no chance to look at other's full res stacks)
Rik I'm using Irfan, the positioner is elegant one, indeed I would say rather creative one.
Speaking about the "Reflections of hard and soft light in a spider's eye"
I've obtained something like this:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-IN00 ... .jpg?gl=PL
and was thinking if the effect of enhanced sharpness is worth those other changes of picture.
Ooo those Russian bellows... I have also a Pentacon one.

Sincerely
Maciek

PS thank you post edited

[Chris S.]

. . . Chris, what do you mean by saying: more motion-resistant camera?

Maciek, I’m sorry my words caused confusion. When I wrote, “a more motion-resistant camera and subject platform,” I meant, “a more motion-resistant platform for camera and subject.”

It can be seen that rods are mounted on a cast iron bench. There is a need for precision Z movement but I think it might add some unwanted play. One may consider the deletion of rods in order to stiffen the construction but it is rather solid already.

Your nice, heavy dovetail base does indeed look very solid, and quite useful for adjusting the distance between camera and subject. A very nice item! And I can definitely understand the value of precision movement on the z-axis. However, those rods—especially as they are each held in place by a single set screw—look like a weak link in your system. I would not be at all surprised if they introduce unwanted movement that becomes noticeable as you move to higher magnifications.

(For clarity, let’s note that Maciek uses “z movement” in the textbook-correct sense of “up and down movement.” Since so much focus stacking is done in vertical rigs like microscopes, where movement between stacked images is performed on the z-axis, we can get used to thinking of all stacking movement as occurring on the z-axis. But with a horizontal rig such as Maciek’s, stacking movement occurs along the y-axis.)

- You may figure how to modify the setup in order to use the microscope focusing block to do the z axis movement because it undoubtedly has more precision than the slide holder. This will give you enough precision to avoid focus banding when stacking.

Pau, in Maciek’s rearranged rig (pictured just above the filament images), hasn’t he placed the PZO focus block to perform stacking movement? Or am I misunderstanding the rig?

Maciek, I really would be interested in hearing what lens you took the first-shown picture of your rig with. I like the bokeh.

Cheers,

--Chris

[maciek]

Hi

Chris wrote:

Maciek, I really would be interested in hearing what lens you took the first-shown picture of your rig with. I like the bokeh.

It is M42 CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50 zebra type, they say more radioactive than the background.

I am really very interested in obtaining a kind of feedback about the:

Maciek wrote:

Hello

My last attempts, built-in flash with diffuser-reflector, second setup (still some focus banding):

Swift 6.5x, 27 stacked, Zerene PMax, 30um step:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-RVTX ... .jpg?gl=PL

PZO 10/0.24, 60 stacked, Zerene PMax, 10um step:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-deUQ ... .jpg?gl=PL

Is the resolution of my last pictures OK ? (had no chance to look at other's full res stacks)

Here they are in format 300k 1024 pix:






Sincerely
Maciek

[Pau]

(For clarity, let’s note that Maciek uses “z movement” in the textbook-correct sense of “up and down movement.” Since so much focus stacking is done in vertical rigs like microscopes, where movement between stacked images is performed on the z-axis, we can get used to thinking of all stacking movement as occurring on the z-axis. But with a horizontal rig such as Maciek’s, stacking movement occurs along the y-axis.)

- You may figure how to modify the setup in order to use the microscope focusing block to do the z axis movement because it undoubtedly has more precision than the slide holder. This will give you enough precision to avoid focus banding when stacking.

Pau, in Maciek’s rearranged rig (pictured just above the filament images), hasn’t he placed the PZO focus block to perform stacking movement? Or am I misunderstanding the rig?

Sorry, I misunderstood the setup. Because the position of the microscope stage in relation to the focus block I automatically assumed that they were mounted like in a microscope and the focus movement were done with the stage controls. Thanks Chris for catching it.

[rjlittlefield]

I am really very interested in obtaining a kind of feedback about the:

My last attempts, built-in flash with diffuser-reflector, second setup (still some focus banding):

Swift 6.5x, 27 stacked, Zerene PMax, 3um step:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-RVTX ... .jpg?gl=PL

PZO 10/0.24, 60 stacked, Zerene PMax, 1um step:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-deUQ ... .jpg?gl=PL

Is the resolution of my last pictures OK ? (had no chance to look at other's full res stacks)

The resolution looks OK at image center. It gets progressively softer toward the corners. This is typical for old or inexpensive objectives. The newer objectives on our "known good" list hold up much better into the corners. This includes the Nikon CFI, CFI BE, and the Nikon finite conjugate 10X sold by Edmund. There is also one "no-name" Chinese 4X finite that does well. On an APS-C sensor, the CFI and CFI BE 10X objectives can be pushed down to 5X and still cover to the corners. The forum has discussions & illustrations of all these lenses. Let me know if you're interested and need pointers.

--Rik

[maciek]

Thank you all for the replies.
Rik if, according to your opinion, the resolution in the center area is OK then that's (as for now) fine for me - have no money for sophisticated tools.
I have read your post with resolution tests done on the basis of taking sand paper pictures but for me is not so important to have whole field evenly sharp and even free of distortions as long as there is some of it.
Here is my second setup adapted for built-in flash operation, I had to be careful not to direct light reflected from diffuser-reflector into the lens otherwise heavy loss of contrast or even flaring takes place.



and a picture of a lousy moth, PZO10/0.24, 49 stacked, 10um, Zerene PMax, some PP (deliberately still no cleaning)



better res:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6AMT ... .jpg?gl=PL

and another one PZO10/0.24, 42 stacked, 10um, Zerene PMax, some PP (deliberately still no cleaning), I think there is some loss of res looking at the rightmost of the eye:




better res:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-fi1b ... .jpg?gl=PL

I've noticed two bad pixels

Chris I have something for you (also others may have a look):
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-CRE2 ... .jpg?gl=PL

sincerely
Maciek