Good evening
Here are my last shots today of a fly commonly called "gnat" at home.
Parameters: PENTAX KP (APSC)
electronic trigger
NIKON 20X ELWD Lens
field width: 1.4 mm (16.7x) and 1 mm (17.2x)
step: 2 micrometres
I thank you for judging these photos and suggest some improvements because I think they are very perfectible.
Drosophile ? (Drosophila melanogaster)
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Drosophile ? (Drosophila melanogaster)
retired from the wine and vine, amateur of macro photography and who speaks English with difficulty. Mr Google will help me. Thank you for your indulgence.
thank you for this appreciation but I have the impression that the definition is not as good as I can see here especially as I always hesitate to force on the contrast and sharpness
The first pile has 75 photos and the second has 280 photos.
I do not use an automatic rail.
The first pile has 75 photos and the second has 280 photos.
I do not use an automatic rail.
retired from the wine and vine, amateur of macro photography and who speaks English with difficulty. Mr Google will help me. Thank you for your indulgence.
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23626
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
You may get better results by using lighting that is more diffuse. The reflections of your lights in the eye facets indicate that the lights do not wrap very far around the subject. This can reduce the image resolution.bluefish wrote:thank you for this appreciation but I have the impression that the definition is not as good as I can see here especially as I always hesitate to force on the contrast and sharpness
Also, be aware that images shot at this magnification can often benefit from strong sharpening. This is because diffraction has softened the images a lot.
With carefully chosen strong sharpening, you can take out much of the softening that was added by diffraction, without adding unpleasant artifacts such as halos.
--Rik
Thank you @rjlittlefield for your wise advice.
Actually, I do not use diffused lighting like the yoghurt pot. There is a reason for this: before using the microscope lenses, I only worked with LUMINAR (25 mm and 16 mm). However, these objectives whose frontal lens are not treated "multi-coat" and do not like at all this type of light that completely crushes the contrast. However, I did a few days ago, a trial with the yoghurt pot with the same Drosophila.
What do you think?
Drosophila is a relatively easy subject with the exception of eye hair but on other subjects that show in particular many white hairs, the result seems to me much less good.
I started working with the yoghurt pot but keeping a darker background to avoid clear lighting in front of the lens. I will post the results later.
I must also admit that I am not a champion for retouching photos with the softwares spacialized and it takes ................ a lot of time!
Actually, I do not use diffused lighting like the yoghurt pot. There is a reason for this: before using the microscope lenses, I only worked with LUMINAR (25 mm and 16 mm). However, these objectives whose frontal lens are not treated "multi-coat" and do not like at all this type of light that completely crushes the contrast. However, I did a few days ago, a trial with the yoghurt pot with the same Drosophila.
What do you think?
Drosophila is a relatively easy subject with the exception of eye hair but on other subjects that show in particular many white hairs, the result seems to me much less good.
I started working with the yoghurt pot but keeping a darker background to avoid clear lighting in front of the lens. I will post the results later.
I must also admit that I am not a champion for retouching photos with the softwares spacialized and it takes ................ a lot of time!
retired from the wine and vine, amateur of macro photography and who speaks English with difficulty. Mr Google will help me. Thank you for your indulgence.