One day, zillion years ago (when I did not have any idea that this great macro community exists), wife came back from the shopping and said, that ... there is VERY big ... VERY frightful ... animal on the car's front grill !!!
Yes, it was big .... and VERY dry poor guy. At that time I did not have any macro equipment, so Epson CX9400 scanner was very useful tool ...
Bigger:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4656/4044 ... 8277_o.jpg
Encounter
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Encounter
Saul
μ-stuff
μ-stuff
-
- Posts: 5090
- Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:31 pm
Scanner
I'm really surprised that you had so little depth of field. I found a surprising amount of depth of field when I photograph macro specimens. My recent post of a Horseshoe Crab was shot on a Visioneer scanner.
Mike
Mike
Michael Reese Much FRMS EMS Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Scanner
Hi Mike, I was really surprised that you had so much depth of field with a Horseshoe Crab, initially I thought that there is some trickOlympusman wrote:I'm really surprised that you had so little depth of field. I found a surprising amount of depth of field when I photograph macro specimens. My recent post of a Horseshoe Crab was shot on a Visioneer scanner.
Very nice post, BTW. Do later Visioner models have same big depth of field ?
Saul
μ-stuff
μ-stuff
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
I addressed the DOF issue at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 809#225809 and a followup reply in the same thread.
Quick summary is that a scanner should have the same DOF/diffraction tradeoff as any other system. If you're seeing greater DOF from a scanner than from a macro system shooting the same size subject, then it's because the macro system is running at a wider effective aperture. I think there's no magic, just a matter of corresponding settings that apparently are not intuitive.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, please share.
--Rik
Quick summary is that a scanner should have the same DOF/diffraction tradeoff as any other system. If you're seeing greater DOF from a scanner than from a macro system shooting the same size subject, then it's because the macro system is running at a wider effective aperture. I think there's no magic, just a matter of corresponding settings that apparently are not intuitive.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, please share.
--Rik