Encounter

Images taken in a controlled environment or with a posed subject. All subject types.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Saul
Posts: 1781
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:59 am
Location: Naperville, IL USA
Contact:

Encounter

Post by Saul »

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 ...


Image

Bigger:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4656/4044 ... 8277_o.jpg
Saul
μ-stuff

Olympusman
Posts: 5090
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:31 pm

Scanner

Post by Olympusman »

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
Michael Reese Much FRMS EMS Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA

Lou Jost
Posts: 5942
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Mike, extreme depth of field with scanners has been my experience also, when scanning orchid flowers.

Saul
Posts: 1781
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:59 am
Location: Naperville, IL USA
Contact:

Re: Scanner

Post by Saul »

Olympusman 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.
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 trick :)
Very nice post, BTW. Do later Visioner models have same big depth of field ?
Saul
μ-stuff

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23561
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

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

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic