Ladybird (by-product of yet another test)

[Beatsy]

I need my blimmin' head looking at, stacking stuff like this! Part of my ongoing (occasional) tests to get shadowing in deep stacks of insects. I've moaned before how presence of shadows and lack of specular highlights seem mutually exclusive. But I keep banging my head against this wall because I *really* want to achieve a "studio portrait" look for extreme macros of insects. This test failed in that regard but I got useable pics out of it (and came up with new idea - to be tried next with a different subject).

Anyway, this is a 900-image stack of a ladybird (black with two red spots) looking at its undercarriage. Shot in APS-C crop mode, jpeg only, with a 5x mitty on a 105mm Super Takumar tube lens (2.625x). The ladybird was mounted inside a ping-pong ball lit with two halogen goosenecks projecting fairly small spots of light on each side. The idea was that the semi-directional light might cast diffuse shadows in the "deep" parts behind the legs. It didn't. The legs effectively blended with the rest of the insect's underside. So I cheated and added some subtle shading in post.


This kind of subject often presses Rik's "how about a stereo" button So here's a pre-emptive one. These were straight PMax stacks with no retouching (nor any cheat shading added in post). I can rarely see these in 3d, as is the case here, so I do hope I got them the right way round. Let me know if not and I'll change it.


While the stereo frames were stacking, I noticed the head area would make a pretty easy stack at high power as nothing was overlapping awkwardly. So I slapped a 20x mitty on the Super Takumar and did this 500-image stack too (only jpegs again). I used the same ping-pong ball arrangement, but made the light much more diffuse for this one.


And finally, a 100% crop from the image above, just to show the level of detail captured.

[Lou Jost]

Steve, regardless of the results of this particular experiment, the thing that most characterizes your work is exactly your amazing ability to achieve "normal-looking" lighting in microscopic subjects.

[Beatsy]

Thanks Lou - kind of you to say so. I seem to have hit a road block on the way to the next level though...

This was doomed the moment I added the second light really. But the legs are so shiny, the single light version was horrible.

Onward. Won't be beaten

[rjlittlefield]

This kind of subject often presses Rik's "how about a stereo" button So here's a pre-emptive one.

Lovely, just lovely!

But it's only the one composition, and now I lust for the other two. Oh dear, I fear this will never end.

I can rarely see these in 3d, as is the case here, so I do hope I got them the right way round.

How sad! Have you tried getting a viewer?

--Rik

[Lou Jost]

Or do rocking synthetic stereo? (I can't see these image pairs in stereo either.)

[BugEZ]

Very nice work! Great detail. I especially like the stereo. A true labor of love if you can’t enjoy the results.

Keith

[Sumguy01]

Very nice set.
The stereo pair looks amazing.
Thanks for sharing.

[perdu34]

The idea was that the semi-directional light might cast diffuse shadows in the "deep" parts behind the legs. It didn't.

I'm not sure it's a case of the light not getting into the deep parts, but more a case fo the camera not seeing that light. Your images look great on the whole and the lack of detail doesn't detract.

If you are really unhappy with the lack of details in the shadows you may be able to fix this by shooting in RAW and converting to jpg after correcting the shadows. I know my camera is really bad at preserving shadows in the in-body conversion so I always shoot RAW and convert in Lightroom.

Another option could be Luminosity Masking. This is used a lot in landscape photography but can be used to bring out shadow details. Again, this is best done on RAW images or lossless files like TIFF.

Have you thought about exposure bracketing and HDR? With a stack of 900 images that's a massive task but it can be done if you are happy to wait for the PC to run over a week(end?).

[Beatsy]

The idea was that the semi-directional light might cast diffuse shadows in the "deep" parts behind the legs. It didn't.

I'm not sure it's a case of the light not getting into the deep parts, but more a case fo the camera not seeing that light.

Thanks, but you misunderstood my goal.

I don't want light in the deep parts. I'm trying to achieve delineated shadows as you would in (say) a studio lighting situation using directional light sources (Rembrandt lighting and all that malarky). But directional light introduces specular reflections in the lit areas at macro scales. Diffusion is the fix for that (as seen here - albeit with diffusion reduced a little), but it precludes delineated shadows. Anyway, I had an idea for a two-stage process (which does include the use of luminosity masks in post) that might get me closer to my goal and will be trying that next.

BTW. I nearly always shoot RAW, and only used jpg for speed here as this was just a test and 900 uncompressed TIFFs take a geological epoch to throw around on my aging PC.

[perdu34]

Gotcha!

Try this blog post by Wix. It's a little old now and some of the links don't work but it's full of useful info.

https://www.wix.com/blog/2015/03/25-ama ... tutorials/

[Roel Wijtmans]

900 and 500 photos for these stacks, that's impressive. Love that stereo photo!

[rjlittlefield]

Steve, have you tried cross-polarization to tame those troublesome specular reflections?

With most non-metallic subjects, a polarizer on the light source plus another polarizer on the lens can kill specular reflections almost 100%, or by slightly changing the angles, can simply dim them by any amount you want.

Google cross polarized macro photography for good info.

The seminal article is https://www.naturescapes.net/articles/t ... otography/ . That uses linear polarizers, which as the author mentions are tunable by changing the angle.

https://www.diyphotography.net/getting- ... zed-light/ appears to be using circular polarizers salvaged from 3D viewing glasses. That's an interesting twist (pun intended), but if you're going to go that route I suggest to place the eye side of both filters facing the subject. That way they will act as ordinary linear polarizers, tunable as described above. If you turn them the other way around, with eye side facing the light and camera, then they will act as circular polarizers and in that case they are not tunable (except to a small degree due to manufacturing imperfections). If you're using circular polarizing lens filters, then note that they're mounted the other way around so they would go with outside facing the subject on both flash and camera.

See my own writings at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=3945 and http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 9172#69172 for more info. The latter one describes how cross-polarization is a disaster with jewel wasps and similar subjects that act largely metallic even though chemically they're fully organic.

--Rik

[Beatsy]

Steve, have you tried cross-polarization to tame those troublesome specular reflections?

Thanks for the links Rik - I'll browse those later.

Yes - I am trying polarisers now, though I only have standard camera ones (circular pol). I have small linear polarisers for my microscopes, but they're too precious to use for this.

As it stands, polarising the light source is easy, but the Mitty end of things is a problem. I could put a polariser on the tube lens, then mount the mitty on top of that - but it pushes the objective away from the front element (I have my mitties on "countersunk stacks" of adapters to get the back ends close to the tube lens). The barrier is not having one that actually fits my tube lenses without more adapters (that I don't have). Obviously a polariser in front of the mitty won't work - they're not designed to look through glass. A polariser in the M42 adapter on the camera would be ideal (I think). I'm looking seriously at that.

But for now, while testing, I'm going to use my MP-E 65 and try a polariser taped to the front. It shouldn't perturb lower mags too much. This evening's test...

[Pau]

Beatsy, this is an incredible image, worth to see the stereo

The best position of the analyzer is in the infinite space between the objective an tube lens. In most cases this is more important than the distance between the objective and tube lens.

For the light sources there are excellent plastic sheet polarizers like the high grade "techspec" form Edmund.

Just to add a link to another (old) example of cross pol macro
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?p=56730

[Beatsy]

Beatsy, this is an incredible image, worth to see the stereo

The best position of the analyzer is in the infinite space between the objective an tube lens. In most cases this is more important than the distance between the objective and tube lens.

For the light sources there are excellent plastic sheet polarizers like the high grade "techspec" form Edmund.

Just to add a link to another (old) example of cross pol macro
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?p=56730

Thanks Pau, and thanks for the advice on 2nd polariser placement.

I've just this minute found 3 sheets of good-quality plastic polariser film that I forgot I had (victim of a "tidy up" last year - so many things disappeared ). Not sure what sort it is yet, but able to make progress now.