Portrait of tiny moth

Earlier images, not yet re-categorized. All subject types. Not for new images.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Charles Krebs
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA USA

Portrait of tiny moth

Post by Charles Krebs »

This (unidentified) moth was only about 8mm long, and was photographed at about 10X. So the total field width in these shots is about 2-2.3mm.

Impressed by Riks Fritillary butterfly egg results, I wanted to try a Nikon 10X microscope objective on bellows instead of the macro lens I would otherwise use for this magnification. A year or two ago I had tried a different 10X but was plagued by serious chromatic aberration, and gave up on it. This objective is much better for this use, and I was pleased with the results.

You get great resolution due to the large aperture, but it sure does take a pile of images combined to get any depth of field! (The top image is from a stack of 95 images and the lower from a stack of 102).

Nikon CF N 10/0.30 objective on Nikon bellows. Camera was a Nikon D200. Images stacked with Helicon Focus.


Last edited by Charles Krebs on Sat Aug 18, 2007 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:26 pm
Location: Deltona Florida

Post by jaharris1001 »

those are incredible images there Charles,, never done any stacking before,, 95-102 images stacked,,, wheww,,,, great results :D

Site Admin
Posts: 23764
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

Post by rjlittlefield »

Very nice, Charlie.

BTW, when I started serious stacking, I've realized that I needed to invent a new unit of equipment life: specimens per camera.

You compute it by taking the expected shutter life, dividing by the average number of images per stack, and dividing again by stacks per subject.

The final number turns out to be surprisingly small -- maybe a few hundred for my Canon Digital Rebel.

This would be depressing, except for one thing. Although the camera is thoroughly obsolete at over 3 years old, it hasn't actually worn out yet.

Maybe, just maybe, if I shoot a few more deep stacks, I'll have an excuse to upgrade! :wink: :D


Posts: 1702
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:29 am
Location: Nottingham, UK

Post by DaveW »

Strange how the top eye in the lower picture seems to have some adventitious hairs growing out of it but the lower one does not?


Ken Ramos
Posts: 7208
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:12 pm
Location: lat=35.4005&lon=-81.9841

Post by Ken Ramos »

Some really grand photographs as usual there Charlie, especially the last one! :smt023

Posts: 3578
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:19 am
Location: Southern New Hampshire USA

Post by beetleman »

Incedible photos Charles. Lots of details to look at over and over again.
Take Nothing but Pictures--Leave Nothing but Footprints.
Doug Breda

Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:09 am

Post by jmlphoto »

wow those pictures are incredible. i wonder what that eye above the main eye is for. 95 image stack that must have took some time.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic