Flys eyes

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

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Mike B in OKlahoma
Posts: 1048
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:32 pm
Location: Oklahoma City

Post by Mike B in OKlahoma »

Good grief! That looks to me like micro, not macro photography! But I'm glad it was here where I could see it. Amazing, and the clarity of the extreme closeups is awe-inspiring!
Mike Broderick
Oklahoma City, OK, USA

Constructive critiques of my pictures, and reposts in this forum for purposes of critique are welcome

"I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul....My mandate includes weird bugs."

Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:21 am

Post by RobertoM »

What do you use for this photo?
Do you can you explain me?
Sorry for my english.... :-)

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

Post by Charles Krebs »

Thanks... your English sounds just fine to me! :wink: :D :wink:

The picture was taken using a Nikon 20X M Plan ELWD microscope objective mounted on a bellows.
The camera used was a Nikon D200. (the basic setup can be seen here: ... php?t=2825 )
The depth of field is extremely small (just about four microns in this case) so a series of pictures must be taken while changing focus very slightly between each frame. Then software (in this case Helicon Focus) is used to combine only the sharp sections of each photo into a single image. The lower image at the beginning of this post required 52 separate images to capture all areas in focus. Here is a single frame from near the middle of the "stack" that was used:


Good grief! That looks to me like micro, not macro photography! But I'm glad it was here where I could see it.
Mike, I know what you mean. I think when Rik started putting microscope objectives on bellows he pondered which "group" to put the pictures in. So I am just following his lead on that! :wink:
(Oh yeah... you're allowed to look at the pictures over in the microscope section :wink: :D )

This is certainly a range (10x-20x) where the two techniques overlap, and if anything is more frequently seen done with a microscope. But I think they do belong in this section since they were really made using "macro" techniques. And there's some value in exploring the transitional area between "photomacrography" and "photomicrography".

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

Post by DaveW »

Think I had an argument with somebody when I first joined as to what is "macro" and what is "micro". I go on the lines that "macro" is anything not taken through a conventional or electron microscope.

In other words virtually any other "lash up" using bellows, extension etc plus a single lens (that meaning a single unit like a camera lens or microscope objective, not merely having a single element). All definitions are bound to failure anyway as the techniques cross over.


Post Reply Previous topicNext topic