Here is a pic of a rock I have in my collection. you have clear quartz crystals and Iron Pyrite Cube crystals (fool`s gold) I Used natural light from the window. Both are stacked images using Helicon Focus for more DOF (about 26 frames each).
Field of view is 2 inches
Exposure 1/8
f6.3
Field of view is 1.25 inches
Exposure 1/5
f4.0
Take Nothing but Pictures--Leave Nothing but Footprints.
Doug Breda
Very nice! Great textures brought out by the stacking and the light works well in all respects.
They're both good compositions, though I prefer the second one. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's that I always want to look closer, maybe it's that the left side of the first one strikes me as having less structure and contrast than the right. Perhaps a squarish crop would work well -- preserve that interesting big black block at the top while still taking some off the left -- hard to know without trying it.
This is the Borg Collective! Prepare to be assimilated. We will add your biological and technological distinctive to our own. You will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile!
The meaning of beauty is in sharing with others.
P.S.
Noticing of my "a" and "the" and other grammar
errors are welcome.
Great specimens Doug. I used to have all sorts of pyrite crystals lying around and got rid of most of them. Now I am down to one large chunk that supposedly came from a mine somehwere here in NWC. Tons of the stuff around here though. Used to look for it quite a bit when I was a kid.
If you're into playing around with crops & such, you might try tipping the original image a bit to the right, say, um, 13 degrees or so, before doing a crop similar to what you did above. I'm thinking to place the two upper cubic blocks in the upper right corner of the crop, while the lower cubic block goes in the lower left corner. That would give a more strongly diagonal composition rather than the vertical feel that I get from having the cubic blocks all be pretty much centered. To avoid going outside the image area, you'd have to crop a bit tighter, but maybe the tradeoff is worth it. Again, it's always hard to know about crops without trying them.
I confess, I've gotten in the habit of composing many of my shots with some "sacrificial margins", knowing that I may want to rotate & crop later. My judgements about composition after the shot seem to be better than before it. (Wouldn't it be sad, the other way 'round?) Often I'll prefer to sacrifice a bit of resolution to improve the overall feel, even on something to be printed.
And a hearty thanks to everyone. If I remember correctly Steve, it is a Peruvian specimen. I got a question...How good are the right angles on real nice pyrite cubes? The cubes in this picture are not that cubic. I don`t know personally, so this is not a guessing game
Take Nothing but Pictures--Leave Nothing but Footprints.
Doug Breda
beetleman wrote:I got a question...How good are the right angles on real nice pyrite cubes? The cubes in this picture are not that cubic. I don`t know personally, so this is not a guessing game
Hi Doug
Although pyrite forms in what is known as the isometric or cubic crystal system, it can often look like it has rounded edges or form in habits other than a cube. The most common habit after a cube is a pyritohedron where each face has five sides. Some of the best cubes come from Spain such as this one --> http://www.mindat.org/photo-39784.html
I'm fascinated that you can identify the source of a crystal by its appearance. Is this common in your field, or are these crystals particularly distinctive?
rjlittlefield wrote:I'm fascinated that you can identify the source of a crystal by its appearance. Is this common in your field, or are these crystals particularly distinctive?
--Rik
Hi Rik
Probably a bit of both. Pyrite and quartz are both VERY common minerals (in fact, quartz is the most common mineral on earth) but sometimes, specimens from a particular location are quite distinctive. Peruvian ones being a case in point - although I couldn't tell you which part of Peru specifically - but probably Huaron. However, this is not always the case. Also, I found early on that I had an affinity for putting names to minerals and find it fairly easy to recall things that I have seen in the past. David Belamy (English botanist) once said that he got into it (botany) because he found that he could readily recall Latin names!
Next October (2007), I will be presenting at a mineralogical conference in New Zealand where the theme is minerals from volcanic rocks. I immediately thought of Zeolites of Tasmania as a title, but on reflection, decided instead to do a talk along the lines of "so you think you know where your specimen comes from" by comparing photos of specimens from different locations. There will be some surprises there for people. Unfortunately, unless you collected your mineral specimen in situ, that is in place, you can't be absolutely certain of its origin.
Great information steve...I wish I could come and hear you talk...I would love to seee your country also The link on the crystal structures is great...thanks again
Last edited by beetleman on Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Take Nothing but Pictures--Leave Nothing but Footprints.
Doug Breda
MacroLuv wrote:This is the Borg Collective! Prepare to be assimilated. We will add your biological and technological distinctive to our own. You will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile!