JML 20X Results (keep adding pictures)

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

canonian
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:00 am
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

JML 20X Results (keep adding pictures)

Post by canonian »

Thanks to the hard work of Richard I received my JML 20X yesterday, which you can all read about in this post.
Couldn't hardly wait to mount the lens onto my camera, and took a quick stack of an unknown (no ID) tiny bug.

First an overview of the bug, to get an idea of its size, roughly 3.5mm. Lomo 3.5 Plan, stack of 4 shots.
Image


And below is the result of the stack, Needless to say I am very pleased with the magnification of this lens and was looking for a 20X LWD for quite some time, which I also could afford.
Mounted on bellows and 1 extensionring by a RMS to M42 adapter, 200 mm from sensor to shoulder of objective, 58 shots with a 5µm stepsize, lit by 8 powerleds.
I like to also try it on a 200mm tubelens but I haven't got the adapter yet.
I'm not an expert but it misses some contrast and is a bit soft, seems better in the center than the edges, but that might be the way I (mis)used it.
In post I cropped out the alignment trails, added a tiny bit of clarity and contrast and removed the trails of dust from the sensor.

Image

I like to invite all the owners of this lens to add their results in this post, and how it was used.
I feel I did not get the most out of it and I know there are members who could.
Advise on the use and tips are welcome.
Last edited by canonian on Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

canonian
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:00 am
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Post by canonian »

.. and another one, the eye of a wasp. Fresh from the freezer, including the dreaded black hole.
JML 20X 55shots@5 micron steps. The reflection of the LED ringlight can be seen clearly.

Image

abpho
Posts: 1504
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:11 pm
Location: Earth

Post by abpho »

I'm no expert on 20x stacks. I've only tried it once or twice myself. The images look a little soft (out of focus), but that might be normal. Loss of detail in the shadow regions. Waiting to see what others come up with.

canonian
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:00 am
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Post by canonian »

Thanks Mischa, I've just read your unfortunate problems with the soft Mitu, and checked the lens. The JML is brand new and clean.
I agree it is a little soft and in post there is not much I can do, I hope that using a tubelens will get better results.

canonian
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:00 am
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Post by canonian »

Added a shot of the scales of a weevil. Unprocessed --straigh out of Zerene-- and on the right a 100% crop.
Am I expecting too much from this little lens? Is something going horribly wrong in my workflow or setup ?

Image

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

I hope that using a tubelens will get better results.
It's a "finite" isn't it? In which case it wouldn't work well with a tube lens.

How diffuse was your light? Higher mags need more- I'm not at all sure why! The hazy highlight is the usual problem. A thin (eg tissue) paper tube usually works.
Plastic laminating pouch material is easier - once shaped it stands up better.
Oh and Dmap is usually better than Pmax with shiny things.

Resolution doesn't look too bad - remember you'd not expect pixel-level sharpness at 20x, NA 0.3.
http://www.microscopyu.com/articles/for ... ution.html
Something about one micron, x 20, = a number of pixels.

Cactusdave
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:40 pm
Location: Bromley, Kent, UK

Post by Cactusdave »

Just commenting on the images, I don't have the lens myself. I know it is interesting to look at images 'straight from the camera' or 'straight from Zerene', but honestly they seldom look their best that way, and may prompt a slightly unfair response to the lens under scrutiny. To me these images look pretty good, but under processed. I took the liberty of downloading the fly eye shot, and a small increase in contrast using Topaz Detail2 (a similar result can be obtained with Photoshop Adjust Colour --> Curves --> Increase Contrast) plus a light sharpen with Unsharp mask produced an image which to my eye was a fairer reflection of what the lens was doing, as well as being more pleasing. I should be happy to post the processed image if you like.

The truism about post processing is that it cannot create detail that is not there in the original image, but it can make that detail more visible and partially address some of the issues of lighting etc. that may be affecting the original image. I suppose I'm simply saying that it is not fair to compare in the mind a JML X20 image that is unprocessed, with say a Nikon CF LWD X20 image of the same subject that has been heavily processed.
Leitz Ortholux 1, Zeiss standard, Nikon Diaphot inverted, Canon photographic gear

canonian
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:00 am
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Post by canonian »

ChrisR wrote:It's a "finite" isn't it? In which case it wouldn't work well with a tube lens.
Related to this lens, I asked that question before. Rik has answered the following:
rjlittlefield wrote:
canonian wrote:If you mount the JML on a tubelens, isn't it an infinite than?
If you mount it on a tubelens, then you're using it as an infinite. The question of what it is can be answered by whether it gives a better image that way or on empty extension. Shooting the same target both ways would tell the story.
So --when the proper adapter arrives-- I'll try both.
I will also try DMAP, but in my experience DMAP (standard settings) shows less contrast and definition. I guess at this magnification things are more critical.

canonian
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:00 am
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Post by canonian »

Cactusdave wrote: I should be happy to post the processed image if you like.
Thanks Cactusdave for your input. Please do post the processed image, I specifically asked members to use this post to express their experience with this lens and add photo's.

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

AH - I thought we "knew" it was a finite.
Dmap doesn't show less definition, exactly, it shows "what's there" but Pmax does pull detail out of a haze better and the micro-contrast is higher which can make things look like there's more resolution.
I usually find I'm retouching ALL of Pmax's highlight flares with Dmap though.
Dmap's colours are usually more saturated too, so it's often only overlapping edges which remain, from Pmax.
"YMMV"!

Cactusdave
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:40 pm
Location: Bromley, Kent, UK

Post by Cactusdave »

Please do post the processed image
Thanks canonian. This is my processed version of the fly eye. Apart from the adjustment to contast and Unsharp mask I mentioned above, I also made a tweak to 'Shadows and Highlights' in this version to decrease highlights slightly and boost shadows a little.


Image
Leitz Ortholux 1, Zeiss standard, Nikon Diaphot inverted, Canon photographic gear

canonian
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:00 am
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Post by canonian »

Wow, Cactusdave, I'm impressed what you pulled out of my image :shock:

Cactusdave
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:40 pm
Location: Bromley, Kent, UK

Post by Cactusdave »

Thanks Fred. Remember, I'm not creating anything that the lens didn't resolve in the first place. Looks to me like the lens will turn out to be a usable option at this magnification for all but very critical applications, and something of a bargain at the price. Finding exactly the best way to mount and light it lies ahead.
Leitz Ortholux 1, Zeiss standard, Nikon Diaphot inverted, Canon photographic gear

Cactusdave
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:40 pm
Location: Bromley, Kent, UK

Post by Cactusdave »

Canonian, I gave the same treatment (contrast enhancement plus Unsharp mask) to your first image of the small unknown bug head. Plenty of detail there too.

Image

Canonian's image with the JML X20 after editing.
Leitz Ortholux 1, Zeiss standard, Nikon Diaphot inverted, Canon photographic gear

canonian
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:00 am
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Post by canonian »

Cactusdave wrote:Finding exactly the best way to mount and light it lies ahead.
Thanks Catusdave, those are great tips you gave me, and thank you for the processed versions. There's quite a lot to improve in postprocessing.
One think is painfully clear, my sensor need a thourough swab :(

Talking of tips: here's another shot, this time the back of a bumblebee.
Image
Overview single shot Lomo 3.5Plan

Image
JML 20X, 20 shots@5micron, DMAP only, fully processed

..and I agree, best price/performance lens I ever bought.
Last edited by canonian on Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic