Hello all,
Been viewing this site for about a year learning all I could about stacking (equipment & techniques) so decided time to join up.
Have done field macro and closeup for many years (still my main passion) but the incredible detail capability of stacking caught my interest so hear I am.
Hoping to learn more and to even post when I fully understand the correct process to post images.
Gear I use includes Canon EOS 1D MkIII, 5D MkII, MP-E 65mm, Olympus 20 f2 and 38mm f2.8 bellows lenses using two combined telescoping extension tubes instead of bellows.
Microscope is Zeiss Standard (16, I think) and various objectives.
Regards,
Joe Warfel
Hello, new to forum after year of browsing!
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
Re: Hello, new to forum after year of browsing!
Hello, JoeCaddo wrote:Olympus 20 f2 and 38mm f2.8 bellows lenses using two combined telescoping extension tubes instead of bellows.
Welcome
I have the 20mm f2 but have scarcely used it. Your experience of using it would be of considerable interest here. I have made more use of the 38mm but mostly with film.
I have also employed two telescopic units for some field applications, although my recent activity has used only one.
Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23608
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Joe, welcome aboard!
It sounds like you have the right equipment to make some very sharp images. I look forward to seeing those and I'm sure the crew here will be happy to help you over any rough spots.
For image posting, see the instructions at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7. Like many things, it's simple enough to do once you've learned the process, but the process is not necessarily simple to learn.
--Rik
It sounds like you have the right equipment to make some very sharp images. I look forward to seeing those and I'm sure the crew here will be happy to help you over any rough spots.
For image posting, see the instructions at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7. Like many things, it's simple enough to do once you've learned the process, but the process is not necessarily simple to learn.
--Rik
One more photo upload question
I'll select an image or two shortly and try posting. In the "how to" link given it is shown 800x800 is the pixel limit. Is that that correct. Want to make sure I resize files for best.
Thanks for the kind welcome. By the way use Zerene Stacker and am pleased with it very much, the little I have been using it.
Thanks,
Joe Warfel
Thanks for the kind welcome. By the way use Zerene Stacker and am pleased with it very much, the little I have been using it.
Thanks,
Joe Warfel
Further Upload question
I randomly checked image information on an uploaded photo and noted it was 1000px X 600px or so in size and over 400K in file size.
Can I assume allowed file sizes are now larger than the 800x800px and 300k in size that is referenced in the 2006 dated "photo guidelines"?
Thanks again.
Joe Warfel
Can I assume allowed file sizes are now larger than the 800x800px and 300k in size that is referenced in the 2006 dated "photo guidelines"?
Thanks again.
Joe Warfel
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23608
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
The current limits for files hosted at photomacrography.net are 1024x1024 and 300 KB. Those are the ones that go through the Upload button shown in the Image Hosting Procedures. The limits through this route are enforced by the forum software.
I assume the 800x800px you're seeing is what's shown in some of the screen capture images. Those images have not been regenerated since we increased the limits. When you actually click the Upload button you'll see the current limits.
There is no enforced limit for images hosted at other sites like Flickr. We make the same recommendations, for example no wider than 1024 pixels, but that's entirely up to the discretion of the individual poster. What happens with wider images is that pages get progressively harder to read, but even that is not so bad anymore since modern browsers support zooming.
I'm glad to hear that Zerene Stacker is working well for you. It should see some more use with your renewed interest in the high mag stacked stuff.
--Rik
I assume the 800x800px you're seeing is what's shown in some of the screen capture images. Those images have not been regenerated since we increased the limits. When you actually click the Upload button you'll see the current limits.
There is no enforced limit for images hosted at other sites like Flickr. We make the same recommendations, for example no wider than 1024 pixels, but that's entirely up to the discretion of the individual poster. What happens with wider images is that pages get progressively harder to read, but even that is not so bad anymore since modern browsers support zooming.
I'm glad to hear that Zerene Stacker is working well for you. It should see some more use with your renewed interest in the high mag stacked stuff.
--Rik