A coil

•


2 cm!!! :jawdrop:

Kinda cool work, Darren, shot with…?
 
Nicely done.

IME photoshop would have made a mess of that stack. It looks like Helicon did a pretty nice job but there's a few bits along the rear of the clamp blocks that are pretty mushy.
In order to get a more even reflection across those clamp blocks I would try moving the light just a bit farther back, and maybe angled a little farther forward. And then add some white card to the front to bounce a bit of light back in to compensate.
Lastly, the coil is going behind the left block because the block isn't clamped straight and because the coil is spreading out on that side.

This is all fairly minor stuff and should be pretty easily fixed...
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Nicely done.

IME photoshop would have made a mess of that stack. It looks like Helicon did a pretty nice job but there's a few bits along the rear of the clamp blocks that are pretty mushy.
In order to get a more even reflection across those clamp blocks I would try moving the light just a bit farther back, and maybe angled a little farther forward. And then add some white card to the front to bounce a bit of light back in to compensate.
Lastly, the coil is going behind the left block because the block isn't clamped straight and because the coil is spreading out on that side.

This is all fairly minor stuff and should be pretty easily fixed...
Click to expand...
Thank you sk66, Lighting is my constant problem, especially at the front where you suggest the white card, I actually use a reflector ring that fits over the lens. But it doesnt seem to work very well, so I will give the white card a go.
 
MikraCoils said:
I actually use a reflector ring that fits over the lens… will give the white card a go.
Click to expand...


The ideal solution will give the blocks the same
specular effect on their whole surfaces given they
have the same finish.
 
MikraCoils said:
Thank you sk66, Lighting is my constant problem, especially at the front where you suggest the white card, I actually use a reflector ring that fits over the lens. But it doesnt seem to work very well, so I will give the white card a go.
Click to expand...
Chances are that a reflector on the lens isn't going to be at the right angle to get light where you want it. For something like this I would use white (maybe silver) reflector card(s) in front, and if I want a darker area I would use a black card (I think of it as things the shiny surfaces will reflect).
 
Nice to see another vaper, would love to see this shot if you could get the rainbow through the coil once it's been heated a little
 
Kodiak Qc said:
The ideal solution will give the blocks the same
specular effect on their whole surfaces given they
have the same finish.
Click to expand...
Because the surfaces of the clamp blocks are (mostly) parallel, the fact the reflection is not uniform means the light source (softbox) positioning overhead is wrong, or it is too small (unlikely IMO). All parallel surfaces should reflect the same amount of light back to the camera, the only difference will be due to texture (reflectivity) differences, or falloff (distance from the light).
My best guess is that the clamp blocks are seeing/reflecting the transition at the edge of the softbox. But I'm a little confused that it doesn't extend farther back... unless the lighting was changed a bit in the process of taking all of the stack images.
 
sk66 said:
Because the surfaces of the clamp blocks are (mostly) parallel, the fact the reflection is not uniform means the light source (softbox) positioning overhead is wrong, or it is too small (unlikely IMO). All parallel surfaces should reflect the same amount of light back to the camera, the only difference will be due to texture (reflectivity) differences, or falloff (distance from the light).
My best guess is that the clamp blocks are seeing/reflecting the transition at the edge of the softbox. But I'm a little confused that it doesn't extend farther back... unless the lighting was changed a bit in the process of taking all of the stack images.
Click to expand...

As he is using a reflector attached to the lens, as the lens moves through the stack then the light is changing, ever so slightly, with each exposure. Would that create the effect you mention?
 
Ploddles said:
As he is using a reflector attached to the lens, as the lens moves through the stack then the light is changing, ever so slightly,
Click to expand...



Really? What makes you think so?
… since the angle of capture does not change
thus leading to a better stack.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
Really? What makes you think so?
… since the angle of capture does not change
thus leading to a better stack.
Click to expand...

Because the light source is changing with every shot in the stack. He says he is using a reflector attached to the lens, as it moves so does the light.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
Really? What makes you think so?
… since the angle of capture does not change
thus leading to a better stack.
Click to expand...


Yes I understood that. Two points here
  1. the reflector being the main light is not changing
    angle of incidence to the subject nor to the direct
    light source


  2. the method used here is the better of the two ways
    to do it, the focus stacking as opposed to the rail
    displacement stacking
 
Ploddles said:
As he is using a reflector attached to the lens, as the lens moves through the stack then the light is changing, ever so slightly, with each exposure. Would that create the effect you mention?
Click to expand...
Highly unlikely IMO... Because those surfaces are flat and at an angle to the lens, any light coming from the location of the lens cannot be reflected back to the lens. Because we are looking at those flat surfaces from an angle to the front, that means the light we are seeing there is coming from an equal angle to the back.
That's why I said the lens mounted reflector ring wasn't going to be much help... it will really only show in surfaces that are nearly perpendicular to the lens axis (as a "ring light" it will be ridiculously inefficient).

Edit: I believe you can see the "ring reflector" in the stepped surface at the rear of the left clamp block, which is (very nearly) perpendicular to the lens axis. But it is also not apparent in very similarly oriented surfaces farther back... at this point I'm fairly certain the overhead light was shifted during the operation. It doesn't take much movement in angle/position to make a notably large difference with these things sometimes... it could even be that the softbox/head/arm just sagged a touch.
 
Last edited:
Kodiak Qc said:
  • the method used here is the better of the two ways
    to do it, the focus stacking as opposed to the rail
    displacement stacking
Click to expand...
Technically, I don't see a significant advantage to either method... they both introduce perspective shift and magnification changes between images that must be corrected for. I would say the best method is whichever one you can control/automate the best. But automated focus stacking using software and a USB cable (focus ring) is generally easier/cheaper than doing the same thing and adding in a CNC stepper rail (focus distance).
 
sk66 said:
Technically, I don't see a significant advantage to either method...
Click to expand...


Before investing in one of the two, I did try them
both (having a deductive prejudice in favour of the
focus stacking method through Helicon Remote).

Indeed, 11 tests with Remote were done and one
required my attention. Seven tests were executed
with the rail approach and 5 needed some inter-
vention from my part.

The choice was clear… confirming my deductive pre-
judice in favour of the focus stacking method through
Helicon Remote.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
Indeed, 11 tests with Remote were done and one
required my attention. Seven tests were executed
with the rail approach and 5 needed some inter-
vention from my part.
Click to expand...
A manual rail? Yes, there are many ways in which that is inferior... but you could automate that as well.
Personally, I think the DOF (helicon) method is the smarter choice for cost /ease, but instead I built my own CNC stepper rail :confused:.
 
Last edited:
Bollygum said:
Could I ask - are you sinf flash or fixed lighting?
Click to expand...

I use my studio flash for their fast recycling and stable
performance.

Both are very usable — making sure that flash is stable
and recycling fast enough or the "fixed" light source has
to be flicker free.
 
Last edited:
I guess that if you have all the flash equipment then you are used to it, but it makes little sense for macro stacking. I take a lot of macro time lapse (of fungi) and I always use LED fixed lighting. It has several advantages over flash , but the main two are:
1. It is much easier than flash. What you see is what you get. You can adjust the lighting by sight, which you can never do with flash.
2. It is much cheaper than flash. A setup can cost less than $100 and that would be impossible with flash.
 
Bollygum said:
I guess that if you have all the flash equipment then you are used to it
Click to expand...


Yes. I am talking about producing slices of circuit
boards SMDs to trucks and everything in between.
 
Pardon my ignorance, but what does SMD mean? I presume this is contract work?
 
Bollygum said:
what does SMD mean?
Click to expand...

SMD = Surface Mount Devices.

MECs, Micro Electronic Components used
in your smart phone and other new tech.
 
Ok. So colour accuracy isn't likely to be a critical issue, it is more getting the reflections right and making sure shadows aren't too deep, etc. Am I right?
 
Bollygum said:
So colour accuracy isn't likely to be a critical issue
Click to expand...
WB is the less critical issue at capture but
colour accuracy is, when rendering.
 
I'll put it this way, I use cheap LED lighting and I have never had a problem with colour accuracy. If you are very particular about colour you could use expensive LEDs, which would still be far cheaper than flash and retain the ease of use. The key point with using LEDs is that you can adjust lighting very accurately, whereas with flash it is very difficult. I know time lapse photographers who use flash for plant growth, but the reason there is that they need to keep a day/night cycle for the plants to grow and the flash allows them to overwhelm the ambient light. They started using LEDs for fungi after they had seen what I did.

I would suggest that using f8 is just making life difficult for yourself. I use f18 for that type of camera and I find that there is no perceivable loss of sharpness. Try it yourself to see if that is true with your camera/lens. Using f18 means that you need far fewer stacks, which also means that there is less to go wrong.
 
Bollygum said:
I use cheap LED lighting
Click to expand...
Yes. No flickering, no charging time and constant. Ok. ✓
… but not for trucks.
Bollygum said:
I would suggest that using f8 is just making life difficult for yourself. I use f18 for that type of camera and I find that there is no perceivable loss of sharpness.
Click to expand...
We should retake and explore this conversation further
in front of a 2.6m high display transparency. :cool:
Bollygum said:
you need far fewer stacks
Click to expand...
You mean "slices" that will be "stacked" down the pipeline.
 
Yes, slices (I tend to work alone, so I miss on the terminology :) ). As for the 2.6m display. What difference would that make? I use a 4k screen and software is quite capable of showing a 100% image. A 100% image at 500mm is the same as a 100% image at 2.6m, there's just less of it. Anyway, it is just a suggestion. I take almost all my macros as focus stacks and I would not be able to do that if I used f8 (I actually use f16 on a Sony A7R2).
 
sk66 said:
But I will say that moving the entire mass of camera/lens is more demanding on setup/methodology compared to just moving the focusing elements w/in the lens...
Click to expand...


Quite right, Steven.

Making a living means to find the best way to do things
at the lowest costs in time, gear, and troubleshooting. :cool:
 
Bollygum said:
If you are very particular about colour you could use expensive LEDs, which would still be far cheaper than flash and retain the ease of use.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is the case... Strobes are quite cost effective compared to most constant lights that are actually of a high CRI across the spectrum. LEDs are also extremely low powered compared to any flash.
But yes, in a situation that is not color critical and where long SS's are suitable, then just about any constant light source can be suitable and easier to position/adjust.

Bollygum said:
I use f18 for that type of camera and I find that there is no perceivable loss of sharpness.
Click to expand...
I find this rather hard to believe... at f/16 you're getting a max of ~ 14MP resolution from the A7RII. Now, if the lens/technique in use is already significantly limiting the resolution recorded to near that level then yeah, I can see where it would make little difference.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top