Icon134 0 #1 January 20, 2009 I've been experimenting with Macro Stacking... As I understand it it is a challenge without a tripod... but using a tripod and a macro rail you can get some neat results. http://www.scottgunstills.com/photos/455760915_JxPa3-L.jpg http://www.scottgunstills.com/photos/456904880_4rqWk-L.jpg http://www.scottgunstills.com/photos/456904818_XaeaG-L.jpg I hope you enjoy...Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conundrum 1 #2 January 20, 2009 Love the last one. What glass and settings are you shooting with? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icon134 0 #3 January 20, 2009 Thanks... The first 2 were taken with a Tamron 90 mm Macro. The first has about 7 different focal distances and is then the sharp parts of each image is combined to make the full picture. I believe each shot was about 0.8 seconds, with an Av of f/11. The second shot was 3 images stacked... with a Tv of 1 second, and an Av of f/11. The third image was taken with a Canon 65mm MP-E (1x - 5x) at about 1x. It's also a stacked image (Tv, 1 Sec and Av: f/11) The lighting was done using a Garage lamp (you know the kind with a clamp) with a paper towel taped over the relflector as a makeshift diffuser. Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpwally 0 #4 January 20, 2009 Cool pics, but what is macro stacking ? Sound interesting......smile, be nice, enjoy life FB # - 1083 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #5 January 20, 2009 Quote The second shot was 3 images stacked... with a Tv of 1 second, and an Av of f/11. I didn't see no TV...what channel was it on? Good stuff, Scott.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icon134 0 #6 January 20, 2009 QuoteCool pics, but what is macro stacking ? Sound interesting......I kind of explained it above and I'm just learning the method myself... I can post pictures later but basically as the magnification increases the depth of field at a particular aperture gets extremely small... so shooting at an angle such will only allow a small portion of the movement to be in focus (which may or may not be a bad thing depending on compositional interests) In my case wanted to shoot at an angle but still have the entire visible movement to be sharp focus. this can be done in a couple of different ways... 1. The lens can be stopped down (although the mp-e 65mm only stops to f/16) but generally at smaller apertures (and larger apertures) the quality of images are degraded because light passes through the edges of the optics an such... Although there are lenses that are known to still function quite well at the limits of the optics (Canon 24-105mm F/4L functions quite well at f/4) most lenses function the best in the middle of their optical ranges. 2. Another method to modify the sharp areas of focus is to use a tilt shift lens this allows the photographer to tilt the lens allowing the light to pass through different parts of the lenses and can create interesting effects (and could be just as effective as what I've done) The guy on this site (http://watchinghorology.com/ actually uses a TS lens to get many of his shots. 3. the third method is what I've done. Basically I've mounted my camera on a rail that allows me to move it forward and backward with out moving it side to side, I use a RRS (B-150B Macro Rail. I decide on a basic composition then move the rail such that the nearest point to the lens of interest is in sharp focus. I take a picture then turn the dial slightly to get a different field of the frame in focus (the magnification stays similar throughout) I step through the image while trying to overlap each area of sharp focus a bit. After taking all of the shots each of the frames is overlapped in such a way that only the sharp portions of each image is in focus. (I've been using a program called CombineZM to generate the pictures I have taken so far but I know it can be done using Adobe Photoshop as well. I hope my long windedness wasn't too boring... and that I at least sort of answered your question... ScottLivin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icon134 0 #7 January 20, 2009 Quote Quote The second shot was 3 images stacked... with a Tv of 1 second, and an Av of f/11. I didn't see no TV...what channel was it on? Good stuff, Scott. Tv = shutter speed... I guess I'm becoming a bit of a dork in the use of my acronym... besides starting in Feb it will have to start being HDTV right... Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #8 January 20, 2009 QuoteQuoteCool pics, but what is macro stacking ? Sound interesting......I kind of explained it above and I'm just learning the method myself... I can post pictures later but basically as the magnification increases the depth of field at a particular aperture gets extremely small... so shooting at an angle such will only allow a small portion of the movement to be in focus (which may or may not be a bad thing depending on compositional interests) In my case wanted to shoot at an angle but still have the entire visible movement to be sharp focus. this can be done in a couple of different ways... 1. The lens can be stopped down (although the mp-e 65mm only stops to f/16) but generally at smaller apertures (and larger apertures) the quality of images are degraded because light passes through the edges of the optics an such... Although there are lenses that are known to still function quite well at the limits of the optics (Canon 24-105mm F/4L functions quite well at f/4) most lenses function the best in the middle of their optical ranges. 2. Another method to modify the sharp areas of focus is to use a tilt shift lens this allows the photographer to tilt the lens allowing the light to pass through different parts of the lenses and can create interesting effects (and could be just as effective as what I've done) The guy on this site (http://watchinghorology.com/ actually uses a TS lens to get many of his shots. 3. the third method is what I've done. Basically I've mounted my camera on a rail that allows me to move it forward and backward with out moving it side to side, I use a RRS (B-150B Macro Rail. I decide on a basic composition then move the rail such that the nearest point to the lens of interest is in sharp focus. I take a picture then turn the dial slightly to get a different field of the frame in focus (the magnification stays similar throughout) I step through the image while trying to overlap each area of sharp focus a bit. After taking all of the shots each of the frames is overlapped in such a way that only the sharp portions of each image is in focus. (I've been using a program called CombineZM to generate the pictures I have taken so far but I know it can be done using Adobe Photoshop as well. I hope my long windedness wasn't too boring... and that I at least sort of answered your question... Scott All of this just to show us that you need to clean your watch?"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #9 January 20, 2009 That's a jolly nice looking time piece (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icon134 0 #10 January 20, 2009 Quote All of this just to show us that you need to clean your watch? Well it is an antique... (I believe it was manufactured a bit under 100 years ago in fact baised on the S/N the movement appears to have been made in 1912) but you're not wrong... Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiverMike 5 #11 January 20, 2009 Great Pictures. Doesn't the object have to be 100 years old to officially be an antique? I wouldn't want the antique police to site you for false advertising. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icon134 0 #12 January 20, 2009 Quote Great Pictures. Doesn't the object have to be 100 years old to officially be an antique? I wouldn't want the antique police to site you for false advertising. I don't think there's a rule... the definition from wikipedia: An item which is at least 50 to 100 years old and is collected or desirable due to rarity, condition, utility, or some other unique feature. Although I don't know how rare a watch in this condition actually is... Edited to add: So even if the antique police do come... I think I'm ok... Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
