New to macro

[RonaldSill]

I am new to macro. I usually do landscape and bird photography. A back injury has me pinned down at home for the most part so I started reading up on macro using extension tubes and microscope objectives. So I started ordering the parts I needed and assembled something I finally started getting to work. Here's my first attempt at using all the gear I've assembled together to do this. I've only got a manual rail for now. This shot was 148 slices in the end so I see a great benefit to buying an automated rail eventually. For now, this is a black ant I picked up recently.

 

[Kwazy]

This is really cool. I've wondered for a while how people do these, but am too lazy to do my own research.
Could you post a picture of your rig? Also, what software did you use to make the composite?

 

[RonaldSill]

This is really cool. I've wondered for a while how people do these, but am too lazy to do my own research.
Could you post a picture of your rig? Also, what software did you use to make the composite?

Hopefully this works, picture of the 'lens' setup. Of course this whole setup would be mounted on a rail for my shooting. I use a manual rail so turn a knob between shots ever so slightly. I use Helicon for focus stacking.

 

[Kwazy]

Quite a setup! What's the contraption on the top? Is that a flash? If so, wouldn't the subject be in the shadow?

 

[RonaldSill]

Quite a setup! What's the contraption on the top? Is that a flash? If so, wouldn't the subject be in the shadow?

That is not a flash but a wireless controller for a couple flash units I have. The ant image was done with one flash triggered by this remote. I intended on two flashes but one wasn't firing and I liked the look of a single flash so much I didn't bother with getting the other one going. The flash was off camera left above the ant and pointing right but with the little white reflector pulled out to reflect light down toward the ant. I also used a half-tube shape of white printer paper taped to the end of the 'lens' so it arched over the ant completely. This gave it a lot of diffused indirect light to keep it soft and encompassing.

 

[Kwazy]

Very elaborate.
Hope to see more of your work.

 

[Hali]

That is awesome, Ron! It takes quite a bit of work to do that sort of work. I've never quite worked that closely, although I do have and enjoy using the Canon EF 65MP-E lens on occasion, but I've never created anything like that! I love Helicon focus, to me it's the best stacking software available.

 

[RonaldSill]

That is awesome, Ron! It takes quite a bit of work to do that sort of work. I've never quite worked that closely, although I do have and enjoy using the Canon EF 65MP-E lens on occasion, but I've never created anything like that! I love Helicon focus, to me it's the best stacking software available.

Thank you. How do you like the 65MP-E? How is the quality at 5:1 ? Do you get a lot of diffraction distortion?

 

[Hali]

Thank you. How do you like the 65MP-E? How is the quality at 5:1 ? Do you get a lot of diffraction distortion?

At 5:1 it is difficult to handle so I haven't done much work with it. But since my understanding of diffraction is based on the understanding that since the physical size of the aperture does not change with the focal length and that doesn't change with the magnification either. And it is that physical size of the aperture and the cone of light angle that are the determinants of the diffraction blur spot, so the magnification doesn't effect it. (In theory)
I should ask if you've ever used the 65MP-E - it doesn't focus. You manually move the lens forward and back (a rail is a big plus if not a necessity if you are working anything over 1.5X) to find the focus point and go from there.

Now I think I need to get that lens out and play with it (after I go through my 15K worth of Costa Rica images!)

 

[RonaldSill]

At 5:1 it is difficult to handle so I haven't done much work with it. But since my understanding of diffraction is based on the understanding that since the physical size of the aperture does not change with the focal length and that doesn't change with the magnification either. And it is that physical size of the aperture and the cone of light angle that are the determinants of the diffraction blur spot, so the magnification doesn't effect it. (In theory)
I should ask if you've ever used the 65MP-E - it doesn't focus. You manually move the lens forward and back (a rail is a big plus if not a necessity if you are working anything over 1.5X) to find the focus point and go from there.

Now I think I need to get that lens out and play with it (after I go through my 15K worth of Costa Rica images!)

I remember reading about an 'effective' aperture vs the actual aperture size. So even though the physical aperture size does not change the effective aperture does. It basically was saying that the effective aperture was equal to the actual aperture times (1 + the magnification). This is due to the physical aperture being further away from the sensor at higher magnifications. So an aperture of f/8.0 if used on a 5x mag would equal f/48.... 8 X (1 + 5). I've also read that once you get above f/20-ish diffraction starts to get bad enough that there's benefits to backing off. This is all new to me so I'm still playing, reading, learning. I read, I try, I see the results and come to my own conclusions with all that in mind. Since I have little experience I'm still on the steep end of the learning curve.