| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/15/2003 11:12:14 AM · #1 |
//www.dpchallenge.com/portfolio.php?USER_ID=9411&collection_id=1365
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=36448
I've loaded some of my alternate shots and one of the orginals for scale on my insect submission.
I've used some of the wondeful suggestions I recieved and would appreciate any more constructive critiques you are willing to provide.
The subject insect is less than 7 mm's long so you can see what a challenge this was, esp. the lighting. I'm quite pleased with the results.
I was pretty sure it would do an averages score.. really didn't expect to be in the basement though.. Ah well.
Message edited by author 2003-09-15 11:18:44. |
|
|
|
09/15/2003 08:20:55 PM · #2 |
You picked a real "bugger" of a subject here; pun intended ;^)
Polishing a flat window was a great idea. Is the amber hard enough to use standard polishing techniques for mineral samples?
Lighting this had to be a bear. If I were trying this, I'd be temped to use a "fiberoptic" light source intended for microscope illumination. It's the only way I can think to get enough light onto the subject and control reflection. I'd also use a polarizer to control the reflection off the polished surface.
Another idea would be to shoot it using a microscope with through-the-lens illumination, but scopes of this type usually have magnifications higher than what's called for here.
I like the variations that retain the yellow cast of the amber the most, though "1y" brings out more detail in the fly than your submission. If I had to guess, I would say 1y may have scored higher than your submitted photo. My 2 cents. |
|
|
|
09/15/2003 08:21:18 PM · #3 |
| I like Amber1y a little better than your submitted shot, just because the insect stands out a little better from the background. (For the sake of "full disclosure", I'll let you know I'm a bit color blind, so that may have some effect on how I see it.) For composition, I think I might like the original better. It provides the frame of reference that this bug is embedded in something. Not that that isn't sort of obvious in the first shot, at least after you look for a little while, but there's just something about that context that feels more complete to me. |
|
|
|
09/15/2003 08:41:35 PM · #4 |
hmm, You know I had 1y up and thought the highlights would put people off, along with the bright spots on the bubbles.
Oh well..
Great tips thank you! I'm shopping for a light like you described,, may have to make something.
No, it's very soft. And quite a trick to get just right, this is super hardened tree resin, so if it gets too hot it will melt.
The final finish is actually done using Acetone to smooth any minute scratches.
I use files, diamond sanding belts up to 3 microns and a polishing compound on soft felt wheels. Then the Acetone. |
|
|
|
09/15/2003 11:46:37 PM · #5 |
There are always a bunch of these illuminators on ebay, but they go for about $200 & up. Search for fiber optic illuminator.
The best ones for this purpose have a "double gooseneck" style illuminator, giving two pointable sources. Most have an adjustable condensing lens at the end of each source, so you can adjust the spread of the beam.
The light source is nearly always a halogen lamp with an integrated parabolic reflector. |
|
|
|
09/16/2003 10:03:47 AM · #6 |
| If you are really looking to try and light a subject like this but not have any reflections, it would be worth looking into a cross-polarised lighting set up. To do this, you need a polarising material on the flash(es) that you are using, and a 90 degree offset polarising filter on the camera. That way none of the light from the flashes will cause any reflections on the material and you'll get good, even saturated light. |
|
|
|
09/16/2003 10:29:27 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
If you are really looking to try and light a subject like this but not have any reflections, it would be worth looking into a cross-polarised lighting set up. To do this, you need a polarising material on the flash(es) that you are using, and a 90 degree offset polarising filter on the camera. That way none of the light from the flashes will cause any reflections on the material and you'll get good, even saturated light. |
THANK YOU!
everyone.. this is exactly the kind of info I was hoping to garner.
I'm not using a flash.. static always on lights. so if I combine that w/ the fiber optic illuminator (I hope to have one day) and use the polarizing filters you describe I should be getting much better shots.
I'm also wanting to macro/close up shots of stones like opal (opaque) and sunstone (transparent w/ colour play) and many others.
So it sounds like I'm gonna need all of these things (and probably more) to do a decent job of it.
I certainly appreciate everyone taking the time to give advice. |
|
|
|
09/16/2003 10:36:44 AM · #8 |
The thing about cross polarising is that all of your light sources need to be polarised the same way, and then the camera lens polarised at 90 degrees to those, to cut out the glare. This is the same for any light source, flash or always on. Not sure how it works with non-filament light sources though.
Message edited by author 2003-09-16 10:37:17.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 05:07:02 AM EDT.
