Macro Nature Photography

[Nutball]

I redid the video with some fitting music. I just wish forums didn't have such a contrast and saturation reducing effect. I think the TV and computer viewing software also has built in artificial color enhancements. It makes going between devices and software annoying.

 

[lumberjack]

Why not upload to Youtube?

The depth of field in the video is amazing, if I understand the scale correctly.

 

[Nutball]

YouTube terminated my account for no precise reason, and I don't want to support them further. Vimeo did the same the first time I tried using them with a free account.

I find videos come out looking better in some ways as your brain does a little focus stacking. I think the scale isn't quite as small as you think, consider the size of the pine needle that peeks in the right side toward the beginning. Also it must have been close to minimum zoom due to the little bit of vignetting, probably around 70-160mm looking through a 50mm prime.

I'd guess a clear depth of 2mm and manageable up to 4mm

 

[Mellow]

 

[lumberjack]

YouTube terminated my account for no precise reason, and I don't want to support them further. Vimeo did the same the first time I tried using them with a free account.

I find videos come out looking better in some ways as your brain does a little focus stacking. I think the scale isn't quite as small as you think, consider the size of the pine needle that peeks in the right side toward the beginning. Also it must have been close to minimum zoom due to the little bit of vignetting, probably around 70-160mm looking through a 50mm prime.

I'd guess a clear depth of 2mm and manageable up to 4mm

Yeah I thought we were exploring lichen on the rock considerably smaller than the pine needle.


You were stacking lenses? Interesting technique.

 

[Nutball]

Yes, it's called a macro coupler, but I have to hold it all in place since there is no threaded attachments on cheap PNS cameras. Also, I get an advantage using certain lenses because the small diameter PNS lens can fit deep inside some big lenses making it a "faster" setup. Basically I can keep the camera zoomed out further without vignetting. I'm lucky to have a very short 50mm lens to look through. I got a f1.4 50mm that has no advantage over the f1.7 because the stack of glass is so much thicker that the increased diameter is countered by the increased distance. You can find a picture of my setup in pages past.

 

[lumberjack]

 

[Nutball]

 

[Nutball]

I was digging up blackberry plants to move and sell, and found white specs crawling on the roots of one.

Ground Mealy Bug.

 

[Nutball]

I might be able to easily add extra light to my macro setup using LED filaments from a 1400lm bulb. The only problem is that each filament needs over 100v since they contain 40 series LEDs each. I'd need a voltage booster, and/or a big battery.

 

[Nutball]

 

[lumberjack]

There’s a whole world we don’t realize.

 

[gf beranek]

Sedges have edges.

 

[Nutball]

It was a dewy morning.

I wonder if the last pic from my last post is of a rush or a grass? The seeds seem similar to a sedge, but the stem is round. I've seen some obvious rushes before, way different.

 

[gf beranek]

Yeah, the distinction isn't always clear. Damn wetland plants anyway.

 

[Nutball]

I like them, some a pretty good looking.

 

[gf beranek]

Sedges... Carex, Rushes... Juncus. I haven't figured them all out . There's so many species, sub-species and varieties of both IDing any one can be harder than trying to find your car at the economy parking at the airport.

 

[Nutball]

 

[gf beranek]

You're getting pretty good at this macro work. Beautiful. Got to love nature.

 

[Nutball]

Just a few more from 2018 I decided to edit today. Once I figured out how to take macro pics I put about 8,000 clicks on the shutter in that year. Maybe 80 good pics came out of it at best, but that's the nature of my method: lots of waste.

 

[gf beranek]

Especially with macro. the cull rate is high. Chiefly because the dept of field is so narrow.

 

[Mellow]

Remember how careful we were when we had only 24 or 36 frames per roll? And then you had to wait a week to see if they were any good?

 

[gf beranek]

Cull rates with film were astronomical. For 30 some years I shot Kodachrome, asa 25 / 64, 36 shot rolls.

$5.50 a roll and 6.00 bugs to process. $11-12 dollars

If I got 10 keepers out of a roll of film I was pretty happy.

Digital is so nice.

 

[Nutball]

If anyone knows a botanist friend, or feels like wasting time, try identifying this flower found in middle TN, pic taken on 9/25

 

[gf beranek]

If upside-down it would look like a pea flower.