Question for macro photography gurus

[colorluvr]

I've been trying to take some "good" shots of some of my gemstones, and while they have improved, I would still like to be able to get a little closer to the stone.

I have a Nikon D70 camera with a Sigma 105mm 2.8 "mid range" macro lens. I've been reading about extension tubes and a few other suggestions and all I get is more confused. I don't want to spend a bunch of money, but I have a $100 gift certificate to Amazon, so I'd love to be able to keep any purchases in that range.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

 

[kenny]

I think an extension tube is probably the best bang for you buck.

You'll have to research which fits your camera and lens but I'd recommend the longest one you can find.
Nikon makes 3 lengths.

They have no optics.
They just move the lens further from the sensor for more magnification.

There are also ring thingies that let you put your lens on backwards.
It may be called a lens reverse adaptor
They are cheaper and may give more magnification, but with less resolution.
(Check this out to verify, this is from my memory. Yikes.)

 

[colorluvr]

I just came across this "how to" and I see I already have the two most expensive components - the camera and the main lens....does this set up look like it would do what I need?

I hope it's ok to add a link - it's just a how to site - not selling anything.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/supermacro/discuss/61618/

 

[colorluvr]

I think an extension tube is probably the best bang for you buck.

I was reading about those on Amazon, but then I found that other setup - what do you think of the linked setup on my previous post.

 

[kenny]

That's a set up that will give you much more magnification than just an extension tube and your current macro lens but it costs much more too.

They are using a Tele-extender.
That looks like an extension tube but it has optics so it costs more.

Plus you'd have to buy another lens like the 50mm they mentioned, which gets mounted backwards.
Old ones are cheap to buy since they came with so many cameras, but most people bought zooms and never use their 50mm fixed lens.

I may consider getting the 52mm-52mm adaptor ring mentioned there to mount my old 50mm lens backwards in front of my 105mm macro lens.
Add this to the bellows extension and the mag would be much higher than I can achieve now.

Don't forget magnification and resolution are two separate things.
You may find affordable ways to get more magnification but whatever you do won't get you the same degree of resolution (sharpness) of those several-thousand dollar high end macro lenses. (otherwise they'd never sell one.)
I'm currently lusting after a new Nikon 200 mm macro lens, but it's $1620.
I've heard it's one of the sharpest lenses ever made, by anyone - also at 1:1 you have almost a foot of space between the gem and the front of the lens.
This is goovy for letting light in, (less head obstruction) and not scaring away bugs you are shooting.

Oh, check any documentation that came with your macro lens, or their website, about using extension tubes.
They may recommend a max extension.
Physically, you can just keep stacking on tube after tube to infinity but at some point I believe the resolution degrades.

Also be aware light falls off with distance so tubes mean you need more light.
Do try to get enough light so you can shoot in the middle apertures like f8 or f16.
They are the sharpest on any lens.
f22 and f32 may give you more depth of field but absolute sharpness suffers from diffraction at those tiny apertures.

Ain't this fun?

 

[colorluvr]

They are using a Tele-extender.
That looks like an extension tube but it has optics so it costs more.

Ain't this fun?

They have the 50mm lens on Amazon for a little over $100, so with my coupon, I'm not out much and there are some tele-extenders on ebay, so maybe I'll keep a lookout for a deal on those.

As far as fun???? somedays fun, somedays just darn frustrating.

thank you for the input.

 

[kenny]

No prob.
I edited again.
Sorry.

 

[m76steve]

I've been trying to take some "good" shots of some of my gemstones, and while they have improved, I would still like to be able to get a little closer to the stone.

I have a Nikon D70 camera with a Sigma 105mm 2.8 "mid range" macro lens. I've been reading about extension tubes and a few other suggestions and all I get is more confused. I don't want to spend a bunch of money, but I have a $100 gift certificate to Amazon, so I'd love to be able to keep any purchases in that range.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

iv been picturing for several years & now im using a nikon coolpix camera good lighting & a decent tripod-lens extensions & adapters do work but may cost a few bucks extra to get good effects-if u want really close pics buy a photo microscope-not to much money & really good results-iv put a pic of a cab taken with the nikon on a tripod-not bad effect-camera @$200.00 & pod just a few bucks-steve

 

[m76steve]

this is the setup im using at present-usually use this or very close setup w/lights & camera angles always adjustable-steve...

 

[LaurenThePartier]

Hrmmm, perhaps if you posted some before and after pics we (not me, but the more studied macro geniuses like Kenny, etc. ) could give you some input that may help in other areas, beyond just equipment. It seems like the 105mm is one of my colleague's favourite lenses, so I know what can be done with it, while I love my Tamron 90mm 2.8 for macro shots.

 

[zeolite]

I've been trying to take some "good" shots of some of my gemstones, and while they have improved, I would still like to be able to get a little closer to the stone.I have a Nikon D70 camera with a Sigma 105mm 2.8 "mid range" macro lens. I've been reading about extension tubes and a few other suggestions and all I get is more confused. I don't want to spend a bunch of money, but I have a $100 gift certificate to Amazon, so I'd love to be able to keep any purchases in that range.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

Let me read between the lines. You say you want to get closer. I think you are saying you want the picture sharper. You don't need extension tubes or extra inverted lenses. Your equipment is excellent. I'm guessing you are hand holding it. What you need is a tripod, with a head that lets you point it where you want it.

Your lens specs are here": http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-105mm-Medium-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/tech-data/B0002P19XA/ref=de_a_smtd

Maximum magnification: 1:1
Minimum focusing distance: 12.3 inches

1:1 means if you are photographing a 7mm gem, it will appear 7mm in size, on your sensor. The minimum focusing distance is measured near the back of the camera, where the sensor is, to the gem. At minimum focusing distance, the front of the lens will be about 5" from the gem.

Your camera specs are here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/nikon/nikon_d70.asp

effective pixels: 6 MP
sensor size: 23.7 x 15.5 mm

At closest focus distance, your 7mm gem will fill 1/2 of the vertical dimension of your sensor (7mm/15.5mm). You don't need to get closer. You just need to get a sharp picture, and crop it in software down to the dimension preferred by Pricescope (less than 100KB)

Here is an example of a gem where I made no effort to get close. Here's the total image. Notice how tiny the gem is in the overall picture.

 

[zeolite]

Now here’s the same picture, cropping down the actual gem. I am saying that your present equipment can do much better than this, if you just use the minimum focusing distance (and you don’t blur the picture, because you will use a tripod).

 

[kenny]

Zeolite wrote, "At closest focus distance, your 7mm gem will fill 1/2 of the vertical dimension of your sensor (7mm/15.5mm). You don't need to get closer. You just need to get a sharp picture, and crop it in software down to the dimension preferred by Pricescope (less than 100KB)
...
At closest focus distance, your 7mm gem will fill 1/2 of the vertical dimension of your sensor (7mm/15.5mm).
You don't need to get closer.
You just need to get a sharp picture, and crop it in software down to the dimension preferred by Pricescope (less than 100KB) "

No no no!!!
Yes you do!!!!!
Well you don't have to fill the sensor or get an even sharper pic, but if you want macro pics that jump out and grab you around the neck you do.
Actually it's not about getting closer physically.
You can't get closer because you are already as close as your lens will focus.
But you can take additional steps to get the gem to be even larger on your sensor than that magic 1:1 true macro ratio.

What Zeolite suggested uses only half of your camera's pixels.
For the sharpest pics you want to use them all.

My camera's sensor is about 23 mm wide, or just under an inch.
If I was taking pics of diamonds that were about an inch across my macro lens alone at 1:1 would be all I need to fill the sensor up.
But I'm taking pics of tiny gems; I ain't Liz Taylor.

Even with a real macro lens, add extension tubes or a bellows to get the gem to fill your view in the camera.
Don't plan on cropping in tighter later on your computer, do it at the camera.

BTW, tele-converters can also increase magnification but they degrade sharpness since they have optics, extra glass cannot make more sharpness it can only degrade it to varying degrees.
Even $500 tele-converters soften your macro lens's image a little.
That's another reason I went the extension ring and bellows route.

As stated, a true macro lens' magnification goes up to 1:1 reproduction ratio.
My extensions increase the magnification way beyond that.
That's the reason my pics jump out and look almost fake.
We are not accustomed to seeing small things with such detail.
Few people go through all the hassle to get such magnification IN THE CAMERA.
Everyone crops later with software instead.

When it comes to fitting your pics onto PS, the file size can be 1,000 KB now on the new PS 2.0.
IIRC, the old max used to be 100 KB.
I adjust the file size of my pics to be around 950 to 990 KB before uploaded to PS, again for max resolution.
Even then, they look like soft and blurry here on PS compared to the original full size RAW files on my monitor.
Oh, that's another thing, if your camera lets you set it to shoot RAW instead of JPEG.

Now, of course if you are not going to get the rings or bellows then yes, just crop in tighter on your computer.
That's all you can do.
I just wanted to encourage folks to take it to the next level, and explain how.

This is one of my sharper macro FCD pics.


This is near the highest magnification my set up can reach.
To get an idea of the magnification, this is a 0.27 ct heart FCD.



Bellows and two extension rings.
Actually this is bad tripod technique.
Extending the rod under the tripod head is dumb.
Making all 3 legs longer so the rod not extended at all is more stable - essential at high magnification.



With two of Nikon's longest extension rings, PK-13. (they make 3 lengths)

 

[colorluvr]

thanks again for all of the input.

I do have a very nice tripod which I always use, my hands would never be steady enough without it. I know a lot of my problem was lighting up until I got some brighter lights last week (which seem to help a bit) because I used to be able to take pretty good pictures when I lived at 3000 ft. in the SoCal desert. I just took my stones outside and either shaded them with my hand or took photos in the shade of my porch and I got good pictures without too much effort. Even inside, my pictures came out pretty good when the morning sun shined in my office without any extra lighting, but I now live in an area of little sun and the lighting in my house stinks.

I recently purchased some full sprectrum trumpet bulbs for lighting, so I have plenty of light, but now my problem is trying to keep the photos from having shadows or glare. I have a photo cube, but I still have to physically set the camera a bit outside the cube for it to focus properly on the stone and I was thinking (perhaps mistakingly) that if I could physically set the camera even closer to the stone, I could improve the overall photo having the lens right next to the cube (with just a hole in the front flap if that makes sense) so I wouldn't have a problem with shadows or glare.

Perhaps I'll fool around with my "setup" a bit more before I buy any new equipment. I re-read my camera manual again yesterday and made a few adjustments, but I still need to figure out how to get the white balance just right...

sigh....

 

[colorluvr]

Even then, they look like soft and blurry here on PS compared to the original full size RAW files on my monitor.
Oh, that's another thing, if your camera lets you set it to shoot RAW instead of JPEG.

It does allow me to shoot RAW images, so perhaps I can try that, although I've never done it before. I see that I can download the Nikon Capture 4.1 software, which (according to my manual) is what I'll need.

Kenny, I see in your photo that you are shooting from the top down, instead of from the front of your cube.... maybe I should try that also.

 

[kenny]

I just use the photo program that came free on my Mac, IPhoto.
It's pretty powerful, but am pretty ignorant about what's out there.

Whether to shoot from the top or front just depends on your "set" and composition.
IIRC, the top down set up was when I had stones in a dish of salt, so I couldn't take the pic from the front.

 

[kenny]

Zeolite, I apologize if I came across as a know it all jerk in my post!

I turn into a bulldozer when I speak about my passions and diamonds and macro work are two of them.
Put them together and . . . stand back.

 

[john gem]

You don't need to be closer you need to be farther back. The closer you get the more light you block out and the more shadow and reflection you create like you said.

 

[yennyfire]

I know zip about photography, but I just had to comment (again) about how STUNNING your FCDs are Kenny....just WOW!

 

[colorluvr]

You don't need to be closer you need to be farther back. The closer you get the more light you block out and the more shadow and reflection you create like you said.

But then, the farther back you are, the smaller the object becomes and the more you have to crop the photo in the software, and the more you crop, the more sharpness you loose - isn't that correct?

Not correcting you, just asking.

 

[kenny]

You don't need to be closer you need to be farther back. The closer you get the more light you block out and the more shadow and reflection you create like you said.

Good point.
Frankly you sort of need both.
Sort of.

You want the gem to fill up the screen of your camera AND you want to back off so light can get in.
Plus when the big lens is almost kissing the gem guess what will be seen in the gem? - thedarkness of the camera & lens.

To get both you need extension tubes AND a macro lens with longer focal length.
At maximum magnifecation...
A 55mm has to be around 3" from the gem.
A 80mm has to be around 5 "
A 105mm has to be around 8 "
A 200mm has to be around 11"

These distances are approximations but the idea is correct.
Longer macro lenses are better.

 

[colorluvr]

I'm reviving this thread to ask another photography question, but first I want to thank everyone who has already contributed helpful advice on my initial questions.

My next question involves taking photographs via my microscope. I have an inexpensive 10x - 30x stereo microscope and I want to be able to attach my D70 Nikon camera to one of the eyepieces to take photos. From what I have seen online, there are two relatively inexpensive ways to do this and I was hoping for input from someone who may have tried them.

One is to buy an adapter that hooks to the camera (without the lens) and has a 10x eyepiece tube (that is part of the adapter ) that fits into the microscope eyepiece slot and replaces the eyepiece. The other is an adapter that hooks to the camera and then attaches around the microscope eyepiece itself (uses the microscope eyepiece).

Has anyone used either of these and if so, what were your results. I'd appreciate any input or suggestions - thanks. (and links would be great

 

[kenny]

No clue here. Sorry.

But if you wanted to google it, that field is called photomicrography.

 

[Richard M.]

Kenny,
What model/version of the Nikon Coolpix are you using? Are you using bellows/extension tubes/diopters, etc. with it? Just curious.

Richard M. (Rick Martin)

 

[Michael_E]

I've been trying to take some "good" shots of some of my gemstones, and while they have improved, I would still like to be able to get a little closer to the stone.

I think that getting close is more a matter of getting your light close than anything to do with the camera. One of my favorite lighting setups is an old fiber optic ring light with a light colored paper cup, (the bottom cut out), stuck in the opening and the camera shooting through it. I also have an old fluorescent examination light, the kind with a magnifying lens in the center...the lens removed of course. Clamp a tupperware bowl with a hole to shoot through to that examination light and it can be moved and adjusted anywhere. Couple that with a top of the line $80 Nikon L22 and I can get some pretty passable shots. The closer you can get light to the lens, the closer you can get to the gems. Here's some recent pictures of tsavorite garnet and diamonds in white gold.

 

[colorluvr]

Michael - I'm doing a bit better with the closeups of my stones, but I got fascinated looking at the inclusion in my spinel and wanted to be able to take a picture of what I saw through the microscope.

I will be trying out some "macro macro" shots after the used lens and adapters I bought on ebay get here next week, but in the mean time I've been reading about camera to microscope hookups and I was wondering if any one of here have tried any of them out.

Here's a sample shot of a couple of my "neonlike" (but included) pear shaped stones that I took a couple of days ago.

5.93ct spessartite from Tanzania. It is 13.0 x 8.7 x 7.0 mm It was advertised as "Neon Mandarin Orange". It looks like it could be a Loliondo, but the seller would only verify it was from Tanzania and said that the supplier did not specify the exact location of the mine.

5.57ct cuprian elbaite from Mozambique. 14.3 x 9.8 x 6.9 mm It was advertised as "Neon Vivid Green". It's hard to catch the actual glow of these stones.

 

[kenny]

Beautiful work colorluvr.

Kenny,
What model/version of the Nikon Coolpix are you using? Are you using bellows/extension tubes/diopters, etc. with it? Just curious.

Richard M. (Rick Martin)

If you scroll up you can see pics of my gear, but none of it is in Nikon's Coolpix line.

Nikon D200 DSLR body
Nikkor 105mm f2.8 Micro lens (30-year old) (Nikon calls their lenses Nikkor and their macro lenses micro)
Nikon PB-6 Bellows extension. (I strongly recommend these)
Two Nikon PK-13 auto extension tubes (unlike teleconverters these have no glass in them so they can not degrade the image)
Gitzo Series 3 super stable tripod that I hang a brick from (at these magnifications you need maximum stability).

Wireless shutter release so I don't introduce focusing-softening camera shake by touching the camera.
I also use the mirror lock-up setting on the camera to further reduce camera vibration from the lens flipping up during the exposure - essential at these magnifications

I try to shoot at my lens' mid aperture of f8 for maximum sharpness, maybe f16.
f32 and f22 give you better depth of field BUT the actual focus of everything suffers from diffraction.

 

[colorluvr]

Beautiful work colorluvr.

thank you, Kenny

 

[PrecisionGem]

Colorlvr, I bought an adapter for the microsope, that is actually a lens. You remove the lens from your D70, and attach this, then this mounts in place of your eyepiece on the microscope. I'm not very happy with it. The focus is different than the eyepiece, and the image is just a round area on the sensor that doesn't fill it too much. I have not tried it with my Nikon D700, in fact since I moved, I have yet to find it, nor miss it.

I think you are best off with these small cameras that are dedicated to be used for photography on the microscope. I bought a very cheap one from eBay when I bought the microscope, but ended up sending it back, the resolution and focus was pretty bad however.

 

[Richard M.]

Kenny,
Sorry...I confused your post with one from M76steve who says he uses a Coolpix.

Richard M. (Rick Martin)