Photocameras

Your system is very sensitive to the type and direction of light and naturally to cleanliness, a monocle is a monocle. Theoretically, you can advise anyone, you just need to work with the light and "catch" the right one(sharpness with sharpness, but sometimes light/ shadow are very significant).

"Vega-11U" tried almost 1:1, though through the dirty glass of the terrarium, photographed "curious eyes".

fragment 100% of 3872x2592 (without adding sharpness)


This post was edited by Yuriy352-19.04.2016 22: 08

Whether it was God's intervention, or an extra-thorough wiping with a cotton swab with alcohol before eliminating even the smallest dust particles and streaks, it had such an effect (although the lens used to be quite clean before, if you don't fall into protectionism).

Well, this is exactly almost like in the joke about the blonde and the car "I wiped the windshield, knocked on the tires, opened and closed the gas tank, it didn't help!"
The miracle is called aperture 4.5, before that everything was with the 7th.
But the most terrible noises spoiled all the rudiments of detail, with such an aperture it would be possible to set 100...

Unfortunately. this eye doesn't tell me anything, but if it's a faceted one...

You can't use a phone because there's no camera. In principle, you can make fun of the laptop's webcam, but it is not connected to the intern tu, and you don't want to transfer it via a flash drive. Better use your imagination. A piece of cardboard sleeve from a roll of food foil is inserted inside the photo shell. It is easily, but quite tightly, mounted on the last knee of the lens.

The mounting method is quite clear, thank you.
Actually, the question about the mount appeared after I tried to fix a similar lens to a very similar lens, but it wasn't there!
For the lens, the inner diameter turned out to be F 30mm, and the lens diameter (minimum) F 32mm. The experiment naturally failed!

So, it is necessary to knock it out of the frame and make another one. By the way, I also do not stand perfectly, in the captivity that there is a gap of about 5 mm from the front edge of the lens to the lens, and this is in the fully extended state, at maximum zoom. If you make the zoom smaller, the gap increases even more. As a result, the curved edge zone gets into the frame, which is not a good thing. It would be better if the lens c was close to the lens. But to do this, you need to saw off most of the tube, and this will already be a destructive method. By the way, I have a question about the device of this lens: how does the zoom work there? When zooming, it first shortens, and then lengthens, which is beyond my understanding.

By the way, I have a question about the device of this lens: how does the zoom work there? When zooming, it first shortens, and then lengthens, which is beyond my understanding.

Gee, so there's not just one or two lenses, but several groups.
So, when you change the focal length, not only the outer group is shifted, but also the inner ones.

But I still wonder how exactly this happens, and why exactly you need to move back first, and then forward.

But I still wonder how exactly this happens, and why exactly you need to move back first, and then forward.

Uh-huh... The algorithm for moving lens groups when the focal length changes is the know-how of each brand.
This can only be understood by disassembling lenses specifically for studying optical circuits. It is easier to contact a good specialist in the repair of optics.

Here is a good plus of the Olympus UZ series, they all have a front lens and acc. the entire "nose" is absolutely stationary(but this does not apply to ordinary Olympus without an ultrazum), only the inner lens moves. So there you can just put a lens on your nose, but of course it's better to make a mount on any camera and not worry about where it goes and how much it weighs.

Yesterday I made a comparative analysis of the picture of Ezox, this one
http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?act=Att...=post&id=258832

and a couple of their own (links to the full size are attached, the nicknames are not processed, no brightness, no contrast, nothing).

In principle, comments are unnecessary, we clearly see how a hard sharp destroys detail and eventually turns the image into a "shabby" one.
Of course, when there is no sharpness, it's also bad, but somehow it's better to have a light blur than a terrible sharp.

I don't know what and why Ezox sharpens his photos, but judging by what happens - broken lines, a lot of "potholes", a huge border along the lines and contours - the result of this processing is doubtful, although if you give the panel a size of at least 1000X750, it would look better..

http://savepic.ru/9457988.jpg

http://savepic.ru/9451844.jpg

Pictures:

del1.JPG — (190.89к)


8525364.jpg — (414.33к)

Specifically, that photo is not sharpened by anything from the word at all. Unless the Kenon is stirring up something in its bowels, but that's beyond my control. But pan did not take into account that I have ISO 200 there, and on its comparison object - much lower.

P.S. Did Pan decide to learn Ukrainian using an image editor? An original approach, but hardly effective. It is better to start with the classics - school textbooks.

This post was edited by ENO-04/20/2016 19: 07

However, there is a sharp there, and an explicit one at that, all the worse if it is not sharp, then kenon sharpens it himself, for example-the same clippings, but the photo with the butterfly was processed using the XN-view option "improve focus"

Very similar result

This post was edited by Hierophis-04/20/2016 19: 09

Pictures:

del2.JPG — (204.18к)

But what kind of ISO was there?

In that picture ISO 100, but interestingly, I obfotkal these butterflies just in case and with ISO 200, here is one of these photos, also without processing, but with on. noise reduction (it is configured so that on. automatically if the ISO is higher than 100).

http://savepic.ru/9491816.jpg

Pictures:

545635356.jpg — (482.12к)

Panu should be photographed with ISO 200 without noise reduction, and only then it will be legitimate to compare, is it really not obvious for panov?

Panam generally do not need and it is not desirable to take pictures with ISO 200, this is not a pan thing.
Panamans need fotkats ISO 50, in extreme cases-100.
And since I "discovered" shumodav quite recently, then there are plenty of February and March photos on ISO 200 without it, for example, and what?

In short, Esox, that's revealed the secret of the cool macro kenons, there in them the campaign of business avtosharp frolics to the fullest))

http://savepic.ru/9473391.jpg

Pictures:

84563543.jpg — (452.14к)

  
In short, Esox, that's revealed the secret of the cool macro kenons, there in them the campaign of business avtosharp frolics to the fullest))

Taki pan Chukchi it looks like this I didn't read the post. But apparently "autosharp frolics" only when the map mode is turned on, it was just him.

Gentlemen, like with lenses, attachments and the specifics of devices( and programs) - figured out.
It may make sense to speculate about lighting when shooting, both in the field and stationary.

  
What is strange is that in my system, the aperture on the GRIP is almost not affected, if there is a difference of 1 millimeter between 4.5 and 14 (this is how much the machine sets when shooting in macro mode with flash) - and that's good.

F / 14 on the A550?

Zoom to maximum + Macro mode + forced flash = F / 14 always.

Sometimes in Fix-Price stores you can find various LED illuminators, which under certain conditions (and refinement) can be used as a backlight for shooting.
For example, a very bright USB lamp for the price of 50r. and if you apply 2-3 such lamps from the desired power supply (+5V) or battery, placing them properly, you will get a good shadowless light.

Gentlemen, like with lenses, attachments and the specifics of devices( and programs) - figured out.
It may make sense to speculate about lighting when shooting, both in the field and stationary.

Personally, I use in the field here's a lantern like this

At the 3rd out of 5 brightness level the flash is no longer needed

Just stick a flashlight in your teeth and head for the barricades? I would like to take a look at the spectrum of this, because LEDs very rarely have something more interesting in terms of color reproduction. For normal light, you need at least two lights from different sides + diffusers. And better-a ring flash or an analog (although some people like it better, it's a matter of taste). In any case, a head-on beam is the worst method of illuminating the subject.

Just stick a flashlight in your teeth and head for the barricades? I would like to take a look at the spectrum of this, because LEDs very rarely have something more interesting in terms of color reproduction. For normal light, you need at least two lights from different sides + diffusers. And better-a ring flash or an analog (although some people like it better, it's a matter of taste). In any case, a head-on beam is the worst method of illuminating the subject.

Here I also wanted to ask about the color temperature...
I'll comment on the flashes:
- ring flash, even with adjustable halves, gives fairly flat lighting. Plus, the choice of setting the light is very limited, since the lamps themselves are still stationary.
- the double-headed flash is more versatile in this sense, since the heads can not only be adjusted in moshness, but also be deflected in almost any direction, highlighting the object and background independently. You can even move the heads to the "mustache", further expanding the installation... However, it is much more expensive.

ENO,26.04.2016 19: 16]

We will not delve into the theory. Specifically, in photography, color temperature refers specifically to the spectral composition (i.e., wavelength) of the illumination.

Still, we'll have to go a little deeper. If we shone a laser, then there would be a wavelength (one) and that's it. And the color, respectively, is one. We shine a certain spectrum. The color temperature is the temperature of an absolutely black body, the radiation of which would be the same as that of our lamp. Because in fact, the light of the lamp is generated by other processes. rather than the thermal izuluchenie of a completely black body, then attracting a certain color temperature to them by the ears is an unrealistic abstraction. Current LEDs produce a narrow spectrum with maxima in one part or another. To get a "white LED", either combine several different ones, getting something like this:



Or (more often) add a phosphor to the blue diode, it turns out something like the following:



And the sun has something like this:



At different times of the day, at different latitudes and altitudes, it varies somewhat, but it still doesn't come close to the same as diodes. Obtaining a spectrum close to the sun is a central problem in the design of "white" diodes, which has not yet been solved. Dips in the spectra of the currently existing ones can occur just at the maximum scattering of insect cuticle pigments, and then we will get a completely unrealistic picture. And no amount of photoshopping will save you. Xenon flashes are much better in this regard:

Does Pan see holes in the rainbow? I'm not.

So, today the pan appeared on the forum, but did not bother to answer the question I put - the drain is counted. But he's not the first one. isn't he the last one:

  
All right, once again I make sure that it's not a camera that takes pictures, but a photographer

The case is still heavy..
It's like, in the style of "you can't praise yourself, no one will praise you" ?
This Inokenty Smoktunovsky still needs to undergo a course of specific therapy

As Carcharot says, such images as the photo of anoplius need to be deleted even before copying to disk, it is not at all clear what it is sitting on, what part of the body it is, whether it is a finger, and which one counts
And so, the substrate generally looks like peeling paint

Oh, I'm still watching Pan khvotograkhv, I didn't make it to Easter. I hit something on Good Friday. I don't know what it is, maybe not alcohol, but that herb that "uuuhhh". But. so and whether otherwise, an svyaznubyu speech of a sober person, his last post does not resemble at all. Sure. and other posts are also not very similar, but this one stands out even against their background. What is the "substrate"? The wasp is sitting on my finger, there is nothing behind me but the steppe distances. And I'm not really talking about the image quality, but about the plot. Pan will never be able to make such a story, except for a production.

But. so and whether otherwise, an svyaznubyu speech of a sober person, his last post does not resemble at all.

Stsuko
Exactly, an azm I am the last Esoxov psto clearly does not look like human speech at all, Cthulhu fhtang

Clearly, Pan had overdosed on uuuhaha.

This post was edited by ENO - 04/29/2016 23: 39

  

Still, we'll have to go a little deeper. If we shone a laser, then there would be a wavelength (one) and that's it. And the color, respectively, is one. We shine a certain spectrum.

X-Rite ColorChecker Passport, as I understand it, is intended for such cases.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:X-R...28detail%29.jpg
Although it probably won't give the full equivalent of the sun, it will smooth out the spectral differences over the entire range as much as possible. And in Photoshop, this is done quite simply, although you still need extra actions...

I once experimented with a self-made map (printed in a photo salon), the result is quite encouraging:
https://fotki.yandex.ru/next/users/barrylbm...w/136455?page=0

This post was edited by barry - 30.04.2016 09: 23

Objective OP-92 as a macrolens
MDF approx 7cm (!!!) when the frame field is 9mm.
Full frames + cut-out eyes

And by the way, the eyes are perfectly visible in the photo of 1000 on the long side, and no tapestries of 3 mega-pixel with thumbnails of 1400 are needed, in which there is nothing but mud

Pictures:

P4300262.jpg — (402.65к)


P43002446.jpg — (402.04к)


P4300256.jpg — (370.07к)


P43002641.jpg — (380.61к)


P4300226.jpg — (495.74к)


P4300254.jpg — (317.11к)

I'm shocked with this objective =0
Went to check in the evening in conditions close to very heavy-tin
First of all, these are photos at an aperture of 3.3 or 4, ISO 100, MDF at this scale is simply huge, even with 9 cm it seems that you can grab focus on autofocus, and this is with a frame width of 9mm, on my harness with a 7+mm frame MDF is less than 3cm...
As a result, beetles are not afraid of almost + you can use a hood.
Moreover, as the zoom decreases, MDF grows, unlike other objects. Very cool - smaller scale, acc. more shooting objects, and acc. more MDF, so that the animals are not so scared)))
The object scheme is called biometar, 6 lenses in 4 groups, minimum aperture 2.0, cost $ 2 at the flea market
But the weight is alas .. 400grams plus. quite inconvenient, and this is only 400g + 300g fotik, although if the DSLR + macro lens, this is 1 kg + 1kg =0
Yes, it is worth admitting that in the USSR these objects were more or less normally licked off with Karl Zeiss Biometar, but I think even if you add 92/2 original Karl Zeiss instead, then it will work even better

In general, pictures in the shade, and even with the setting sun at an aperture of 3-4 is yes..
The funny thing is that in the photo of that little white beetle that I photographed on the ground among the grass, with its size (frame width 9mm), the eyes are visible...

Pictures:

P4300313.jpg — (424.92к)


P4300271.jpg — (393.45к)


P4300294.jpg — (422.85к)


P4300278.jpg — (446.77к)


P4300381.jpg — (359.06к)


P4300290.jpg — (464.53к)


P4300403.jpg — (414.58к)