Photocameras

Forgive me for being an amateur, but how can I save the desired exposure when shooting with a flash when reducing the optical aperture? I shoot at 1/250, when the shutter speed is reduced, the flash does not shine longer, and the result is the same that by 1/250 that by 1/60.
When open, you can clearly see details that are already not visible at F2.8, in the last pictures, on the pronotum light scales have a slightly pearlescent sheen, in real life they still shine, in the second picture this is no longer visible, the scales are just light. On the elytra, the scales have a special grainy texture; in the second picture, this texture is no longer visible.
And there are many such nuances.

Well, unless I can offer to shoot without a flash, especially since in such a situation, when the object is still, why not just cover it with white sheets and make long exposures? Under the flash, even with reflectors and diffusers, a lot of things are displayed in a way that is not displayed in normal lighting.

I looked at the pictures.. Well, what can I say?. I am also a complete amateur, but I will strongly advise you, forget about the flash, and about ISO above 400, alas, even if it is Fuji. IMHO, and at the aperture of 8 the picture is excellent, but it was the noise that ate up all the details.
Try to make some lighting, set the aperture to 5.6 or 8, set a long shutter speed and ISO 200-400, will it really be worse than with a flash?)

By the way, here we have a photo on Fuji X2-Pro in rather difficult conditions on ISO 200

http://izan.kiev.ua/ukrbin/show_image.php?imageid=58031

I don't know what the post-processing conditions are, but there still seems to be some small noise, but only in the most difficult areas)

There are no shumichek there, there is a strong compression and a small stir. In general, the tag itself is a terrible format for photos, and less than 100% is outright garbage.
Gray-Ejik, when macro shooting on any camera, it is not recommended to raise the ISO above 400, it is optimal to shoot at the base. In your last pictures of figs, you will understand what ate the details - the aperture or noise. Don't listen to Pan Stpeogo about the flash, he has a phobia towards it (probably shied away once when disassembling the camera). In low light conditions, such as in a room, a flash is the best solution for macro photography. Only its light must be directed correctly. If you have a long lens and a short shooting distance, most of the light may not fall on the subject. The simplest solution is this: buy a construction market insulation material called expanded polyethylene, the thickest, what will be. Cut an oval out of it. In the oval, it eccentrically cuts a hole for the diameter of the end of the lens. Put it on the lens, wide part up. You don't need to push it too far, but let it be at the very end. It should help. If there is still little light, turn the flash correction to maximum. If this does not help, you will have to make a more complex structure from reflective and light-scattering materials - the so-called soft box. Perhaps it would be better with an external flash, but there is a hot shoe? But I don't think it will come to that. For example, I use a Kodak Z990 photo with a built-in flash and a washer-reflector, and it turns out quite light even at the long end (and there the aperture number is already with a two-digit denominator) at ISO 160 and an shutter speed of 1/1000 sec. I don't think Fujik's built-in flash is much weaker.

If you shoot in RAW with underexposure, while getting dark photos, and then make a normal light shot out of it, then the noise can be even at ISO 100. I just used to do this before, I didn't raise the ISO, but put a small shutter speed. Now I probably won't, because what to overestimate the ISO, what to underestimate the shutter speed - it will be the same.

And the picture above is very good, I don't see any noise, sometimes only artifacts.

This post was edited by Wave Storm - 11.01.2018 20: 13

I looked at some fresh panov photos on the enemy site, again the definition is incorrect, and this time even with Rod, the miss came out, and epic. in general, the photos there are becoming more sanctioned and sensational from day to day. If I was so tense with sharpness, Pan would have sharpened them...

This post was edited INO-12.01.2018 00: 13

Oh, there's even more epic going on-even with the kingdom of blunder! And where are all the specialists who should correct them?

Forgive me for being an amateur, but how can I save the desired exposure when shooting with a flash when reducing the optical aperture?

The flash power can be adjusted, but apparently not on all cameras.

Oh, there's even more epic going on-even with the kingdom of blunder! And where are all the specialists who should correct them?

And the link to the studio?

Aperture 22 Alas, a large open matrix is really very quickly littered by shutters with a redone Olympus, which in fact has a built-in valve, there I cleaned the matrix every two months, although I changed the objects in nature every 5 minutes, I also change them often on the mirrorless camera, but still how many were those outputs, and already the fourth cleaning)

Pictures:

P1310912.jpg — (52.54к)


P1310914.jpg — (51.74к)

It wasn't cleaned up a little. In general, you need to look at how much this dust is visible on real shots. I also have three specks of dust on my Kodak, but you can only see them if you take a picture of the sky with a covered hole, and then also lift up the contrast. Normally not visible at all.

So why would I help an enemy resource? So Pan will have to review his own Shidevry in search of errors. Or wait for the experts who are about to appear there.

You won't believe it, your words just make me want to take and put all my photos there.
And yes, if you look closely, most of the experts from molbiol are already there

You lie as you breathe. Only Ukrainians post there, and most of the users of the entomological section are Russians. It doesn't add up. As always with svidomitov.

KM2200, good luck to you, ischo is not tired of Looking, otherwise this ixpert will also follow you like a tail, and guide you on the path of unquestionable truth )

In the continuation of the story about the combination "Kodak Z1012 IS+Helios44-2"
, the setting option is 5MP. Hardware JPG only.

resize the full frame


100% fragment


resize the full frame


100% fragment


100% fragment

The latter is nothing like that, but only at the expense of scale. The rest IMHO-no luck. There is no contrast, and noises compete with details. Having had experience with the terrible camera run Z990, I recommend trying to pick up RAV, if this model records it. If it doesn't work, then you need to change the nozzle. IMHO modifications of Helios-44 are not very suitable for macro photography.

I bought ischo one mirrorless camera
It's not even that mirrorless and bezdalnomerka.
Previously, I had already bought an Indian 69, but then I got a bad one, with completely worn lenses and there was no BZ then.
This time the Hindu is a little better, but of course, I had to disassemble it completely and shake out all the sovdep that accumulated in it in the form of dirt and dust, wipe the lenses, lubricate. Also, the working segment is not consistent with it. M39 Watering can, although the carving is such, this is just one of those cases. when the object does not become on BZ Samsung, and even on Panas, it needs to be well finished so that there is infinity as it should be.
Alcohol at diaphragms 2.8, 5.6 and 16, carpet at 2.8 and 8, wasp at 2.8 min. the focus distance is 15 cm, but only after reworking, without reworking from 80 cm, the hryvnia is 8.
The optimal aperture is 8, on smaller ones there is a strong curvature at the edges, but in the center - quite normal.
This object has an interesting feature - it is not afraid of small apertures and even at 16 everything is quite normal.
For micro-macro, it is certainly not very good, for objects from 2 cm through the middle macro-ring of norms..

Pictures:

P1320058.jpg — (145.48к)


P1320022.jpg — (109.33к)


P1320024.jpg — (131.86к)


P1320027.jpg — (135.63к)


P1320029.jpg — (244.42к)


P1320032.jpg — (317.87к)


P1310997.jpg — (206.97к)


P1320046.jpg — (133.27к)

By the way, KM2200, yazasnyal, yazasnyal
But, I seem to have much less than 1mm, 0.7 somewhere turns out.

Pictures:

P1310954.jpg — (136.86к)


P1310963.jpg — (136.88к)

My posts in this topic are exclusively informational, namely, just to show what happens in a particular combination of optics + apparatus and no more. But thanks for the tips anyway!

I do not have a super-macro task, and only false scorpions, their "food" and their "enemies", have the maximum size of 4-1mm, and all other pets are an order of magnitude larger.
On the Kodak Z1012 IS, RAW - no, there is a Nikon D80 on the DSLR, but there is no practical task and it makes sense to use it for such scenes.

Kodak Z1012 IS, resize full frame, ISO 1600, no flash.
A frog in methylene blue, being treated


This post was edited by Yuriy352-14.01.2018 23: 51

You lie as you breathe. Only Ukrainians post there, and most of the users of the entomological section are Russians. It doesn't add up. As always with svidomitov.

That's why all this rudeness again? So after all, and the muzzle can be stuffed someday.

And if you had read more carefully (or is this a deliberate distortion?), it was not about users, but about experts - that is, those who qualitatively determine the types. Go to the classification and see how many Ukrainians there are. And there aren't as many Ukrainophobes among Russians as you might think.

This is the end of my communication with you, I'm really tired of it.
Have a nice day."

By the way, KM2200, yazasnyal, yazasnyal
But, I seem to have much less than 1mm, 0.7 somewhere turns out.

The second frame is not very clear-you can see the focus is lost. And the first one is good!

These hay eaters usually always run, practically do not stop, so fotkal on the fly)

I RAV files on Panas also never recorded, and I don't need it, I imagine what will happen if I shoot in RAV in nature, given that the minimum number of photos is about 300 and then, this is in winter and in spring 1000-easily, so that they all need a bucket in RAV flash drives and hard drives)
On Olympus SP510 there is RAV, I tried to take a picture, yes, BB can be easily set and the exposure is slightly easier to adjust, but I don't chase shidevry, so it will do anyway, it's better to catch the right exposure when shooting than then kolupatsya in editors) The only thing where RAV used-when shooting HDRi, that's where it makes sense to apply.

I also decided to conduct an experiment with photographing wasps ' eyes (I wanted to find out what the DSLR is capable of).
Dried polysts were not available, I used germanic acid.

The camera is a NIKON D90 (12 Mp), and I had the following lenses: Helios-81N (standard), I96U, and a 9x0.20 microscopic PLAN. I usually use a combination of Helios+and TABU, which is about a 1:1 scale, but for wasp eyes this is clearly not enough, there are not enough pixels. I tried different combinations of lenses as well as extending the lens out of the camera (as with macro rings). Lighting - a 3.5 W LED lamp obscured by a sheet of paper.

The results are as follows.

It is very difficult to focus.
In addition to the timer, I had to turn on Exposure delay mode (delay in lifting the mirror for 2 seconds) - otherwise everything is smeared.
It is noticeable how the depth of field decreases as the aperture number decreases.
I shot at n=8,11,16. It is pointless to shoot at n=4 or less - there is no sharpness at all.

The best combination I found was Helios+PLAN. The eye turns out something like this (this is not the entire frame, just a piece with the eye):

100% crop


Then I tried changing the lights.
I covered the wasp from different sides with white paper, and closed the direct light of the lamp completely.
It turned out like this:


Dried chalcida, about 1mm long, 100% crop:


It seems nothing, but the depth of field is not enough catastrophically.

I tried to shoot something alive in this way - it's impossible. Not only is it hard to sharpen, but it's hard to catch it in the frame. And it's running away!
Here is a sample result:

Oh, practically MR-E! Soviet glass rules. And the GRIP at this scale will no longer be, even if it cracks, alas.

KM2200, I cut off some of the nozzle options due to the very low GRIP and aperture, although it turned out quite well. My devices are still aimed at photographing in nature, so the aperture and a larger GRIP are very important. The DSLR here is the latest option, it is good to take pictures of portraits, landscapes on a DSLR, in general, this is for social life

And I'm so muddled, yesterday half a day mudohalsya and today half a day, it's certainly terrible, all hands stabbed with a screwdriver, so many bad words said)))
In general, I decided to fix this very FED-2 which I bought with an object for $ 3) In general, nothing worked there. I had to re-glue the shutter, sort out the self-timer, repair the film rewind, adjust the rangefinder.
The shutter was the worst part) There were a few moments when I was ready to just rake it all and build a wall)) It is not enough to glue the curtains, you need to get all the shutter speeds working, check for light transmission, and so that the curtains work synchronously, check for light transmission with a flashlight, the main thing after complete disassembly is synchronization. I checked the synchronization on TV and applied the matrix, barely configured it)
Horror, and before people suffered so much))) Despite the fact that earlier it was difficult to check, except only on TV, but still it was necessary to take control pictures.
But after this, it will be absolutely not terrible to repair the shutter on the BZ, where it is arranged much easier.
And this is only mechanics, and film development!!?? After that, you start to understand how cool it is that there is digital photography, how much nerves it saves and how it helps nature (to shoot at least 300 frames a day, this is how many reels of film you needed, and how much chemistry for developing?)
Along the way, I also repaired the Chaika-2, but there is garbage only the frame counter did not work, I lubricated the mechanism, and that's it.
Rangefinder focusing is fun, but you need to adjust for a good result, this is also not sugar, although it's easier than synchronizing the curtains.


By the way, a photo of FED on Industriar 69, aperture 2.8, ISO 1250 )

Pictures:

P1320115.jpg — (121.97к)

KM2200, I cut off some of the nozzle options due to the very low GRIP and aperture, although it turned out quite well. My devices are still aimed at photographing in nature, so the aperture and a larger GRIP are very important. The DSLR here is the latest option, it is good to take pictures of portraits, landscapes on a DSLR, in general, this is for social life

Well, why only for secular, I think if you master stacking, then it will go for shooting collectible copies.
And I also have a FED like this, I learned to take pictures on it. But precisely because it is rangefinder, a lot of problems, for example, you can not attach the lens, in general, I can not imagine macro photography on it.
(Although no, not like that. I have a third one. But they are similar).

This post was edited by KM2200-15.01.2018 22: 39

But precisely because it is rangefinder, a lot of problems, for example, you can not attach the lens, in general, I can not imagine macro photography on it.
(Although no, not like that. I have a third one. But they are similar).

Not exactly. In Soviet times, attachment lenses, including those for FED, were equipped with special tables for recalculating the shooting distance. And if you find "pre-mirror" guides for macro photography, you will also see special devices for rangefinders. But, of course, mobility suffered greatly.

Well, why only for secular, I think if you master stacking, then it will go for shooting collectible copies.
And I also have a FED like this, I learned to take pictures on it. But precisely because it is rangefinder, a lot of problems, for example, you can not attach the lens, in general, I can not imagine macro photography on it.
(Although no, not like that. I have a third one. But they are similar).

Well, stacking and collectible copies is also a social life - after all, shooting is not in nature
Macro photography on rangefinder and just scale cameras like the Seagull, including those with a lens and rings, can be done in theory, but at home, again, you can focus on a matte plate, then remove the plate, charge the film and take pictures, as they recommend in old books. But this is all theory, and what should be the stiffness so as not to move the camera after focusing when refueling the film-its campaign needs to be tightly screwed to a thick base

In general, it would be interesting to take a few shots on film, but in our time it is not easy, you need to buy a film and find a laboratory for developing it, and then digitization is like a "warm tube sound" through transistor preamps ))))

For such money, you can buy a completely working Zenit from us. And Pan Stepov, apparently, likes to poke his fingers with a screwdriver and say bad words in an occupation that is completely unpromising in modern times. It would have been much more useful if he had "taken a breath"with the Rabbis at that time.

Biography )
The first two photos of the aquarium-the potential of equal noise reduction, the first photo-rpg from the camera, with noise reduction enabled on ISO 3200, the second photo-processing in RAW Therapy, BB and everything else as in the camera, only noise correction.

Three photos of the bee's head are an example of saving with different ravconverters,
the first photo is RAW Therapy, the second is rpg from the camera, the third is UFORAW, all under Linux.

In principle, it is certainly easier to process images, but there is not much sense, the only thing is posterization of photos with high ISO, and getting a BW image. In a RAV converter, you can get BW at the very primary level, as a result of which the pixel-by-pixel structure of the image is even visible, because conversion to color does not occur. The DD increases, in general, such a BW looks completely different from the converted one from the zhpg. In the last photo, 100% crop from such an image, on the monitor, a full-size image when scaled causes the most terrible moire

Pictures:

P1320175.jpg — (251.47к)


622P1320175.jpg — (181.09к)


1P1320179.jpg — (199.62к)


P1320179.jpg — (192.58к)


55P1320179.jpg — (156.24 k)


522P1320175.jpg — (282.14к)

Well, once again Pan did it my way and as a result achieved something worthwhile. Although, by and large, the first pancake is lumpy. With BB obvious napoladki, there is definitely a "camera"in the settings? If so, it somehow misreads RAW Therapy's Panos RAV. There's no such thing with Kodak. But, at least, on the example of the bee's head, you can see how ugly the in - chamber ZHOPEG is in this case-Jo1 simultaneously manages to leave out noise and obscure small details. But with the aquarium, Pan clearly made too much noise - the veins on the leaves disappeared in places. There is generally quite a hemorrhoid noise reduction setting, and the optimal parmeters do not fall once at a time, you need to individually select for each photo or at least a group of them made in the same conditions.

There was recently a speech about film, so for example, a few of my film photos (about 10 years ago, I think on Kiev-19, but I don't remember exactly).

And the noise level is film, or is there an addition from digitization? Warm film softness of the image)))

Warm tube sound (TM). And normal people on the film macro very sharply shot, it is only necessary to look at the Soviet popular science books. The first SHIDEVR is generally out of the RIP zone, and what kind of dirt is there at all? My grandfather was an amateur photographer, he left a whole lot of cards, but there are no such littered ones among them.

And the noise level is film, or is there an addition from digitization? Warm film softness of the image)))

Now I compared it, oddly enough, the original looks better than the image on the monitor, it seems sharper or something. The pixels on the monitor are too large ).

Gentlemen, please suggest a compact field camera. So that both landscapes and necessarily macro and not expensive and in the pocket to fit.

Pocket of what? Currently issued or old (bu)?

In general, I would not recommend carrying bare soap dishes in your pockets, especially in the fields, it can get stuffed between the telescopic knees of the lens and then it screeches. The case is definitely needed. And with the case, even the smallest soap dish fits only in the largest pocket. It is much more convenient to wear it on a belt over the shoulder.

This post was edited by ENO-04.03.2018 04: 40

Well, a pocket is a convention. It should not be a professional DSLR for several kg. A compact soap dish or mirrorless mirror. Currently available or recently available, with or without replacement optics.

With replaceable optics , this is no longer a soap dish. And you can only put it in your pocket separately from the lens (and constant docking and undocking is fraught with dusting of the matrix). And such things are generally very expensive. So let's focus on non-shift. For macro photography, you can add macro attachments to it. If I were you, I would choose the Canon Power Shot A650 IS, there are many good reviews about it in terms of macro, it is cheap on the secondary market. The main thing is that it has a mount for branded afocal attachments, which you can't get, but you can put an old Soviet lens with a homemade adapter on it,and get a macro attachment not already any vaunted Reynax. Or even a ready-made Soviet macro nozzle, which, however, are rare on sale. This is much better than tormenting the trunk with all sorts of closeaps. Also, this camera has a folding screen, which is very useful for macro photography, can be completely controlled via cable from a computer, and with the help of" alternative firmware " (which is actually not firmware at all), you can pull RAV and much more from it. If you have a bigger budget, look at the same power shots, but already sreii G (for example, G12). In the secondary market, they are relatively inexpensive.

For technical macro and landscape shots of biotopes, such as illustrations in articles, this will be more than enough. If you want high-end photo art, you will still have to take something with a large matrix, such as the Sony RX or Sapop G1X, but this is all terribly expensive. It is cheaper and in many ways better to pull a DSLR/bezzekalku.

Of the mirrorless devices, probably Sony NEX 5n and higher, or Olympus EP-L5 and higher. The first option is preferable for landscapes, with the second one it will be easier to achieve macro-mastaba (but still this will require much more dancing with a tambourine than in the case of a soap dish).

This post was edited by ENO-04.03.2018 16: 26