Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

D70 Macro photography

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 5:50:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

If I want to take close-up photos, is this what I need ? :

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=...

or should I be looking for something that goes between the camera and
the lens, or a totally seperate lens?

Thanks for the help,
Joe

More about : d70 macro photography

Anonymous
May 16, 2005 7:45:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Thanks - that's really helpful!

What is the difference between my 70mm lens and a macro 70mm lens? Is
it just that the macro one will focus much closer?
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 8:44:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

google.20.jblo...@xoxy.net wrote:
> If I want to take close-up photos, is this what I need ? :
>
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=...
>
> or should I be looking for something that goes between the camera and
> the lens, or a totally seperate lens?
>
> Thanks for the help,
> Joe



I got a set of the close-up lenses for the kit lens and they work
nicely. As is stated elsewhere, if you want tack sharp and state of
the art, get ready to spend the big bucks. OTH, these screw in lenses
do a nice job for a little money and if you lose interest in close-ups,
you haven't lost a fortune.

I also bought a Phoenix 100mm fixed focal length AF 1:1 Macro (with
included adapter) lens that just tickles me to death. I can't believe
the quality of the shots produced by a lens that costs a little over
$100. I haven't even had the screw in close-up lens on it yet and I
have a set of 49mm lenses that will fit it too. The lens does 1:2
right out of the box and that suits me just fine. The same lens is
produced under various names. Vivitar, Phoenix and a couple others.
It's pretty much all plastic and the AF is noisy, but the quality of
the finished product is simply amazing. I've done some wild flowers,
garden flowers and insects this spring that look like they came out of
a gardening magazine. Very sharp! I actually impressed myself. ;o)

I've never used extension tubes, but many swear by them. Beyond these
inexpensive alternatives, you'll find lenses in almost all focal
lengths as well as zooms with macro/micro function that will produce
beautiful work. For the most part, these lenses are very expensive,
but if you're sure you're going to stick with it or are going to do it
for money, this may be the way to go. In other words, you have a very
wide variety of choices, but your first choice of inexpensive close-up
lenses will be an cheap way to find out if you like it and will give
you very acceptable results. I will say that I was amazed at how big
the pack of three lenses that I bought is. They came in a leather case
that takes up a whole compartment in my backpack! Good luck.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 1:05:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Just get the Nikon 60mm f:2.8 fixed length lens.
It is sharp as a tack. Works perfectly with the D70 camera.
If you you want to take macro (Nikon calls this micro) shots with your
nikon then the 60mm f:2.8 is the bees knees.

Go to link below for info from Nikon.
http://tinyurl.com/3jksk

Yaesumofo
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 3:03:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 16 May 2005 15:45:12 -0700, google.20.jbloggs@xoxy.net
<google.20.jbloggs@xoxy.net> wrote:
> Thanks - that's really helpful!
>
> What is the difference between my 70mm lens and a macro 70mm lens? Is
> it just that the macro one will focus much closer?

I read somewhere on the net <tm lame sourcing> that most lenses
perform better the further-away they're focused. Macro lenses
contain floating elements to help with close-up. Take above with
grain of salt, please.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 3:03:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Ben Rosengart
<br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:

>On 16 May 2005 15:45:12 -0700, google.20.jbloggs@xoxy.net
><google.20.jbloggs@xoxy.net> wrote:
>> Thanks - that's really helpful!
>>
>> What is the difference between my 70mm lens and a macro 70mm lens? Is
>> it just that the macro one will focus much closer?
>
>I read somewhere on the net <tm lame sourcing> that most lenses
>perform better the further-away they're focused. Macro lenses
>contain floating elements to help with close-up. Take above with
>grain of salt, please.

Using a lens out of position (with an extension tube)
and not at infinity increases spherical aberration.
Light rays entering the side of the lens come to a different
focus point than those going through the centre. Normal
lenses are corrected to perform best at infinity.
If you use extension tubes, stopping down the lens
(which you'll likely do anyway to improve depth of field)
is the best way to limit spherical aberration.
-Rich
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 4:57:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1116276616.249972.94070@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<google.20.jbloggs@xoxy.net> wrote:
>If I want to take close-up photos, is this what I need ? :
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=...

The first return question is: Do you have the Kit lens, or some
other? I have another (the 27-105mm f3.5-4.5D), and those would not fit
the filter thread for that lens.

However, I also don't *need* those for that lens, because it has
a nice Macro mode (which is available only within the 50-105mm range of
the zoom -- at wider settings, it is locked out, and when it is enabled,
you can't zoom any wider than 50mm.)

>or should I be looking for something that goes between the camera and
>the lens, or a totally seperate lens?

Both are options, and each has its plusses and minuses.

I've been doing most of my serious close-up work using the lens
mentioned above.

However, for seriously close-up work, in which even illumination
is important, I prefer to use the antique 200mm Medical Nikkor, which
has a built-in ring flash and focusing light. It also lets you work at
a significantly greater distance than many others do. Note that it does
use its own set of six screw-on close-up lenses in various combinations.
It must be used in (M)anual mode, as it has no built-in metering, but
its design does the exposure calculation for you. The lens and all of
the six close-up lenses were made by Nikon.

With other cameras in the past, I have used either extension
tubes or bellows attachments to allow serious close-up shooting. These
have the disadvantage that you need to boost exposure to compensate from
the fact that you are using only a percentage of the image area, with
the rest being scattered around the rest of the interior of the camera
body. I don't know whether there are either extension tubes or bellows
which have feed-through connections for the lens' CPU, so you may well
be back in 'M' mode for this. And a 'G' series lens will leave you with
no way to control the lens' aperture.

Just my own thoughts. Now to see what others have answered.

Good Luck,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
May 17, 2005 6:24:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

google.20.jbloggs@xoxy.net wrote:

> If I want to take close-up photos, is this what I need ? :
>
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=...
>
> or should I be looking for something that goes between the camera and
> the lens, or a totally seperate lens?
>

Try the 2 element nikon brand close up lens (like the 4T or the 6T
depending on the filter thread you need), they work VERY good and aren't
that expencive. Also they work fine with step -down- rings being used at
the close focus setting you'll be using.

--

Stacey
May 17, 2005 2:32:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

google.20.jbloggs@xoxy.net wrote:
> If I want to take close-up photos, is this what I need ? :
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=...
>
> or should I be looking for something that goes between the camera and
> the lens, or a totally seperate lens?
>
> Thanks for the help,
> Joe
>
Yes, Yes, and Yes. Depends what you want to do, and how well you want
to do it.
The diopter adapter lenses work - but you do lose image quality and get
flare etc. - more pronounced the closer you go. To get a bit closer
than the 18-70 provides, without spending a fortune, they are probably
the most economical and practical solution. I have no idea about the
quality of the ones you linked to on Ebay. I would want to get
reasonable quality ones.

An extension tube will work quite well on the 18-70 kit lens. One 13mm
tube will get you pretty close - but they usually come in sets of three.
The tubes need to have the electronic connectors on them - or you
won't get any TTL metering. The results at focal lengths of 50-70mm are
much better than I expected. You lose auto-focus. Auto/electronic
extension tubes aren't that cheap for what you are getting- maybe US
$100 or so.

A macro lens is the best solution - but they are quite expensive. They
get more expensive as the focal length increases - with the main
advantage that you don't need to get as close to the subject. They are
designed for close-up work - and will give the best result optically.
Nikkor make 60 and 105mm. Sigma also make a 60mm and 105mm, and Tamron
a 90mm. The Sigma and Tamron lenses have good optical performance. The
build quality / focusing may not be as good as the Nikkors. These
lenses are usually good portrait / short telephoto "prime" lenses, and
are faster than your kit zoom.
May 17, 2005 3:26:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

google.20.jbloggs@xoxy.net wrote:

> Thanks - that's really helpful!
>
> What is the difference between my 70mm lens and a macro 70mm lens? Is
> it just that the macro one will focus much closer?
>
I don't know of a macro 70mm lens. I assume the lens you have now is
the 18-70. For a start, being a zoom, it will have more distortion,
flare, and sharpness fall-off away from the center of the frame than a
"prime" lens. That said, the 18-70 is very good for a zoom lens - sharp
across the frame at normal shooting distances, and a remarkable absence
of flare. Probably not so sharp across the entire frame with either
diopter adapters or an extension tube. But - probably okay for many
purposes - the reality is that for most "creative" macro photos, you
don't want the entire image pin sharp anyway.
Macro lenses usually focus down to 1:1 magnification - 31 cm for a 105mm
lens, with no extension tube or diopter adapter. They are (or should be)
capable of producing a pin sharp image with no distortion across the
entire frame at that (or any) distance (although depth of field is very
low when close-up). They can focus from infinity through to 1:1
magnification without fitting any adapters.
(1:1 magnification means that a subject the same size as the sensor -
16x24mm - fills the entire frame on a D70).

Take a look at some of the posts in the R.P.digital newsgroup by
Annika1980 if you want to see some examples of what can be achieved with
specialised macro lenses on a DSLR.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 8:33:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 17 May 2005 13:44:41 -0600, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

>comes to macro photography. And don't forget: With 6 megapixels you can get
>pretty damn close with that Nikon kit lens and do a bit of cropping. Won't
>cost you a cent.

Depends on your point of view. Coming from CP-990 and 5700s that focus
down to 0.8 inches in macro mode "damn close" is not a phrase I would use
when talking about the close up capabilities of the kit lens.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 11:36:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Frederick wrote:

> google.20.jbloggs@xoxy.net wrote:
>
>> If I want to take close-up photos, is this what I need ? :
>>
>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=...
>>
>>
>> or should I be looking for something that goes between the camera and
>> the lens, or a totally seperate lens?
>>
>> Thanks for the help,
>> Joe
>>
> Yes, Yes, and Yes. Depends what you want to do, and how well you want
> to do it.
> The diopter adapter lenses work - but you do lose image quality and get
> flare etc. - more pronounced the closer you go.

Here's an extreme example of what I think is flare and reflections due
to dozens of elements stacked up causing a penny to look furry:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-phot...;
It doesn't always come out that bad.

Here's a nice shot at 400mm using a TC & closeup diopter only:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay...;
The first one had the same 400mm plus a reversed 28-200mm on the end of
that LOL.

The nice thing about this approach though is you can step back quite a
ways (about 1-1/2 foot) by using a very long lens and it's possible to
get natural lighting whereas extension tubes cut off a lot of light
requiring flash in most cases. The long lens with diopter lets you get
close to bees & things that would be spooked by the normal macro
distances where the lens needs to be an inch away from the subject.


> To get a bit closer
> than the 18-70 provides, without spending a fortune, they are probably
> the most economical and practical solution. I have no idea about the
> quality of the ones you linked to on Ebay. I would want to get
> reasonable quality ones.
>
> An extension tube will work quite well on the 18-70 kit lens. One 13mm
> tube will get you pretty close - but they usually come in sets of three.
> The tubes need to have the electronic connectors on them - or you won't
> get any TTL metering. The results at focal lengths of 50-70mm are much
> better than I expected. You lose auto-focus. Auto/electronic extension
> tubes aren't that cheap for what you are getting- maybe US $100 or so.
>
> A macro lens is the best solution - but they are quite expensive. They
> get more expensive as the focal length increases - with the main
> advantage that you don't need to get as close to the subject. They are
> designed for close-up work - and will give the best result optically.
> Nikkor make 60 and 105mm. Sigma also make a 60mm and 105mm, and Tamron
> a 90mm. The Sigma and Tamron lenses have good optical performance. The
> build quality / focusing may not be as good as the Nikkors. These
> lenses are usually good portrait / short telephoto "prime" lenses, and
> are faster than your kit zoom.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 3:16:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:VdOdnbbuCeJ3zxbfRVn-sw@speakeasy.net...

> Here's an extreme example of what I think is flare and reflections due
> to dozens of elements stacked up causing a penny to look furry:
>
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-phot...
macro&PG=1&PIC=5>
> It doesn't always come out that bad.

Paul, I'll bet you shot the "furry penny" under direct sunlight? I got
pretty close to the same result with a 2005 penny shot outside with the
50mm/105mm combo. I reshot with flash and it came out perfect.



Rita
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 4:08:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
> news:VdOdnbbuCeJ3zxbfRVn-sw@speakeasy.net...
>
>
>>Here's an extreme example of what I think is flare and reflections due
>>to dozens of elements stacked up causing a penny to look furry:
>>
>
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-phot...
> macro&PG=1&PIC=5>
>
>>It doesn't always come out that bad.
>
>
> Paul, I'll bet you shot the "furry penny" under direct sunlight? I got
> pretty close to the same result with a 2005 penny shot outside with the
> 50mm/105mm combo. I reshot with flash and it came out perfect.


Yes, full sun. Are those both primes or zooms? I had a ridiculous number
of glass elements with that setup.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 7:51:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:RYidnUPjlutdDxbfRVn-iQ@speakeasy.net...

> Yes, full sun. Are those both primes or zooms? I had a ridiculous number
> of glass elements with that setup.

Try it with a flash being your primary light source and I'll bet you it will
be clear and perfect. Yes, I used a 50mm f/1.4 in front of a 105mm f/2.8
Micro Nikkor.

Here's a pic of my lens setup.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Lens.jpg

Here's the penny with flash.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Penny_a.jpg

I'll post the penny shot under direct sunlight later this evening as it
resides on a different machine.

Here's a shot of a few dandelion seeds in the cluster.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Dand.jpg

All these except the pic of the lens were taken at f/32 and using an SB800
flash.




Rita
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 9:43:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Here's the penny with flash.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Penny_a.jpg
>
> I'll post the penny shot under direct sunlight later this evening as
> it resides on a different machine.

Paul, here's the shot of the penny with direct sunlight as the only light
source.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Penny_furry....

I'm betting the "furriness" and the discoloration is from a spectrum of
light that's in the sunlight interacting with the slight oxidation of the
copper that isn't in the flash? I would be very curious to see the results
of a shot taken with a flash with your zoom setup.




Rita
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 11:21:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1tkk81p8jqpl8ns8ct9q7n65ndcmmgrm1m@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 May 2005 13:44:41 -0600, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>
>>comes to macro photography. And don't forget: With 6 megapixels you can
>>get
>>pretty damn close with that Nikon kit lens and do a bit of cropping.
>>Won't
>>cost you a cent.
>
> Depends on your point of view. Coming from CP-990 and 5700s that focus
> down to 0.8 inches in macro mode "damn close" is not a phrase I would use
> when talking about the close up capabilities of the kit lens.

I meant for a standard zoom type lens. While a dedicated macro lens will,
in fact, blow away a standard or zoom lens, I shot some photos of flowers
yesterday with my Nikon "kit" lens, and IMHO it focuses pretty damn close.
It's all relative. True, I would have rather had my macro.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 4:14:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <118ndor7k62ncd4@news.supernews.com>,
Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
>> Here's the penny with flash.
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Penny_a.jpg
>>
>> I'll post the penny shot under direct sunlight later this evening as
>> it resides on a different machine.
>
>Paul, here's the shot of the penny with direct sunlight as the only light
>source.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Penny_furry....
>
>I'm betting the "furriness" and the discoloration is from a spectrum of
>light that's in the sunlight interacting with the slight oxidation of the
>copper that isn't in the flash? I would be very curious to see the results
>of a shot taken with a flash with your zoom setup.

How about diffraction of the sunlight (which comes from close to
a single point) by the fine grain linear structure of the penny
resulting from the stresses as it was stamped acting as a diffraction
grating..

The flash covers a wider angle of incoming light, so the
diffraction from a point source no longer applies, and illumination from
one area of the flash will produce a different color than from another,
averaging to the proper color.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 1:13:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
>>Here's the penny with flash.
>>
>>http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Penny_a.jpg
>>
>>I'll post the penny shot under direct sunlight later this evening as
>>it resides on a different machine.
>
>
> Paul, here's the shot of the penny with direct sunlight as the only light
> source.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Penny_furry....

Yeah, looks quite similar.

>
> I'm betting the "furriness" and the discoloration is from a spectrum of
> light that's in the sunlight interacting with the slight oxidation of the
> copper that isn't in the flash? I would be very curious to see the results
> of a shot taken with a flash with your zoom setup.
>
>
>
>
> Rita
>
>
>

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 1:15:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
> news:RYidnUPjlutdDxbfRVn-iQ@speakeasy.net...
>
>
>>Yes, full sun. Are those both primes or zooms? I had a ridiculous number
>>of glass elements with that setup.
>
>
> Try it with a flash being your primary light source and I'll bet you it will
> be clear and perfect. Yes, I used a 50mm f/1.4 in front of a 105mm f/2.8
> Micro Nikkor.


I don't have a flash that could reach around the lens as it has to be
jammed against the subject.


>
> Here's a pic of my lens setup.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Lens.jpg


Here's my preposterous setup:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;

: - )


>
> Here's the penny with flash.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Penny_a.jpg
>
> I'll post the penny shot under direct sunlight later this evening as it
> resides on a different machine.
>
> Here's a shot of a few dandelion seeds in the cluster.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Dand.jpg
>
> All these except the pic of the lens were taken at f/32 and using an SB800
> flash.
>
>
>
>
> Rita
>
>
>

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 8:22:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:D 6h3rs$82f$1@Fuego.d-and-d.com...

> How about diffraction of the sunlight (which comes from close to
> a single point) by the fine grain linear structure of the penny
> resulting from the stresses as it was stamped acting as a diffraction
> grating..

That sounds like a plausible explanation. It does make a lot of sense when
you think about it. My theory was the oxidation on the penny has a
microscopic crystalline structure that is reflecting certain wavelengths of
light from the sun. My shot was taken when the sun was getting ready to go
down over the horizon.

> The flash covers a wider angle of incoming light, so the
> diffraction from a point source no longer applies, and illumination from
> one area of the flash will produce a different color than from another,
> averaging to the proper color.

I primarily use the flash since I can set this setup to f/32 so I don't have
to contend with motion blur. I used natural light on a few other subjects
without any ill affects other than blurring since I primarily handhold my
macro setup. For my style of shooting I don't think I can get away without
using the flash. The penny was a neat test and learning experience. Thanks
for the help.



Rita
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 8:23:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:ZqydnaHbDL4FJhHfRVn-hA@speakeasy.net...

> I don't have a flash that could reach around the lens as it has to be
> jammed against the subject.

I'm in the middle of a brainstorm that might help my creativity with my
lighting when using my setup. I have some fiber optic scraps that I can
cobble together once I make a sleeve for the SB800's head. I'll probably
have my working model done in a few weeks, time permitting of course.

> Here's my preposterous setup:
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;

That's one hell of a monster. It does seem to work really well for you
though.



Rita
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 8:30:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" posted:
"...
Paul, here's the shot of the penny with direct sunlight as the only light
source.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Penny_furry....

I'm betting the "furriness" and the discoloration is from a spectrum of
light that's in the sunlight interacting with the slight oxidation of the
copper that isn't in the flash? I would be very curious to see the results
of a shot taken with a flash with your zoom setup.
...."

Looks more like simple camera (Bayer interpolation) noise ... to me.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 8:39:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RSD99 wrote:

> "Rita Ä Berkowitz" posted:
> "...
>> Paul, here's the shot of the penny with direct sunlight as the only light
> source.
>
>> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Penny_furry....
>
>> I'm betting the "furriness" and the discoloration is from a spectrum of
> light that's in the sunlight interacting with the slight oxidation of the
> copper that isn't in the flash? I would be very curious to see the results
> of a shot taken with a flash with your zoom setup.
>> ..."


>
> Looks more like simple camera (Bayer interpolation) noise ... to me.


You probably missed my furry penny.
Rita's has a similar feel, much less extreme.
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-phot...;

<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-phot...;



On the overall shot, you can see streaming lines radiating across the
blurred areas and radiating from the highlights like fireworks in the
fog. This was a pretty heavily oxidized dull penny. The best explanation
for the streaming effect is multiple lens elements making lots of tiny
flare/reflections on the glass.

28-200 = 16 elements
70-200 = 21 elements
teleconveter = 3 elements?
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
40 pieces of glass! It is really not very usable and just an experiment.
But Rita has only two prime lenses stacked & has a bit of that same look.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
!