• UPDATE



    The forum will be moving to a new domain in the near future (canonrumorsforum.com). I have turned off "read-only", but I will only leave the two forum nodes you see active for the time being.

    I don't know at this time how quickly the change will happen, but that will move at a good pace I am sure.

    ------------------------------------------------------------

Stir crazy lockdown macro.

Sort by date Sort by votes
#41
OK, so I tried to duplicate SteveC's setup, more or less. This is what I got. the only processing I did in ACR was adjusting color temperature to make it look like a dime. Then I resized to fit the image size of his post.

IMG_2416.jpg

Then the 100% crop:

new100.jpg

It looks sharp to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#42
Yeah, you've got it nailed. :)

I've put a lot of effort into getting the lighting set up so I don't have to do too much color-fiddling in Gimp--but that's a totally different topic! Generally I can just focus, shoot, crop, do a circle-select, and get rid of the background. [I know that's more than you need to do for your purposes--I'm writing for the benefit of anyone reading this who might decide they want to do this on a large scale.]

Side note to others: I've found applying artificial sharpening tends to make things worse; when I see pics online I'll notice many of them have the "speckles" from over-sharpening. Of course, starting with an excellent lens/sensor makes it easy to avoid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#43
And just to push my luck, I decided to try a 1:1 magnification. (Though I was close before.) I was beginning to wonder whether I should just avoid that magnification. Apparently not. For this I used the ring light away from the lens, so as a side light. Who knows? Maybe it was the flat lighting that kept the earlier tests from looking sharp.

IMG_2421.jpg

And 100% crop:

one2one.jpg

Maybe tomorrow, I'll try the rings on the lens again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#45
I decided to try the tubes before going to bed. This is at f/11, and just about 2:1 with 3 tubes. It's a little softer, but still usable. With more care, maybe I could focus more accurately and shoot at f/8 or maybe even f/5.6 for less diffraction. This is effectively a bit smaller than f/33.

IMG_2429.jpg

two2one.jpg
 
Upvote 0
#47
Somehow my other reply got lost.

I could see both of your "full dime" pictures being published (if someone wanted pictures of a common dime); the top 100% crop is certainly usable too. Sometimes collectors want to zero in on a particular feature (like an overdate or a mint mark, especially if the mint mark turns out to have been added on by some fraudster. (There are cases where a mint mark can hugely increase the value of a coin; e.g., any 1909 S cent [there were three different kinds] versus a 1909 cent of the same type is a huge difference, also an 1914 D cent versus a 1914 cent or a 1916 S versus 1916 dime.) With increasing sensor resolution, magnification is becoming less and less necessary (though sometimes it really is needed).

When your full image is three feet across on a computer monitor at 100%, you've got the coin under pretty good magnification from the start.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#57
WOW Awesome. Great shot, kodakrome!
d055.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Valvebounce
Stir crazy lockdown moon shots.
Replies
30
Views
8K
Click
Click
Valvebounce
Lens advice for macro?
Replies
20
Views
11K
dcm
dcm
B
  • Locked
Lens reversal macro on canon 17-40mm
Replies
8
Views
7K
KyleSTL
K
mackguyver
Gear Realities
Replies
45
Views
22K
Keith_Reeder
Keith_Reeder
jdramirez
  • Locked
What should I upgrade? I can't be done, can I?
Replies
40
Views
17K
Grumbaki
G
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu