Options
Getting better w/ this Nikkor 85mm Micro PC...
pinealbany
Posts: 446 ✭
Lens, what do you guys think? Coins were tilted about 6 Deg.
0
Comments
I like! Very nice job!
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
–John Adams, 1826
Some constructive criticism: The lighting on the top half of the coins isn't the same as the bottom half (top is darker than bottom), and overcoming this is one of the features of the T&S that really sets it apart (and Mark's photos with this lens don't exhibit). I think you should experiement with light position to overcome this shortcoming.
Respectfully submitted & hoping to help...Mike
p.s. the second photo is underexposed to my eye by about a half stop.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
It looks like your lighting is too bright in the center. The center of the coin seems to be getting more light than the rims.
I'd try diffusing the light a bit. Spread out the light source.
You don't say how you are lighting the coin. If you are pointing a light directly at it...try this:
Place a piece of white cardboard where your light is. Then shine the light on that white card. Your lighting source will now be more even across the surface of the coin. Right now, it looks like you have a point source of light set pretty closely to the coin. Backing off the light; more distance between the light and coin, should also give you a more even lighting effect.
If the light falloff is due to the "1/r^2" effect...the light being too close...then backing off the light will help.
If the light falloff is due to reflectivity decreasing as you go off-axis with the lighting, then the white cardboard trick will broaden your light source to even out that reflectivity.
That is what I would try next to get to the next level.
Thanks for all the tips!!! Will try again later and w/ better lighting positions.
<< <i>Mainly practicing on focusing w/ this lens. Lights were pretty close to the coins so I can see better.
Thanks for all the tips!!! Will try again later and w/ better lighting positions. >>
If focusing was your goal you did quite well. A little trick which could help these a little more is focus on the detail in the fields.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>
<< <i>Mainly practicing on focusing w/ this lens. Lights were pretty close to the coins so I can see better.
Thanks for all the tips!!! Will try again later and w/ better lighting positions. >>
If focusing was your goal you did quite well. A little trick which could help these a little more is focus on the detail in the fields. >>
I've seen this tip posted several times, and I must admit it makes no sense whatsoever to me. Given the area in focus 1/3 in front of the focus point, and 2/3 behind it, wouldn't focusing on the high point of the fields (or a feature in less high-relief, like E PLURIBUS on the obverse) lead to a more in-focus picture?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Mainly practicing on focusing w/ this lens. Lights were pretty close to the coins so I can see better.
Thanks for all the tips!!! Will try again later and w/ better lighting positions. >>
If focusing was your goal you did quite well. A little trick which could help these a little more is focus on the detail in the fields. >>
I've seen this tip posted several times, and I must admit it makes no sense whatsoever to me. Given the area in focus 1/3 in front of the focus point, and 2/3 behind it, wouldn't focusing on the high point of the fields (or a feature in less high-relief, like E PLURIBUS on the obverse) lead to a more in-focus picture? >>
Guess it depends on the lens, my experience is when the field is in focus the photo looks like the coin looks more realistic. If the highest points are not quite in focus then it must be a trick to the eye making it look otherwise when a larger percentage of surface area is in focus.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Mainly practicing on focusing w/ this lens. Lights were pretty close to the coins so I can see better.
Thanks for all the tips!!! Will try again later and w/ better lighting positions. >>
If focusing was your goal you did quite well. A little trick which could help these a little more is focus on the detail in the fields. >>
I've seen this tip posted several times, and I must admit it makes no sense whatsoever to me. Given the area in focus 1/3 in front of the focus point, and 2/3 behind it, wouldn't focusing on the high point of the fields (or a feature in less high-relief, like E PLURIBUS on the obverse) lead to a more in-focus picture? >>
Guess it depends on the lens, my experience is when the field is in focus the photo looks like the coin looks more realistic. If the highest points are not quite in focus then it must be a trick to the eye making it look otherwise when a larger percentage of surface area is in focus. >>
Why would it depend on the lens? The depth of focus is a function of aperature and magnification, not the lens, per se.
I'm not questioning your experience (as I've seen Mark post the same suggestion, and I have a great deal of respect for you both), but rather the logic behind it....Mike (who thinks the only possible rationale behind focusing on the fields is that a higher focus point may bring the slab and any imperfections more into focus)
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Mainly practicing on focusing w/ this lens. Lights were pretty close to the coins so I can see better.
Thanks for all the tips!!! Will try again later and w/ better lighting positions. >>
If focusing was your goal you did quite well. A little trick which could help these a little more is focus on the detail in the fields. >>
I've seen this tip posted several times, and I must admit it makes no sense whatsoever to me. Given the area in focus 1/3 in front of the focus point, and 2/3 behind it, wouldn't focusing on the high point of the fields (or a feature in less high-relief, like E PLURIBUS on the obverse) lead to a more in-focus picture? >>
Guess it depends on the lens, my experience is when the field is in focus the photo looks like the coin looks more realistic. If the highest points are not quite in focus then it must be a trick to the eye making it look otherwise when a larger percentage of surface area is in focus. >>
Why would it depend on the lens? The depth of focus is a function of aperature and magnification, not the lens, per se.
I'm not questioning your experience (as I've seen Mark post the same suggestion, and I have a great deal of respect for you both), but rather the logic behind it....Mike (who thinks the only possible rationale behind focusing on the fields is that a higher focus point may bring the slab and any imperfections more into focus) >>
As a math major with traumatic post syndrome I do my best to avoid the subject and go with gut instinct.
The ideal place to set the focus in theory is somewhere in the relief about half way up the relief from the fields. The fields will not be quite a sharp as the relief in this situation even though they are in "focus" Depth of field is not that you are in focus inside of it and out of focus outside of it.
The progression from sharp to fuzzy is gradual from the sharpest point (the focus plane) and the image slow fuzzifies until it gets to a certain point where it is out of focus enough to be deemed "fuzzy" by yuor eyes. That point is determined by the "circle of confusion." The circle of confusion is a size that is determined by the resolution of your eyes where a "point of light" transitions from sharp to fuzzy, commonly defined as 0.03mm at the film plane of a 35mm film camera. Anything smaller will be sharp and anything larger will be fuzzy.
<< <i>Why do I commonly focus on the fields? My own experience is that a picture with extremely sharp fields looks good and sometimes it is easier to set the focus on the fields by eye. >>
I always wondered why you suggested that, and I think I finally understand when you made the point above. My eyesight isn't the best, and I never set focus with my eye through the viewfinder.
<< <i>The ideal place to set the focus in theory is somewhere in the relief about half way up the relief from the fields. The fields will not be quite a sharp as the relief in this situation even though they are in "focus" Depth of field is not that you are in focus inside of it and out of focus outside of it.
The progression from sharp to fuzzy is gradual from the sharpest point (the focus plane) and the image slow fuzzifies until it gets to a certain point where it is out of focus enough to be deemed "fuzzy" by yuor eyes. That point is determined by the "circle of confusion." The circle of confusion is a size that is determined by the resolution of your eyes where a "point of light" transitions from sharp to fuzzy, commonly defined as 0.03mm at the film plane of a 35mm film camera. Anything smaller will be sharp and anything larger will be fuzzy. >>
Well, I must be caught in the circle of confusion because I thought the ideal place to focus would be 1/3 into the field (or about 2/3s of the relief).
In all seriousness, I've always focused on a medium-relief element in order to maximize the depth of focus, but may have to play around a bit the next time I'm behind the camera to see if the shots come out better with a lower focus point and/or try and get a better feel for the visible depth of field and defocused transition.
All that said, now that I think about it, the simple fact that there's a lot of detail generally in the fields of most coins, I suspect that any loss of focus in this area would really stand out, so it makes sense to ensure sharp focus here.
Have fun....Mike
<< <i>The 1/3 of the DOF in front of the focus plane and 2/3 of the DOF behind the focus plane only applies to normal photography at long range. For macro, the distribution is nearly equal front to back. >>
Wow, I never knew that. Thanks!
<< <i>Practice is paying off. For those with these lenses, is the tilt setting used pretty much constant? Put another way, if a short extension tube could be fashioned with a 5° bend in it that could rotate like the glass in a polarizer, would it be a beneficial piece of equipment? I can't make such a device, but I could see people plunking down $30-50 for one a lot more casually than I could see spending a lot of money for a tilt-shift macro lens. >>
No, unfortunately, this would not work as easily as you might imagine.
A lens is designed to provide an 'image circle'. This image circle is generally large enough so that the sensor of the camera (or the film) is entirely within the image circle of the lens. For a 35mm camera, this image circle is about 40mm in diameter.
Tilt shift lenses have a much larger image circle, as both tilting and shifting will move that circle to one side. In order to have an image on the sensor at all times and under all tilt/shift conditions, a tilt-shift lens will have to have a much larger image circle.
Now, if one had a 'medium format' lens...one that is designed to have an image circle of about 90mm in diameter...such a lens indeed might be suitable for such a fixed angle adapter on a 35mm camera. But now you are talking some other wierd brand of lens, probably not an easy interface with Canon's electronic aperture stuff. As you can see, one can't just make an adapter for a 35mm lens and end up with a 35mm tilt shift lens.
However, with some of the smaller image sensors on some of the digital cameras...one might be able to tilt a "full image circle 35mm lens" and keep that sensor entirely within the lenses image circle.
I hope you understood what I meant...
<< <i>p.s. why? >>
The equations are somewhat complex, but my best understanding is that in the equations, at long distances the focal length of the lens is negligable compared to the subject distance and doesn't affect the equation significantly. As the subject distance get shorter, it and the focal length are much more comparable and the focal length starts to affect the outcome and tends to start equalizing the distribution front to back.
<< <i>
<< <i>p.s. why? >>
The equations are somewhat complex, but my best understanding is that in the equations, at long distances the focal length of the lens is negligable compared to the subject distance and doesn't affect the equation significantly. As the subject distance get shorter, it and the focal length are much more comparable and the focal length starts to affect the outcome and tends to start equalizing the distribution front to back. >>
Great stuff.
Thanks