fishFos_3a.jpg
Jan 18, 2013 15:24:07 #
verichrome
Loc: California
Greetings,
Realizing that this is not an image of an insect or spider (living or dead) I thought that I would submit it anyway for comments and suggestions. If I can find another small fossil with a deeper impression, Ill try focus stacking for more sharpness. Could be called a panorama of sorts except that the subject moved instead of the camera. This my first submission please let me know if the format and image size are OK.
Thanks,
Jim
Canon 5DMii with Canon MP-E @F/11 Magnification @4X
6 images in portrait format across the fossil with 25% overlap between frames
Merged in Photoshop CS5 to a 3:1 image
Length of original: 1.25 inches from tail to nose
Length of fossil in image: 15.3 inches
Realizing that this is not an image of an insect or spider (living or dead) I thought that I would submit it anyway for comments and suggestions. If I can find another small fossil with a deeper impression, Ill try focus stacking for more sharpness. Could be called a panorama of sorts except that the subject moved instead of the camera. This my first submission please let me know if the format and image size are OK.
Thanks,
Jim
Canon 5DMii with Canon MP-E @F/11 Magnification @4X
6 images in portrait format across the fossil with 25% overlap between frames
Merged in Photoshop CS5 to a 3:1 image
Length of original: 1.25 inches from tail to nose
Length of fossil in image: 15.3 inches
12Xfossil
Jan 18, 2013 16:49:39 #
Your Canon 5D MkII has a "full frame" sensor, measuring 36-mm x 24-mm.
You state that fossil measures 1.25-inches (= 32-mm).
Magnification is measured on original image, not printed nor enlarged image. Viewing your image, and comparing these stats means that
your posted image is quite close to 1:1 magnification (life-size), NOT 12:1 (12x life-size).
You state that fossil measures 1.25-inches (= 32-mm).
Magnification is measured on original image, not printed nor enlarged image. Viewing your image, and comparing these stats means that
your posted image is quite close to 1:1 magnification (life-size), NOT 12:1 (12x life-size).
Jan 18, 2013 17:28:42 #
Your choice of documenting a small fossil with macro-photography is a good idea. Your image has excellent contrast and detail. My only suggestion would be to rotate image, placing fossil closer to corner-to-corner composition, which will also enlarge to fill frame.
Jan 18, 2013 17:46:47 #
verichrome
Loc: California
My error, I was using the finished image and comparing it to the size of the original. In my description I mentioned that the images were taken in portrait format which is 24mm on my camera. In Photoshop I stitched 6 images which formed a composite image about 34X13 @ 300 dpi. Then I reduced the image size to fit on a 16x20 print, still at 300 dpi.
When I set-up the shot I visualized what a print would look like on the wall. I agree that a diagonal positioning would gain some image size, magnification wasn't my only goal.
Jim
When I set-up the shot I visualized what a print would look like on the wall. I agree that a diagonal positioning would gain some image size, magnification wasn't my only goal.
Jim
Jan 18, 2013 18:00:13 #
Magnification is based solely on actual subject length (32-mm) compared to digital image capture width (24-mm) at MFD.
32/24 = approximately 1.3x life-size.
32/24 = approximately 1.3x life-size.
Jan 18, 2013 19:41:16 #
verichrome
Loc: California
Please tell me what MFD means. Am I incorrect in thinking that my MP-E 65mm set at 4X is showing an image of a 6mm view rather than a 24mm view?
Jan 18, 2013 20:02:13 #
verichrome wrote:
Minimum Focusing Distance is measured from sensor plane to subject.Please tell me what MFD means. Am I incorrect in thinking that my MP-E 65mm set at 4X is showing an image of a 6mm view rather than a 24mm view?
Minimum Working Distance (MFD) is more important - measured from lens front element to subject.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.