Is there a Captain Cook memorial?
Endeavour was a "Whitby Collier" I understand.

The reflections you mention are 'specular highlights". They can be a real problem in photographing organs or tissues. However they do obey the laws of reflection- the angle of incidence= the angle of refection and thus moving the lamp or specimen can reduce or move them.
Also, the size of the specular highlight is directly proportional to the size of the light source e.g. the reflector.
Therefore we keep the diameter of the light relatively small and use a lamp with a 4-6 inch reflector as opposed to those old bowl shaped reflector which were up to 10-12" diameter.
Also although we usually use 2 lights- a main and a fill, we turn of one to see if one of them is responsible .

If all this fails the next step is polarized light but the filter on the camera (analyser) is turned slowly and the image watched to see until there are still a few specular highlights present as these are necessary to reveal any modeling on the surface.

Then there is something like a tent and no small specular highlights are seen but it should be remembered that now the tent is the light source so a small amount of light is smeared over the whole surface of the subject. Theoretically this reduces contrast but that may be small and getting rid of the specular highlights may be worth it. A diffuser does the same thing.

Also controlling the wetness of the surface is helpful for non-polarized light.
Some cheaper polarizing filters have a color cast.

Calculating the Ratio of Reproduction by measuring the dimension of one side of the frame.
I have use this method for many years with a full-size 35mm Nikon and the length of the ruler in inches, visible across the height of the frame, gives the RR. However I am a little confused about the reliability of doing this in the viewfinder because viewfinders do vary in how much of the image they cover and also in magnification. Some of the last single lens reflex film cameras I owned, had viewfinder magnification factors as low as 0.7 5X as the designers attempted to cram all of that information onto the screen. I think the viewfinder of the Nikon SLR I used had about 95% magnification.
At present I am using a Nikon D-80 for personal photography, and the accuracy of the area included in the viewfinder is very poor, particularly with views and photographs of groups of people. Far more is included in the image than is seen in the viewfinder-almost like using a 28 mm instead of a 35mm wide-angle lens on a full-size 35mm camera. I tried the ruler across the frame on the D-80 and surprisingly it was quite accurate. In other words, if I put 4 inches of a vertical ruler across the height of the viewfinder the same length was visible in the digital image. Frankly I don’t understand that.
Could you refer me to a source that would explain the effect of sensor size and viewfinder magnification on this method of measuring RR or any of your personal experiences?
Most of my close up photography is of pathological specimens i.e. autopsy room photography.
Any insight you could give me would be appreciated.

I have had a similar response. We went to the Air Force Museum at Wright Patterson. There the lighting is incredibly uneven-spotlights up high. There was no way I was going to be able to bridge that contrast range with my Nikon D-80.
Then my companion showed me the Smart phone photographs. Good detail in shadows and highlights. Very humbling.

As an ex-pat from QLD (my wife came from Byron Bay) I really enjoy your photographs and seeing the iron bark posts brings back my time in the bush. Just think, in those days all those holes were drilled by a hand auger.

Donald

I notice you list F-18- no doubt to get some depth of field, and apart from stacking there is not alternative to using a small aperture.

However it is worth remembering that at a Ratio of Reproduction (magnification, RR) = 1:1 ( life size), F-16 on the lens barrel (so-called "nominal aperture") becomes an "effective aperture"of F-64, at which point diffraction and therefore some loss in resolution has occurred.

I heard this joke in Australia 25 years ago-with an Australian setting.
When I repeated it to a friend here in the US he said, "Its an Israeli joke" . In that setting the 2 participants were Began and Sadat.
You can guess in which country it was a local call.

what was the aperture and magnification ( ratio of reproduction)
I suspect that there is some loss of resolution from diffraction.

This was brought home to me when I had my cataracts replaced.
The next day after the surgery, I awoke to find a bluish purple light flooding through the window. This of course is a complementary color to yellow which was the color of the cataractous lenses. The blue color wore off in about half a day as my brain adjusted to perceiving an item such as Caucasian skin in its natural color.

The irony to this was that I had been evaluating transparencies and claiming that they had a yellowish cast and needed remedial action.

I have just received word that my beloved Nikon Coolscan V could not be resuscitated and has died. It was completely unresponsive electrically. I sent it to an independent repair agency as I did not know if Nikon would repair it. They replaced some type of power supply unit which was not successful and then determined that the motherboard was the problem and it also could not be repaired. The repair agency offered to buy the unit for $275 to obtain parts.

I would really appreciate advice.

There would appear to be 3 possible things I could do-

1. Accept the offer and sell the present unit for parts. This would avoid return freight charges.
2. Attempt to have the present unit repaired and if so who would be able to do it?
3. Attempt to buy a replacement unit.

What is the best procedure to buy a replacement unit?

They seem to vary in price enormously from five hundred up to over $2000, as listed online.
Where could I get one which was refurbished and had some guarantee?
I wonder if I would be better to stay with the “devil I know” in other words this unit and have it repaired, rather than acquire another- “the devil I dinna know”. My non functioning unit is about 15 years old and has scanned about 5000 slides.

If it is to be replaced, do I stick with Coolscan V or go to the 5000 or another model. I only do simple scans.

Appreciate any advice you can give.

Since1956 I have accumulated B&w negatives taken with cameras ranging from an Exakta Varex, Leica M3, different models Pentax SLRs to a Nikon D 80. Inevitably, there is wide variation in the density of the negatives as many were taken before automatic exposure systems.

I have successfully scanned thousands of 2 x 2 slides with a Nikon Coolscan V ED using the VueScan program. However I have not been over to locate precise directions to use that scanner for scanning black and white negatives-either a user’s manual giving precise directions, or an online description or from Ed Hamrich himself. He does reply but inevitably the answers are so brief that they could be understood only by an experienced computer buff.
Also I could not work out how to use the Canoscan 8080F for B&W negatives. I could load it but did not understand the two different PHOTO settings. Do either of these have automatic compensation for variation in the density of negatives?

Could members recommend a book or books, online source or give a personal description of how to scan black and white 35mm negatives. I have the 35mm attachment for the Nikon Coolscan to scan 35mm negatives.

There are also 120, 116 and 127 sized negatives that I presume will have to go on the Canoscan.

If a personal description of the procedure or procedures is too long for this forum, would you please send it to me directly at mmcgavin@utk.edu or mmcgavin@bellsouth.net.

Although it would be nice to be able to scan all of these different sized negatives, the 35mm negatives in the Coolscan are the most important.

If the subject is kept at the same size for both lenses, by changing the working distance, then the magnification and ratio of reproduction( very close if not the same thing)are the same and the depth of field is the same.DoF for close-up Photography is simplified if considered from the point of view of magnification and aperture. These are the 2 controlling factors. Working distance is then secondary to achieving the same size image to achieve the same magnification.

How did you meter this?

Bracket?

What was the correction from the cameras meter reading

A beautiful photograph that illustrates very dramatically the effect of the position of light. Notice that the slightly slanting light has produced appropriate shadows from the houses, giving excellent modelling, and that that light has been reflected into the depths of the caverns, giving adequate detail there.

I would be very interested to know at what the time of day were you able to achieve such modeling.

Also this area being high-altitude has an extremely high sky color temperature. I know that automatic white balance will not handle it. I don't think I was successful last time even in taking a reading from the white piece of paper. Please let me know how you did that before using Photoshop and how successful was it?

The file is extremely large. Did you intend to make a 12x16 or larger. The photograph certainly warrants it.

Please advise me on how to access this Topic