AV Janus: Great composite!How did you move the focus?
Hi AV, Sorry about the delay in replying. It's been a busy weekend. The cone is just a piece of thin card formed into a cone with the right size openings to fit over the front of the lens and to just allow enough light to fill the size of the sensor. I stuck a thin layer of black flocking inside the cone to reduce any internal reflections and to trap as much stray light as possible so as not to reduce the contrast of the photo any more than necessary. The cone is needed as the end of the lens is only one or two cm's from the object and well inside the polystyrene cup I used as a light diffusor. Light was travelling at all possible angles inside the cup thanks to the diffuser, so the cone cuts out as many contrast damaging rays as possible, and just lets in the ones that I want to reach the sensor. A simple and handy object but really fiddly and annoying to make accurately when you have chunky fingers like mine LOL. I have a few of different lengths for different magnifications. Neil.
loch: I am equally impressed, and would also dearly like to know how you can shoot frames at intervals of 0.05 mm.All the best.
Here is what one of those 0.05mm's looks like on the left :-
Thanks very much Loch :-) . Please see my answer to AV Janus below. I think with this set up I could get down to intervals of about 0.01mm for really small subjects but the DOF at that magnification would probably mean stacking a couple of hundred photos or even more. One day when I find the right subject and I'm in the mood I will give it a go :-). Neil.
Thanks very much AV. I have slowly being planning and putting together a photomicrography set up in my attic for about a year and this is the first ever photo I took with it :-) . I used an upturned, cut down 30 year old microscope stand. I used it's fine focus dial to move the subject back and forth instead of the normal up and down. I created a makeshift isolation platform using bubblewrap and sorbothane hemispheres to absorb virtually all vibrations. these were placed in between bricks and a 10kg granite slab. The microscope stand was attached with a vice to the granite. Please have a look at - http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5806865940/photos/3021474/photomacrography-1 and http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5806865940/photos/3021480/photomacrography-7 and http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5806865940/photos/3021476/photomacrography-3 . There are several other photos of the setup in my gallery to if you'd like to look. Please ask if you have any other questions. Neil.
Rod McD: Hi,Thanks and congratulations. Great example of what stacking can achieve - I couldn't even get close to this DOF with a single shot from a long macro lens.
Thank you very much Rod. I'm glad you like my photo. I'm very proud of it :-) . Neil.
Ties_M: Awesome! great photo
Thanks very much. I'm glad you like it :-)
Well done on a great result with a stunning photo. There is no way my camera could take this! Is the total exposure 180 seconds or 6 x 180 seconds? I know nothing about space photography but it seems strange that you used a fast 3200 ISO where the other galaxy photo was taken at 80 ISO.Do you use one of those motors for keeping your camera rotating with the stars? Thanks, Neil.
MarioSS: Well done...and frightening!
Thank you very much :-)
NPW UK: I can see how Saturn and its rings is the average of all the photos but wouldn't the average of the 'space' around it be about the same colour grey as in the left photo? How did you get it to be such a pure black? Just burning in that area? Thanks.
Right.....I think that is beyond my knowledge or software or both ;-) . I'll have to look into it as it seems like a useful tool. Thanks :-) .
Your photo made me smile :-) . I think it would do well in the 'Natures bad hair day' challenge.
Well done Leanne. I thought this would be in with a good chance of winning.
Thank you all so much for voting my photo into 1st place :-). I'm really happy that you like it. Neil.
I can see how Saturn and its rings is the average of all the photos but wouldn't the average of the 'space' around it be about the same colour grey as in the left photo? How did you get it to be such a pure black? Just burning in that area? Thanks.
gfa5775: Pretty sad looking entries. Like the example, I would interpret desaturation as desaturating color channels on the entire photo which can create a unique look, most of these are basic selective coloring of objects and a lot of great example why you would never want to use this cheesy gimmick.
Hello again, I'm glad to say we can go father as I can understand the difference between those two methods of selectively desaturating colours in a photo. I've just typed 'Selective desaturation' into Google and it came up with over 200,000 links. Below are three from the first page all of which selectively desaturate colours in photos in different ways, but non do so by just deselecting a single colour channel or two. JamesD28's example did seem to use the colour channel desaturation method of achieving the result but it was just that, an 'example'. He said in the rules that we could "Feel free to process the image in any way" and not just the one method he used in his example. I hope you can understand my reasoning now :-) .
In the example photo I can see one area that is totally desaturated (sky) and another that is partially desaturated (floor and people). How is that significantly different to the majority of peoples entries?
Great capture! I think I would have cropped in somewhat closer to the 'action' though. I would have cropped off the blokes head on the right and his shadow and maybe a bit off the top of the trees too. Well spotted :-)
Yes, I have entered a photo to this challenge. I take it from what you have said that you are not going to be entering. That is sad as I was keen to see at least one 'correct' entry if what you say about everybody else's entries is true. Never mind. Best of luck with your future challenge entries.
Please show us how it is done then. You should have no trouble in winning if all the entries are as bad as you say they are.
Thank you very much. I'm glad you like it :-)
As some have been entered I thought I'd check if frames around paintings are valid too? Thanks.