Droplets...?

[Matija]

hi all,

i'm new here, registered a couple of days ago...and browsing topics daily, and have seen some great pics...

the most interesting at the moment seems these "droplet pics"...

http://matthewlaw.ca/gallery/albums/others01/canada_flags_droplets_2.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1427/539229444_662b9ab32e_o.jpg

i've tried to "make" something like that but obviously i'm doing something wrong... :lol::lol::lol:

can someone explain me how to do this?

thanks
Matija

[alliec]

Hi Matija,

I believe the second image is one of LordV's.

The droplets in that image are naturally occuring dew on a blade of grass. He achieves these by placing a flower about 2cm behind the drops and then using a technique called focus stacking. These images are usually taken beyond x2 life size magnification using canons MP-E 65mm 1x - 5x life size macro lens. I dont know wether you have a dedicated macro lens but you would need a full set of extension tubes on a 1:1 macro lens to get x2 magnification. Yoy could try reversing your 50mm onto the camera or a set of tubes and then reversing the lens as this will give you greater magnification although not sure how much.

Here is a link to focus stacking.
http://www.digitalgrin.com/showthread.php?t=61316

[Matija]

hi, thanks for answering...
no..i don't have a macro lens...

what i don't understand.. what does a macro lens have with seeing this "little pictures" in droplets?! shouldn't those flowers (from 2nd picture) be visible in droplets to our eyes, without looking through the MP E 65mm lens?

[LordV]

hi, thanks for answering...
no..i don't have a macro lens...

what i don't understand.. what does a macro lens have with seeing this "little pictures" in droplets?! shouldn't those flowers (from 2nd picture) be visible in droplets to our eyes, without looking through the MP E 65mm lens?

Hi - they are visible but dewdrops are very small - about 2mm in diameter. At this size the drops are nearly perfectly spherical as surface tension easily overcomes gravity effects, larger more easily seen drops tend to go pear shaped due to gravity and severely distort the refracted image.

Brian V.

[Matija]

ok..so smaller droplets give better picture "inside" ..and for this one need a better macro lens... got it.. thanks...

what about first picture? these are droplets on the glass (probably window glass?)
how far from this glass should the ..in this case flag.. be? as alliec said about 2 cm?

[ajayclicks]

I dont know wether you have a dedicated macro lens but you would need a full set of extension tubes on a 1:1 macro lens to get x2 magnification.

Hi Alliec,

I read in a macro book that a 1.4x extender too would give 2x (something to do with maths 1.4*1.4= 1.96

Any idea if its true? I have the 90mm tammy and i wud prefer a convertor over tubes for the added benefit of extra reach.

[simwells]

Hi Alliec,

I read in a macro book that a 1.4x extender too would give 2x (something to do with maths 1.4*1.4= 1.96

Any idea if its true? I have the 90mm tammy and i wud prefer a convertor over tubes for the added benefit of extra reach.

A 1.4 extender will just give you 1.4 times the current maximum magnification. So if it's a 1:1 macro lens you can get 1.4:1

[ajayclicks]

Hey Sim,

I have "The complete guide to close up and macro photography" by Paul Harcourt Davies" and in the section on Teleconvertors & Multipliers, he writes what you have mentioned above, i.e. a 1.4 extender will give 1.4 times the current magnification.

However, on the facing page, there is a shot of an insect taken with Nikon 105mm and a 1.4x extender, and he writes: Enlarging the body length of a small insect by x1.4 may not seem much, but other dimensions are also enlarged- the area the creatures body occupies on film increases by 1.4*1.4 which is 1.96- effectively doubling it.

Hence I was wondering if the above, if true (i mean - no flawed logic), would be applicable to dew drops as well...

Cheers

[neil85]

i have a page ripped out of a mag from years ago where a person was in a Cab/Taxi and it had just rained out. the picture was looking out the door window at all the drops and the drops had another taxi in them.

hope that makes sense? it was a very cool image

[simwells]

Hey Sim,

I have "The complete guide to close up and macro photography" by Paul Harcourt Davies" and in the section on Teleconvertors & Multipliers, he writes what you have mentioned above, i.e. a 1.4 extender will give 1.4 times the current magnification.

However, on the facing page, there is a shot of an insect taken with Nikon 105mm and a 1.4x extender, and he writes: Enlarging the body length of a small insect by x1.4 may not seem much, but other dimensions are also enlarged- the area the creatures body occupies on film increases by 1.4*1.4 which is 1.96- effectively doubling it.

Hence I was wondering if the above, if true (i mean - no flawed logic), would be applicable to dew drops as well...

Cheers

Well the standard mag of a Nikon 105mm is 1:1 so unless he's using two 1.4s the maximum magnification will be 1.4:1. Whether a single Tcon is enough for Dewdrop photos I can't answer, as I've never tried to do any personally.

[ajayclicks]

Thanks for the response sim :)

[imdelapena]

He means to say that the area will be 1.96 times bigger.

Hey Sim,

I have "The complete guide to close up and macro photography" by Paul Harcourt Davies" and in the section on Teleconvertors & Multipliers, he writes what you have mentioned above, i.e. a 1.4 extender will give 1.4 times the current magnification.

However, on the facing page, there is a shot of an insect taken with Nikon 105mm and a 1.4x extender, and he writes: Enlarging the body length of a small insect by x1.4 may not seem much, but other dimensions are also enlarged- the area the creatures body occupies on film increases by 1.4*1.4 which is 1.96- effectively doubling it.

Hence I was wondering if the above, if true (i mean - no flawed logic), would be applicable to dew drops as well...

Cheers