Questions (alert: newbie)

[joe-sl]

Dear All,

This is my first post in this really nice forum. I am a newbie at professional photography but I am just now thinking to upgrade my very old canon P&S to a LSR. The reason I post this here is that I am mainly interested to acquire a machine capable to do nice macros. I am interested in being able to shoot small objects like coins/medals. These are metallic and often very shiny (with glass and similar..). I need extreme details and I obtain this at this time by using a scanner and using a 1200 dpi resolution. Of course this is awful, no prospective, horrible light and often reflexes...you can imagine. Objects dimensions often are between the 30 and 60 mm.

I am thinking in getting a D40 but I am unsure about the lenses that would do a best job. But prior to this, is my camera choice ok? Moreover I will be confronted to indoor situations and hence what is the best setup to use?

(of course I would also like to use my camera for normal shooting, but I saw the D40 is pretty nice in its standard configuration!)

Thanks to everyone who will help me out!
Best,
M

[Lester Wareham]

OK I think you mean a 40D not a D40.

The camera used should not matter much as long as is it is a DSLR. Of course a full frame camera will give better resolution but an APS-C camera like the 40D or 50D will be fine as will one of the lower budget DSLRs. The main difference being size and control flexibility.

What does matter for your application is the lens, this will define the amount of magnification possible without additional accessories and to a large extent the optical quality.

For what you are doing, and assuming the coins are fairly small the EF 100mm f2.8 Macro USM lens will do a fine job for this and many other tasks. You could try a sharp prime like the EF 50mm f1.8 and extension tubes, but I would recommend a real macro lens as flatness of field will be important for you.

Next you need to consider lighting, for coins a copy stand with tungsten lights might be best.

[joe-sl]

Thanks a lot Lester for your reply!

First thing first, I would like to clarify that the camera I was referring to was the Nikon D40. Looking carefully I noticed only after my post about that "canon" writing at the top..! But given your reply I think it will be fine and I will hence concentrate my answer on lenses! (unless the Nikon D40 is an absolute wreck..) Budget is important for me and on Amazon this seemed the best deal.

The objects will not be excessively small, as I stated, from 3cm to 6/7cm. My main interest is about medals not coin, which for the sake of the discussion are not so flat and with lots of enamels.

About the lenses, what about 55-200mm f4.5-5.6G, I assume these are a further uprade from the 100m you mentioned?

About the "set-up": I see now the necessity of a copy stand. I did "improvise" it, but not with great success. I'd say 2 tungstene light are a must, but what about a back light panel? Will this (the back panel) be a problem if the object it is not perfectly flat on it (creating shadows and similar) or it will be an improvement no matter what?

Again thank for the really valuable help!
Best,
M

[bokchoi]

Hi Joe,

I don't have any experience with Nikon, but you should look for a true Macro lens such as any Nikkor "Micro" lens or a third party (Sigma, Tamron, etc) Macro lens, as these are designed for higher magnification and closer focusing, and will deliver far better image quality for the purposes you describe; the 55-200 is a general telephoto zoom lens, and I don't think it has the close-focusing ability that would help you take pictures of the items you describe. Macro lenses are optically designed and corrected for these types of applications and will resolve much more detail from edge to edge at high magnification than other lenses, but they do come at a higher price.

For the stationary objects you describe, I would stick with a shorter focal length such as the 60mm Micro-Nikkor f/2.8 or the Sigma 50mm f/2.8 Macro, as you this will let you get in closer to your subjects, which could be very important if you use a stand or light box. For lighting, you may have to invest in a ring flash and light box or something similar if it is very important that you eliminate shadows, but standard household lighting should be adequate at the beginning.

I hope this helps.

[brecklundin]

An aside for this sort of subjects..there is a less spendy, and often more flexible, option than a copy stand.. It would be to use a product called "Quake Hold" I use it on jewelry and also coins too. I like it better for temp jobs like taking photo's because it's not as sticky and will not harm the finish/patina on the piece.

FYI, I did pick up a very reasonable priced 8x11 light panel on Amazon for around $50 shipped and use it a lot. Though at times It does help if you create some distance between the item and the panel with a short acrylic riser.

And your piece does not need to be perfectly flat as long as you can position the camera back plane parallel to item...as in tile the camera to match the angle of the piece...but this where the "Quake Hold" works wonders and is FAST to use...though if you have 100 pieces that lend themselves to using a copy stand, that is by far the best/fastest method since you setup once, make any micro adjustments as needed then shot a shot or two and move on to the next piece in just a few seconds.

Museum Wax is much better holding but even after very brief periods in contact it can require some convincing to make it let go...meaning it needs a bit of elbow grease which can remove any patina in just one spot and given the volatile nature of coins leaving the condition pristine as possible is mandatory for the most part. I even have my supply of cotton coin/jewelry gloves to as not to transfer oils or skin acids to the pieces. Of course if your coins are slabbed then it really does not matter. ;)

I can tell you that lighting is going to be the BIGGEST issue. And you will sure need to experiment to get it where your piece is lit with a lot of very soft diffused light. I actually get better results with either my Canon 55-250 or the Sigma 24-60, taking advantage of the crop and "mega pixel zoom". Something like a 10MP camera gives you a pretty big image to crop down showing a nice degree of detail making macro almost not needed. Keeping a set of Kenko Tubes around when you do need a bit more works pretty well too. I was actually surprised to discover this when I got my macro, basically too much detail detracting from the true condition of a piece at 1:1 magnification.

I think you will find that 100mm is far more than enough since taking shots at 1:1 will usually make your piece look in worse condition than it is in reality. My preference is to use my 24-60 but many times the 55-250 is the better choice when I simply cannot position the camera close enough. Though I am beginning to use my Sigma 180 macro more and more as I learn to use it and understand the magnification factor is similar to the concept of a zoom.

Lighting is still a killer factor for shiny things like coins, jewelry, medals, pins, holloware...etc...

[macro junkie]

40d - 60mm or 100mm macro lens and mt-24ex or mr-14ex macro flash.. thats all your going to need.

[Lester Wareham]

Thanks a lot Lester for your reply!

First thing first, I would like to clarify that the camera I was referring to was the Nikon D40. Looking carefully I noticed only after my post about that "canon" writing at the top..! But given your reply I think it will be fine and I will hence concentrate my answer on lenses! (unless the Nikon D40 is an absolute wreck..) Budget is important for me and on Amazon this seemed the best deal.

The objects will not be excessively small, as I stated, from 3cm to 6/7cm. My main interest is about medals not coin, which for the sake of the discussion are not so flat and with lots of enamels.

About the lenses, what about 55-200mm f4.5-5.6G, I assume these are a further uprade from the 100m you mentioned?

About the "set-up": I see now the necessity of a copy stand. I did "improvise" it, but not with great success. I'd say 2 tungstene light are a must, but what about a back light panel? Will this (the back panel) be a problem if the object it is not perfectly flat on it (creating shadows and similar) or it will be an improvement no matter what?

Again thank for the really valuable help!
Best,
M

I am sorry Joe, but most of what I have said will apply to any make. Nikon do a well respected 100 or 105mm macro lens I think.

Whilst you could tubes on any lens to get close a wide range zoom will tend to have limited sharpness for macro work, it might be acceptable for moderate close-up work which would not be quite so demanding of lens image quality.

The main problem for you application in using an ordinary lens with tubes or not, is flatness of field. Ordinary lenses do not bring a flat surface to focus ideally when used for closeup, a real macro lens is specially corrected for this and for various other aberrations that increase in close-up and macro usage.

To show you the problem here is a shot of a bank note with a 50mm f1.4 lens + tubes and another with a 100mm macro lens, both are around life size on an APS-C camera. Most of the blurring around the edge is probably due to curvature of field.

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/Macro/Test%20EF%2050mm%20f1_4%20USM%20+%2062mm%20infF%20 1_05X%20f2_8.jpg

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/Macro/Test%20100mm%20f2_8%20macro%20USM%201X%20f2_8.jpg

Re the lighting I would think you want 2 tungsten lights on adjustable stalks, a good copy stand probably comes with these. Not sure how a back-light would work for a coin, which presumably is 100% opaque.

I am presuming you do not need to go beyond life size. If you need up to 2:1 then you could add some tubes to a macro lens to get to that.

For more than that the Canon system has the MP-E 65mm macrophoto lens giving 1:1 to 5:1.

With Nikon my understanding is you still need to use the traditional bellows and ideally a bellows mount macrophoto lens in the 20 to 50mm range. Lighting such set-ups can be a challenge because the working distance gets short, small lamps or fibre optic light feeds intended for microscopes are possibilities, alternatively a small light tent.

[brecklundin]

40d - 60mm or 100mm macro lens and mt-24ex or mr-14ex macro flash.. thats all your going to need.

Not to hijack the thread a lot...but have you had good luck with a ring flash for shooting coins and jewelry? I know ya LOVE you MT-24 and in an ideal world it would be an easy first choice. But I have really wondered and the MR-14 for shooting smaller items. The only thing preventing me is the thought of the light being too harsh, even using ETTL. I did wonder about just setting manual and slightly changing each light so there is at least some better contrasty shadows (read essentially that on your tutorial...thanks!). Would using the MR-14 & decreasing the flash power in manual help with the often overly harsh results I can get with my 430EX II? And yeah, this is only asking about items such as coins or other very reflective pieces.

[joe-sl]

Thanks to everyone for the great posts! Lots to elaborate now..

I would really have an heart attack only thinking to put anything sticky on my stuffs (or anyone's). We are talking about real expensive things, stored in archival safe environments and handled with glothes :D

Light is the issue, I agree. For the sake of the discussion can anyone show the difference of a shot take with and without back-panel? Also I really am not interest in coins and started the discussion with them because similar and more common. Real interest is medals, so again, lots of shiny things.. ;), hence if I understood correctly from previous postings, the back panel would improve the reflections that the object might have?

I will repost once I have material to talk about, but really thanks for the help so far!

[macro junkie]

Not to hijack the thread a lot...but have you had good luck with a ring flash for shooting coins and jewelry? I know ya LOVE you MT-24 and in an ideal world it would be an easy first choice. But I have really wondered and the MR-14 for shooting smaller items. The only thing preventing me is the thought of the light being too harsh, even using ETTL. I did wonder about just setting manual and slightly changing each light so there is at least some better contrasty shadows (read essentially that on your tutorial...thanks!). Would using the MR-14 & decreasing the flash power in manual help with the often overly harsh results I can get with my 430EX II? And yeah, this is only asking about items such as coins or other very reflective pieces.
iv never used the mr-14ex.

[Lester Wareham]

The MR=14EX probably provides flatter lighting but will have ring shaped highlights on anything shiny. Considering we are talking coins here I would stick to adjustable incandescent lamps so you can see what the lighting is, no need for the motion freezing capability of flash in a static studio environment and the inability to see what you have until after the exposure is a disadvantage. Just ensure your camera supports mirror lockup and use this along with a cable or timer release to minimise vibration.

As stated earlier, the addition of a simple light tent, perhaps a cylinder of white semi-opaque plastic around the subject may help to keep the lighting maximally soft.

If you are looking for low grazing light to emphasis surface detail then using just one lamp at a low angle will probably suffice, perhaps with a large piece of white card opposite to control shadow depth. Often the old simple methods are best.

[brecklundin]

iv never used the mr-14ex.

D'oh!! I got my macro dudes confused...sorry about that one MJ!! Thanks for letting me know though. ;)

[joe-sl]

A quick question, that maybe is a little OT but bearing in mind my needs, do you think it is better to get an affordable DLSR or the "best" P&S (G10 or similar) ?

The more I read, the more I am confused :-)

[bokchoi]

For your needs, I'd certainly choose an affordable DSLR over even a very good P&S like the G10, but you will likely end up paying more once you factor in the cost of a decent macro lens.

To save some money on flashes or other lighting, you might want to take a look at this thread and think about building your own light box: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=281524

Again, I'm going to emphasize the benefits of using a true macro lens for the best results, as opposed to a zoom lens, extension tubes, or a P&S; you'll have greater sharpness, less (if any) distortion, and more control over depth-of-field, all of which are important for shooting both flat and dimensional objects, shiny and not-shiny. :)

[brecklundin]

Thanks to everyone for the great posts! Lots to elaborate now..

I would really have an heart attack only thinking to put anything sticky on my stuffs (or anyone's). We are talking about real expensive things, stored in archival safe environments and handled with glothes :D

Light is the issue, I agree. For the sake of the discussion can anyone show the difference of a shot take with and without back-panel? Also I really am not interest in coins and started the discussion with them because similar and more common. Real interest is medals, so again, lots of shiny things.. ;), hence if I understood correctly from previous postings, the back panel would improve the reflections that the object might have?

I will repost once I have material to talk about, but really thanks for the help so far!

Sorry if the suggestion of the "Quake Hold" sounds scary. I take it for granted that others have the same experience handing antique items as I do...after 40+ years of it I sort of assume one knows that sticky things would be disaster and never an option for ephemera (or other paper) items at all. Trust me that "Quake Hold" is not really sticky but it rather a clay like glob of stuff that adheres to a surface such as a post it note does...still care needs to be taken depending on the item being photographed. It is just a handy tool for many items that can help create a look to a given shot. Like standing an item such as a charm or medal upright without apparent support and no need to clone out any support devices. It is not, however that great for heavier items...not rigid enough like "Museum Wax"...that stuff is STUBBORN...hehehe

While neither were taken with a macro lens, here are a the closest examples I have to a shot of a shiny thing with/without the light panel. The first is w/o the panel turned on and the 2nd has the panel under the ring but also filling the background and the ring is on the same acrylic riser in both shots. Do overlook the scratches on the riser in the first shot...too lazy to fix a shot I am not going to use. ;)

w/o light panel @ f/2.8, no flash:
http://brecklundin.com/POTN/IMG_2083-Edit.jpg

with light panel @ f/5.6, flash
http://brecklundin.com/POTN/IMG_2091-Edit.jpg

To my eye in this case there is not any real difference beyond a brighter background. Still, for some items the back lighting certainly helps reduce detail hiding shadows. But that light does not need to be a light panel, it could be reflected or just an additional light source(s). I like the panel for smaller items because the light is very diffused and soft and, for me, it's really easy from a setup standpoint.

[joe-sl]

Hello everyone!

It has taken me more than 1.5 year to get a DSLR :rolleyes: but I finally managed to get a Nikon entry level, the D3000 with the standard 18/55 lenses.

After some days reading the manual and some "for dummies" book about it, I took the first shoots for the purpose I described more than one year ago.

I have set up the camera perpendicular to an inclined plane with a tripod. Actually I should say as perpendicular as I could :D hence, I am thinking of getting or bulding a real copy stand in order to get the camera at a real 90 degrees.

The light came from a big window at midday lateral to the subject. I also used a white sheet of paper to make the shadows disappear.

I can show u a detail of the picture that is 8.47 mm in its actual width. It is not bad but there are other places of the photo (edges) where it is a little out of focus (see second detail I attached).

Do you think I could arrive to shoot such a subject (40 mm x 80 mm, flat but with relieves of 1 or 2 mm) with the same level of details on all surface with this lenses and a proper copy stand or do I need to go "real macro lenses"?

Also, merely from a "photographer math" prospective, can I ever shoot a 40 mm x 80 mm object taking at least 80% of the sensor/photo with a 15/88 lense?

I am just really thirsty of all advices, pointer and comments on the shot you will give me and i am thanking you all in advance for any help :)

Pic (15MB tif): http://************/36679v4

PS: On a different topic: what is the best backgound I should use? The neutral 18% gray card or something like i used?

Cheers,
Joe

[ceriltheblade]

both sample pictures presented here are not in focus (unless it is a 100% crop) and therefore I will guess that it doesn't answer to your own requirements. At work i cannot see the full version, so i cannot comment....but I think that again this will be a point where people will point out to you that a dedicated macro lens, while a bit more expensive, will offer you the correct solution in this case. Look in the lens section (examples of shots with lenses) and you can see how sharp arcoss the entrie picture the macro lenses are.

Of course, the rest of the elements of the picture have to be available - low ISO, smaller aperture, light, shutter time....but here you have a very specific need...and therefore, as far as i understand, a need for a specific tool. you wouldn't dream of dealing with the valuables that you are archiving with an incorrect tool...so here to get the result you want....

just my 2cents