Utlra-close closeups

Here're two photos that took some taking:

http://montana-riverboats.com/Pages/...e-details.html

http://montana-riverboats.com/Pages/...cro-Trico.html

.....if anybody's interested in how to take photos this close, I put a
closeup ring on a
Nikon D70 and then mounted that to a PB6 Bellows, extended the bellows
as far out as it
would go, and then mounted a 105 macro lense, set to F32 with a three
second exposure, inside
a light tent.

Too bad you can't do that with waders on.
The Micro Trico is a minor miracle. I haven't found out who tied it
yet
(it's a borrowed fly). But it looks to me like it must have been tied
under a microscope.
This fly is so small it's hard to see in the palm of your hand.

Could you show that micro with something relative? Like a penny maybe?
I've got some very small hooks but it seems the quality is lower on the
smaller hooks...

Also any tips for those wanting to photograph flys closeup using cheaper non
lens type digital cameras?
I was thinking maybe some magnifying glass in front that is clear etc..

Jixter


"pittendrigh" wrote in message
oups.com...
Here're two photos that took some taking:

http://montana-riverboats.com/Pages/...e-details.html

http://montana-riverboats.com/Pages/...cro-Trico.html

....if anybody's interested in how to take photos this close, I put a
closeup ring on a
Nikon D70 and then mounted that to a PB6 Bellows, extended the bellows
as far out as it
would go, and then mounted a 105 macro lense, set to F32 with a three
second exposure, inside
a light tent.

Too bad you can't do that with waders on.
The Micro Trico is a minor miracle. I haven't found out who tied it
yet
(it's a borrowed fly). But it looks to me like it must have been tied
under a microscope.
This fly is so small it's hard to see in the palm of your hand.

Look again--I added a penny picture. I didn't tie this fly. It was
part
of a borrowed collection, and the owner couldn't remember who tied
it either (the owner used to be in the business, and lots of people
gave
him things).

RE taking closeups with a less sophisticated camera.

I struggled with film technology for years. The setups are the same
(if using film or digital) but the feedback cycle is so much faster
with
digital it's easier to get the bugs worked out.

There are two ways to photograph little things closeup (and get good
results). You need specialized flash equipment (that reduces hard
shadows,
one way or another) or you need a light tent. I used little Nikon
Coolpix
995 for a long time. You can buy cameras like that for 300 bucks these
days.
Some do a better closeup job than others. Nikon has always been good
at closeups, even in their cheaper, little digey cameras.

The light tent I use is made from cardboard, foam and a hot glue gun.
The fabric you drape over it is any thick, synthetic, curtain like
material
you find at the ladies sewing store. The lights I use are "study"
lights.
The are tungsten, so you have to set the camera's white balance to
tungsten.

http://montana-riverboats.com/Pages/...en-Lights.html

The final trick I've learned recently is to use a directional, not-
diffused backlight.
That means the backlight goes inside the light tent. It could be a
mirror or
a piece of tin foil glued to a chop stick, that directs light onto the
back of the fly.
The backlight makes the fly stand out. Fashion photographers always
use backlight
when photographing beautiful women.

One other trick is playing with color saturation. Diffused light
tents tend to make
slightly flat colors, so, if you bump the "color saturation" setting
up a knotch
or two, on your digey camera, that helps.

If your camera allows, turn auto exposure and auto focus off and do it
manually.
Just play with exposures until you get what you want.

If you can set F-stops, use a tripod and F-36 and a three second
exposure
at asa 200, or there abouts.

Else live with what you've got. I can take very good pics with my
little camera.
Better ones with the big rig.

I moved the micro trico photos, so it has a new url now:

http://montana-riverboats.com/Pages/...ico/index.html

"pittendrigh" wrote

Better ones with the big rig.


I admire your dedication to excellence ....

for use at screen resolution, in a 'lossy' format, and at a file size
suitable for 'Net use .... I can't work up the energy to make an effort past
'decent' for the original, but I admire the mind-set that can.


For Jixter,
For use on a computer and especially the 'Net you can get 'good' results by
setting your digital ( I use a Pentax Optio I bought to carry around while
fishing ) to maximum resolution. Now using a tripod ( of course ) and
making an attempt at lighting your subject well, take shots at the closest
range your camera will focus.

Now in Photo Shop or similar crop away the excess and you are likely to find
that you STILL have a photo too big ( file size/ resolution ) to use on the
web. As Adams, Weston, or Stieglitz accomplished much of their art in the
darkroom, the digital photog can use 'puter tools to great advantage ...
avoid saving to a 'lossy' format until you are pleased with the product.

I make ZERO claim that you can produce 'great' fly ultra closeups this way,
only that you can make 'good' ones and I remind you that for 'Net use, the
final output media is the weak link, not the camera.

pittendrigh wrote:

RE taking closeups with a less sophisticated camera.

I struggled with film technology for years. The setups are the same
(if using film or digital) but the feedback cycle is so much faster
with
digital it's easier to get the bugs worked out.

There are two ways to photograph little things closeup (and get good
results). You need specialized flash equipment (that reduces hard
shadows,
one way or another) or you need a light tent. I used little Nikon
Coolpix
995 for a long time. You can buy cameras like that for 300 bucks these
days.
Some do a better closeup job than others. Nikon has always been good
at closeups, even in their cheaper, little digey cameras.

Digital cameras in the "consumer" class are often excellent for close-up
photography. That's because the format size (the size of the
image-sensing chip) is small compared to, say, the 35mm film format.
This leads to superior depth of field, which is very important for
close-ups. The reason for increased depth of field isn't intuitively
obvious -- it has nothing to do with the lens, for example. It's all
about format size.

This advantage is not apparent in "professional" class digital cameras,
because their image-sensing chips are comparable to, or identical to,
the 35mm film format.

If you have a large-format camera, to get acceptable depth-of-field in
close-up photography you need intense lighting, which allows you to
reduce the aperture (i.e., use a large f-stop). With small-format
cameras this is not so much of a problem.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Thanks for the info everyone.

Sandy I'll have to try that light tent like you suggested. I did manage to
take some clear pictures but it was a lot of work. I had a couple desklamps
but I don't think I used halogen bulbs. I have a 5MP digital camera with
very few settings and I have been able to take pictures but it's pretty
tough.

Usually I have to take about 5-10 pics and 1-2 of them will be in focus. I
also have to manually crop out the images and I'd like the conditions to try
and remain the same for every fly.

The really tough part is that I can't tell which of the 10 pics is good from
the viewfinder. But I wasn't using a tripod so I guess once I find the
proper distance and use a stationary camera it might be much better.

I think I used the flash also and it worked much better.. but I'll have to
experiment some more.

If you'd like to check out my site it's here -- http://myflytie.com
Sandy can I place a link to your site on mine?

Jixter

"rw" wrote in message
...
pittendrigh wrote:

RE taking closeups with a less sophisticated camera.

I struggled with film technology for years. The setups are the same
(if using film or digital) but the feedback cycle is so much faster
with
digital it's easier to get the bugs worked out.

There are two ways to photograph little things closeup (and get good
results). You need specialized flash equipment (that reduces hard
shadows,
one way or another) or you need a light tent. I used little Nikon
Coolpix
995 for a long time. You can buy cameras like that for 300 bucks these
days.
Some do a better closeup job than others. Nikon has always been good
at closeups, even in their cheaper, little digey cameras.

Digital cameras in the "consumer" class are often excellent for close-up
photography. That's because the format size (the size of the image-sensing
chip) is small compared to, say, the 35mm film format. This leads to
superior depth of field, which is very important for close-ups. The reason
for increased depth of field isn't intuitively obvious -- it has nothing
to do with the lens, for example. It's all about format size.

This advantage is not apparent in "professional" class digital cameras,
because their image-sensing chips are comparable to, or identical to, the
35mm film format.

If you have a large-format camera, to get acceptable depth-of-field in
close-up photography you need intense lighting, which allows you to reduce
the aperture (i.e., use a large f-stop). With small-format cameras this is
not so much of a problem.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Can you link to my site? Yes, absolutely.
You've got the start of a fun site, and your current fly
photos are good.

A tripod will help. With a tripod and a small camera
you may not need a light tent.........try using available
light with long exposures.

I did notice, about your site, that you are using html
framesets. Perhaps you are using an html editor
that does it that way by default.

Frames are best avoided. Search Engines do not
like frames. Some used to skip over frame sets
altogether.
I doubt any do that anymore, but they do all treat the
various enclosed frames (in an html frameset)
as separate pages, rather than as a composite
collection.

So, if someone goes to Google and types in
a bunch of Steelhead keywords, they will
probably get directed to one frame or another,
but not both together. At that point they will conclude
you have an ugly or broken site, and they will move on.