I don’t know what OP used, but I have done similar with a reversed lens on a DSLR camera. I got an adapter that goes on the lens where you normally put filters or the lens cap, and the other side of the adapter connects to the camera mount, so the lens is backward and works kinda like a microscope.
Unfortunately I think those pictures are long gone.
A lens setup that can shoot with high magnification
Focus stacking
Shot setup
To expand a hair.
There are multiple ways of achieving high magnifications. The most obvious, and generally most expensive, is buying a macro lens. There’s no real definition here, but any lens with say a 2:1 magnification or better has/can/will be marketed as macro. Note that like aperture, the ratio is inverted from what you would expect. A 1:1 lens has twice the magnification of a 2:1 lens. Macro lenses can also take great photographs, but they tend to be primes so keep that in mind if that’s not your thing. Cheaper alternatives to buying a new lens include focus tubes that attach between your lens and camera, diopters that attach to the front of your lens, reverse rings to mount a lens backwards, and even using back to back lenses with one reversed.
As subjects fill the frame more you generally get less depth of field. At macro levels your depth of field can be tiny. Focus stacking comes in both in camera and post processing forms, but the general idea is that you take a series of photographs at slightly different focal lengths and slice/add/stack the sharp bits together to achieve more depth of field.
Shot setup. There are two big aspects here. The first is hinged on gear and technique. Things like tripods, flash/lighting/lighting modifiers, how you’re going to actually take those shots at different focal lengths, etc all fall in here. The second is the idea to take this kind of photo. Macro photograph can be a creative rabbit hole. Having such tight framing lets you do all kinds of things that would normally be reserved for a studio shot or wouldn’t be practical for wider shots. A spray bottle to mist the area can create both fog and dew. You can have near-total control over lighting without needing a huge lighting rig. You’re also opening up worlds people don’t normally see, so lots of things become very interesting.
This is the part where I get to link my duck stacking .gif. Again!
This is far from macro, so there were only like, eight (?) relevant exposures in this stack. But you are correct in that high magnification photos taken very close to the objective can require dozens or maybe even a hundred exposures to get everything in focus.
This small ballpoint pen tip was I think around 40:
And this top-down view of the edge of a strange knife (of course) I think was pushing 100:
The texture in the backdrop there is that of an ordinary sheet of printer paper, lit obliquely with a small flashlight.
@dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world replied with a link to their excellent focus stacking guide. If you crack this post open again you’ll find it. Between that guide and my post you should have plenty of content to rabbit hole (eg focus stacking, lighting, framing, depth of field, gear, etc).
As with all things hobby, if you want to get good at something you need to going out and do it. You’ll learn a ton by trying and asking questions. The information you seek will become a lot more meaningful because you’ll be able to relate it to your own insights.
Deciding how to approach macro photography is no different than any other area in photograph - it greatly depends on your current gear, budget, and what you intend to photograph. If you’re on a shoestring budget and all you have is a cellphone, odds you can start getting up close and personal with that alone. For $20-50 you can get an external lens to start making some pretty good macro photos. If you already own a dedicated camera you can get an extension tube (cheap), reverse lens mount (cheap), diopter (still pretty cheap), and/or a dedicated macro lens (pricier to expensive).
Your gear will influence how you approach macro photography. Two easy examples:
Some cameras can shoot a quick burst with focus bracketing. This makes capturing a series of photos for focus staking a lot easier
The smaller your sensor the more depth of field you’ll have. If your camera has a larger sensor you’ll likely need external lighting (flash, etc) before someone with a smaller sensor would
How you approach macro photography also depends on what you want to photograph. Focus bracketing may become impractical in some situations (eg bugs, etc), so stopping down and using a flash may be be a good approach. If you plan on walking around and finding interesting subject you don’t need to worry about bringing a tripod, a stick or dowel will be just fine. You can also freehand with flash or go without one completely. If you dig through my posts you’ll find a number on !beebutts@lemmy.world that were handheld with no flash.
As a parting thought, keep in mind that macro photograph opens the world immediately around you to tons of interesting photo opportunities between getting a lot more up-close-and-personal to a subject than people are normally used to, a much greater ease of controlling things like lighting, and the ability to completely eliminate backgrounds in photos thanks to tight framing and shallow depth of field.
You Americans don’t always have to go for the gun you know. These objects are quite small so a gun is kind of overkill. A teeny tiny catapult maybe? Or a slingshot? Maybe one of those spitball things?
First of all, I’m offended that you would suggest a catapult over the far superior trebuchet. Second of all, niether a catapult or a slingshot can go pew pew.
![Salt on pepper, sugar on clove [OC]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/fa0ebd7a-e88d-4b73-b049-cd6c1c7d2611.jpeg){kind=link}
What equipment does it take to shoot something like this?
I used Nikon D500 with Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro lens and flash, no focus stacking.
I don’t know what OP used, but I have done similar with a reversed lens on a DSLR camera. I got an adapter that goes on the lens where you normally put filters or the lens cap, and the other side of the adapter connects to the camera mount, so the lens is backward and works kinda like a microscope.
Unfortunately I think those pictures are long gone.
Thanks for the info!
Camera.
Three things:
To expand a hair.
There are multiple ways of achieving high magnifications. The most obvious, and generally most expensive, is buying a macro lens. There’s no real definition here, but any lens with say a 2:1 magnification or better has/can/will be marketed as macro. Note that like aperture, the ratio is inverted from what you would expect. A 1:1 lens has twice the magnification of a 2:1 lens. Macro lenses can also take great photographs, but they tend to be primes so keep that in mind if that’s not your thing. Cheaper alternatives to buying a new lens include focus tubes that attach between your lens and camera, diopters that attach to the front of your lens, reverse rings to mount a lens backwards, and even using back to back lenses with one reversed.
As subjects fill the frame more you generally get less depth of field. At macro levels your depth of field can be tiny. Focus stacking comes in both in camera and post processing forms, but the general idea is that you take a series of photographs at slightly different focal lengths and slice/add/stack the sharp bits together to achieve more depth of field.
Shot setup. There are two big aspects here. The first is hinged on gear and technique. Things like tripods, flash/lighting/lighting modifiers, how you’re going to actually take those shots at different focal lengths, etc all fall in here. The second is the idea to take this kind of photo. Macro photograph can be a creative rabbit hole. Having such tight framing lets you do all kinds of things that would normally be reserved for a studio shot or wouldn’t be practical for wider shots. A spray bottle to mist the area can create both fog and dew. You can have near-total control over lighting without needing a huge lighting rig. You’re also opening up worlds people don’t normally see, so lots of things become very interesting.
Re: Focus stacking.
This is the part where I get to link my duck stacking .gif. Again!
This is far from macro, so there were only like, eight (?) relevant exposures in this stack. But you are correct in that high magnification photos taken very close to the objective can require dozens or maybe even a hundred exposures to get everything in focus.
This small ballpoint pen tip was I think around 40:
And this top-down view of the edge of a strange knife (of course) I think was pushing 100:
The texture in the backdrop there is that of an ordinary sheet of printer paper, lit obliquely with a small flashlight.
Wait, how do I expand a hair again?
@dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world replied with a link to their excellent focus stacking guide. If you crack this post open again you’ll find it. Between that guide and my post you should have plenty of content to rabbit hole (eg focus stacking, lighting, framing, depth of field, gear, etc).
As with all things hobby, if you want to get good at something you need to going out and do it. You’ll learn a ton by trying and asking questions. The information you seek will become a lot more meaningful because you’ll be able to relate it to your own insights.
Deciding how to approach macro photography is no different than any other area in photograph - it greatly depends on your current gear, budget, and what you intend to photograph. If you’re on a shoestring budget and all you have is a cellphone, odds you can start getting up close and personal with that alone. For $20-50 you can get an external lens to start making some pretty good macro photos. If you already own a dedicated camera you can get an extension tube (cheap), reverse lens mount (cheap), diopter (still pretty cheap), and/or a dedicated macro lens (pricier to expensive).
Your gear will influence how you approach macro photography. Two easy examples:
How you approach macro photography also depends on what you want to photograph. Focus bracketing may become impractical in some situations (eg bugs, etc), so stopping down and using a flash may be be a good approach. If you plan on walking around and finding interesting subject you don’t need to worry about bringing a tripod, a stick or dowel will be just fine. You can also freehand with flash or go without one completely. If you dig through my posts you’ll find a number on !beebutts@lemmy.world that were handheld with no flash.
As a parting thought, keep in mind that macro photograph opens the world immediately around you to tons of interesting photo opportunities between getting a lot more up-close-and-personal to a subject than people are normally used to, a much greater ease of controlling things like lighting, and the ability to completely eliminate backgrounds in photos thanks to tight framing and shallow depth of field.
A gun.
You Americans don’t always have to go for the gun you know. These objects are quite small so a gun is kind of overkill. A teeny tiny catapult maybe? Or a slingshot? Maybe one of those spitball things?
First of all, I’m offended that you would suggest a catapult over the far superior trebuchet. Second of all, niether a catapult or a slingshot can go pew pew.
Fair enough, catapults catapult things. Slingshot with a tiny angry bird should work though? It’s cube shaped, like in the game, so it has to work!