French coin with concrete dye

© John H. Siskin

French coin with concrete dye

Uploaded: May 20, 2007

Comments

Rich Collins July 15, 2007

John, OK first off No Fair using LF body. Kidding, but I really like the background. Concrete dye, could you elaborate please? Also was this a single flash? Doesn't appear to be a Softbox. Thanks

#691851

John H. Siskin July 16, 2007

Hi Rich,
This is one of a series of images I made for Davis Colors, a company that makes concrete dye. They have several difficulties in communicating the characteristics of their products including the shape and size of the individual grains. One of the jobs I did for them was to photograph their product with coins from various countries, in order to give a sense of the size of the product. So here the actual subject is the concrete dye that makes up most of the frame.

One of the difficulties in shooting this group of images was finding high quality coins. For U.S. coins it is relatively easy to get what are called proof coins, these are finished to a higher quality than the normal coinage. For European coins I had to search coin shops over much of Los Angeles to find the best coins I could get.

This was shot with a Toyo C 4X5 camera and a Zeiss 63mm Luminar, a lens specially created for micro work. I believe I used one light source and reflectors for fill. Of course on something this small the reflectors were only a couple of inches in size. The light source was probably a Tungsten balanced bulb, such as an ECA. These have some advantages with very small products: they work like large light sources since they are bigger than the product. In addition the continuous light makes it possible to focus at an effective aperture of about f180. Between the bellows extension and the need for at least a couple of millimeters of depth of field things are awfully dark this close to a small product.

I have an article about shooting with a microscope here at BetterPhoto. You can check it out at http://www.betterphoto.com/article.php?id=185.

Thanks! John Siskin
#4513884

Rich Collins July 16, 2007

Wow, you are very informed at what you do. I can see why you were added as an Instructor. This type of photography is more micro that I am interested in at present. But I have been practicing at shooting small items jsut for practice. I am using a Canon EF100 f/2.8 Macro & I am playing with Canon Extensions tubes & a Canon 1.4x TC. I am getting very clear images with great resolution. My only soft point is lighting & resulting shadows, I am currently using a Canon 550ex & a Canon 580ex along with a large set of florescents through differing diffusing panels, all home crafted. I am much closer now than I was 3 weeks ago & with a jewelry shoot coming up I want to be spot on in every detail.

I can't compete with your Toyo C 4x5, but my Canon 5D seems to do a great job. Wish I could land a Mamiya AFDII with Kodak digital back. One day.

Appreciate the reply. #4515971

John H. Siskin July 17, 2007

Hi Rich,
I hope to be informed, it is after all my profession. The gear you have will produce excellent results. I now use digital for this sort of work. The extension tubes are a big part of getting good results. You can also get microscope lenses and put them on the tubes, this is a very sharp option. Check out www.surplusshed.com for adapters and microscope lenses. These are remarkably inexpensive lenses. You may want to check out the bulbs I mentioned above. You may also want to look at a copy stand; these are very helpful for micro work.
Thanks, John Siskin
#4519645

Rich Collins July 17, 2007

I'll look into those bulbs for sure, ECA, Tungsten white balance. Understood. And I'll focus on the Extension tubes. Surely you didn't mean: In addition the continuous light makes it possible to focus at an effective aperture of about f180.

You meant f/18, yes? At that smaller aperture your DOF would be much increased. Thus the need for the lights & a tripod. It takes a lot of tinkering to get the play of light & shadow just right.

Thanks John
#4519925

John H. Siskin July 17, 2007

Hi Rich,
No I meat f180. If you take a lens that has a focal length of about 2.8 inches (I do all this in inches) and let’s say you are using f11 as you lens opening then you extend your lens from the sensor in order to get a more powerful magnification. If you lens is 4 inches from the film f22 becomes an effective f32. If your lens is about 22 inches form the sensor, this is greater than life size, the lens is at an effective f180. I have used smaller effective apertures than f180. This is why bulbs make a lot of sense, and make focusing easier. Of course all of this is easier with a bellows camera like the Toyo.
Thanks, John Siskin
#4520565

Rich Collins July 18, 2007

22" sounds like quite an extension or bellows. I was handling my 70-200 f/2.8 yesterday, & I noticed that while I was holding it with my left hand at the viewing end, & looking through at the camera body end, & the more I backed it away from my eye, the larger my fingers looked. Then I put on a Canon 77mm 500D Closeup Lens & the magnification increased. At one point I was probably somewhere around 20" or so. And my fingers looked larger than life. Is there a way to accomplish this without using a bellows? I don't know of any equipment offered by any manufacturer adapting to a Canon line of lens. I suppose one could pick up a non-working lens, using the body end & attaching to some hollow tube at the camera opening, & doing the same at the other end to attach to the back end of the 70-200, or my 100 f/2,8 macro lens, thereby achieving a hand-crafted extension. Then there must be a way of calculating the F stop by inches of extension.

At any time if this discussion becomes too time-consuming for you, let me know. Perhaps you might know of a forum where this type of discussion is normal. Otherwise I am gaining insight from our discussion & am enjoying this. #4521538

John H. Siskin July 18, 2007

Hi Rich,
22 inches is more bellows than I would use with a full frame 35mm camera or something smaller, but it is not so much on a 4X5 camera. That is probably related to the fact that view cameras have that much bellows available.

If you want to take pictures where the capture is larger than life on the sensor it is not so difficult, but keep in mind that larger than life on the sensor means much larger than life on the print. If you shoot twice life size onto a full frame sensor and then make an 8X10 print you have blown up an area that was already 2X, eight more time for a total of 16X. The lens you want for this is a short lens, like a 28mm and you probably want a fixed focal length lens, rather than a zoom. If you put this lens on a long extension tube you will focus quite close on an object. Lighting can be quite tricky, if you are on a tripod or copy stand you can use continuous light like the bulbs I mentioned. If you are trying to hand hold you will need a strobe, or strobes that light from the side. You can zone focus, which means move back and forth until you are in the area you want is in focus, then hit the shutter.

Another way to do this optically is to get a 4X microscope lens and a microscope thread to T-Mount adapter. This fits into the appropriate T-Mount for your camera. T-Mount was an early universal lens mount, and still works quite well, except that everything on the lens including the diaphragm is manual. Then you can put this on your extension tube. This is a very reasonably priced option.
Thanks, John Siskin
Ps. There are some color studies on my website at BetterPhoto that are very extreme micro shots.
#4522624

Rich Collins July 18, 2007

While I can get very good photos of objects the size of a wrist watch or a bracelet, in order to really create an image with 2-4x life size, like one sees of some jewelry or those really expensive Chronographs in glamor magazines, full page for only the watch face, I will, as you say. need a wide lens. Can I try with my Canon 50 F/1.4? Or my Canon 17-40 F/4L? Then shoot at say F/11-F/22?

Just so you know I have been manually focusing my Canon 100 F/2.8 for the shots lately. So that is my preference as DOF has to be nailed spot on. My practice has not been extensive.

Also the lights I saw in your article appeared to be typical halogen desk lamps. but I believe you said you were using ECA bulbs Tungsten balanced in camera or Raw settings. Do you recall where you bought the actual lamps? I know you mentioned a site for microscope lens, but I want to be sure I get the correct lamps. I did see some of the bulbs were normal incandescent style screw-in ends.

Thanks John #4524113

John H. Siskin July 19, 2007

Hi Rich,
I would certainly try with the 50f1.4, but I’m not sure how well it will work. I would not expect to get high quality results from the wide-angle zoom.

Practice is critical with this kind of work. You must also test equipment and test it in new ways. People often approach me as if I have all the answers. Obviously this isn’t true. What I do have is an extensive array of equipment for this work, including a Leitz microscope, bellows, extension tubes, microscope lenses and a half dozen specialize micro lenses for shooting micro. I also have several different ways to light micro products. All this is important, but it is also important that I have a couple of decades experience in doing this kind of work.

I use the desk lamps with the microscope sometimes, but I am not suggesting that you use a microscope for your current project, just a microscope lens. You probably do not want these lights, to shoot a watch. The bulbs I mentioned are available at large photo retailers. I got mine from a store that is not in business any more.
Thanks, John Siskin
#4527049

Rich Collins July 19, 2007

I appreciate all your detailed info John. I think I have enough work with for awhile. There comes a time when all the talk will only get you so far & that time has come. Many thanks, Rich. #4528269

To discuss, first log in or sign up (buttons are at top center of page).

Get Constructive Critiques

Sign up for an interactive online photography course to get critiques on your photos.


 

Did You Know?

Discussions by Category: You can view photo discussions on various themes in the Community > Photo Discussions section of the site.

BetterPhoto Websites: If you see an orange website link directly under the photographer's name, it's totally okay. It's not spam. The reason: BetterPhoto is the one that offers these personal photography websites. We are supporting our clients with those links.

Unavailable EXIF: If there is no other information but 'Unavailable' in the EXIF (meaning no EXIF data exists with the photo), the 'Unavailable' blurb is not displayed. If there is any info, it shows. Many photos have the EXIF stripped out when people modify the image and resave it, before uploading.


 

The following truth is one of the core philosophies of BetterPhoto:

I hear, I forget.
I see, I remember.
I do, I understand.

You learn by doing. Take your next online photography class.


Copyright for this photo belongs solely to John H. Siskin.
Images may not be copied, downloaded, or used in any way without the expressed, written permission of the photographer.
Log in to follow or message this photographer or report this photo.