Photography cheat

[xy mosian]

I have long felt a need to be able to photograph small scale items, occaisionally. My point and press digital camera has zoom but no macro focussing. Still if I blue-tack an old spectacle lens on to the front of the camera lens I can successfully take size for size images. The quality is not brilliant but there is something to play with.
The screw thread in these clamps is 3mm.

xy

 

[bugbear]

Here's your trick taken a few degrees further:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=9234

I ended up here:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?p=59303

BugBear

 

[xy mosian]

Oh bugbear what have I done Thanks for the links, fascinating reading, and refreshing the Physics I did a long time ago. I can't see me getting much else done for a little while now.
I started out thinking of the adapter rings that were sometimes used on 35mm cameras, between the body and the lens. Of course this camera I have now does not have a removable lens, nor is the front of the lens threaded in any way. So I am going to have to be creative with push fit connections. On with playtime

xy

p.s. Forgot to say some great work you've done there =D>
xy

 

[xy mosian]

bugbear, you've started me playing now. This was taken using a lens from a cheap jeweller's eye piece, just blue-tacked to the lens front. I find that the auto focus does not work at this range so I'm having to rely on my eyesight, with glasses, and the camera display. Off to find more lenses now.
As before the screw is threaded at M3.
xy

 

[Eric The Viking]

An old trick of TV news cameramen in times past was simply to use a large magnifying glass in front of the camera lens. It was much cheaper than a proper macro lens, and adequate for the occasional close-up shot done in a hurry.

I use the same trick with stills occasionally, although I usually use a retort stand clamp to hold the handle of the magnifying glass. You should get marginally better results than with a spectacle lens, simply because a magnifying glass will be symmetrical, whereas a spectacle lens may not be.

I have extension tubes and bellows for my SLR, but for the life of me I've never seen any advantage in reversing the lens - popular technique in the 1980s. A good macro lens, however, is a different matter entirely, mainly because you can usually stop down to f32 or f64, and keep a reasonable depth of field. Mind you, once you get to f64, the law of diminishing returns kicks in and the quality begins to deteriorate significantly.

You'll generally also get 'nicer' results by flattening out the lighting as much as possible. I do this by bouncing the flash off white polystyrene or copier paper close to the subject.

 

[xy mosian]

Eric, thanks for your comments. I think Imust have come across most of the 35mm ruses you mention 'back in the day', except for the magnifying glass. Which is basically what I am using with the eyepiece lens. I would not claim tremendous quality, but this far exceeds anything I expected. I recently photographed my 'Little Carving' and had to use maximum telephoto at some distance, 8ft or so, then crop heavily to fill a new frame with the bit of the image I wanted. At least now I will have another option.
The main snag now is that the Wide/Telephoto control is too course. Having to focus by eye, that takes me back a bit, I will need some sort of screw adjusted rail system to move the camera. At least that's what I am telling myself, another self imposed challenge.

xy

 

[Eric The Viking]

Depending on what camera you have look for "BPM" in photographic accessories on eBay. Butterfield (BPM) made universal bellows and also a focusing rack for macro work (you don't need one if you have a bellows set). The racks tend to go for around 20 quid, but bellows with a digital-compatible set of adaptor rings are much more (the Butterfield ones are fully manual but elegantly simple.

I own a set of BPM bellows for Pentax K which I can use with my Canon digital body, and get very nice results. Sadly, although the bellows turn up regularly, the adaptor rings for modern cameras are like hens' teeth and priced accordingly. The focusing racks are underrated though IMHO and worth the dosh.

Cheers,

E.

 

[brianhabby]

Keep playing xy. You are getting quite reasonable results considering your methods. You can get hold of proper close-up filters quite cheaply on eBay. If you can find one small enough that you can blue-tack or tape to the front of your camera it will improve your quality no end.

One of my most successful sunsets years ago was taken through a pair of cheap sunglasses.

regards

Brian

 

[Hudson Carpentry]

You can also get "filter lens" that do similar for little money. Never used a set though so no idea on there quality.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/58MM-MACRO-CL ... 33621d0230

You pop them on the filter thread at the end of the lens.

 

[Steve Jones]

I've had quite good results with close up filter lenses back in the days of film, I've also used extension tubes for butterfly photography as well.

HTH

Steve

 

[bugbear]

Depending on what camera you have look for "BPM" in photographic accessories on eBay. Butterfield (BPM) made universal bellows and also a focusing rack for macro work (you don't need one if you have a bellows set). The racks tend to go for around 20 quid, but bellows with a digital-compatible set of adaptor rings are much more (the Butterfield ones are fully manual but elegantly simple.

I own a set of BPM bellows for Pentax K which I can use with my Canon digital body, and get very nice results. Sadly, although the bellows turn up regularly, the adaptor rings for modern cameras are like hens' teeth and priced accordingly. The focusing racks are underrated though IMHO and worth the dosh.

Cheers,

E.

I wonder if a bellows extension with knackered bellows could be obtained cheaply, and used as a focusing rack?

BugBear

 

[Eric The Viking]

I don't see why not, but you'd have to modify it somewhat. Basically chop off the bellows and put a plate and 1/4" Whitworth stud into the movable part, to mount the camera. These things are pretty cheap and should work, although I've no idea as to the quality:



Given it's only £20-ish, it's hardly worth the effort to modify something. I think I'd glue something of bigger diameter onto the racking knob though, provided it didn't get in the way.

E.

PS: you can, of course always use that sort of thing backwards: keep the camera still on a tripod and move the subject to and fro.

 

[xy mosian]

I've slept on it now, trying to figure out where my old bellows are, or indeed if I've chucked them out. Being able to photograph a pound coin to fill the frame is probably sufficient, until I get all enthusiastic again. Until I find the bellows I'll probably make do with just moving the subject with respect to the tripod. Crude I know but hopefully effective. Thanks all for the input.
xy

 

[bugbear]

I don't see why not, but you'd have to modify it somewhat. Basically chop off the bellows and put a plate and 1/4" Whitworth stud into the movable part, to mount the camera. These things are pretty cheap and should work, although I've no idea as to the quality:



Given it's only £20-ish, it's hardly worth the effort to modify something. I think I'd glue something of bigger diameter onto the racking knob though, provided it didn't get in the way.

E.

PS: you can, of course always use that sort of thing backwards: keep the camera still on a tripod and move the subject to and fro.

Ah - thank you, I'd assumed (always dangerous) that they cost a good deal more than that.

BugBear

 

[Peter T]

How about a Veho Discovery VMS-001 USB microscope -

Screw is 3mm thread by 6mm long.

Microscope was from Amazon for about £30. Picture was taken on the lowest mag.