Jump to content

M.Chapman

Verified
  • Content Count

    2,687
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by M.Chapman

  1. Yes. Make sure you fill in/tick questions in Alamy Image manager correctly. Enter number of people in image (even if they are unrecognisable, or even just part of a person, e.g. a hand) Do you have model releases = No, Sell for editorial only = Yes (if you want maximum protection or have set the licence type as RF) Traditionally the licence type would also have been set to RM, but I believe it's now OK to use RF if you tick the editorial only box. Mark
  2. I'd make it a little longer, say 140mm. This should ensure the full area of a 35mm slide can be photographed with a small border that can be cropped out later and will make slide alignment a little less critical. Mark
  3. Assuming Alan can 3D print a unit that is around 140mm long, then the extenders won't be needed. Just the 67mm thread Cokin P adapter and Alan's unit. Mark
  4. That's quite similar to my setup. 🙂 Using a small flat mirror on the lightbox is even better (adjust the camera so the image of the lens is central). I bought a couple of 50mm x 500mm mirrors that fit exactly where I put my 35mm slides from here for £1.66 each. www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Acrylic-Handbag-Plastic-Mirror-Shatterproof-Safety-Travel-Mirror-Make-Up-Bag/362429329957 For those that might want diffuser material you can get it cut to various sizes here. www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Perspex-Laser-Cut-Opal-Cast-Acrylic-Plastic-Disc-Circle-3mm-5mm-8mm-10mm/254391035590 Mark
  5. Possibly, but in the case of the watch image that might change the magnification quite a bit, although the stacking software I've used does handle this. It seems there are 3 options 1) Move camera and lens as one (no change to lens focus setting) 2) Fixed camera position and adjust lens focus 3) Fix lens position and move camera (sensor). I've no idea which is best.. Mark
  6. Be careful. There's also a nasty cough and cold about, you may not have Covid-19.... Whichever, I wish you a speedy recovery Mark
  7. I use stacking occasionally. Usually of just 2 frames to get better depth of filed in landscape shots. But sometimes more, on still life shots. I've used Photoshop (using the technique described by John above) , but also Affinity Photo which does a good job too. Main problem I find is when foreground features obscure increasing amounts of background features as the lens gets closer. Some shapes are easy (e.g. round or spherical). But more complex 3D items where the working distance of the lens changes significantly can give serious ghosting problems (look around the crown wheel of this watch). Mark
  8. According to Ken Rockwell, the working distance of the Canon 100mm L macro (that I believe Ian / Geogphotos has) is 133mm which gives 1:1 reproduction on full frame Canon DSLR. So an adapter that's slightly longer would seem to be sensible. The lens filter size is 67mm. https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/100mm-f28-is.htm#spex That should be enough info? How are you making them? 3D printer? Mark
  9. I hadn't noticed those long delivery dates... Are Amazon "padding out" their delivery dates in case of disruption? I can find an alternative to the stepping ring which claims to be in stock in UK and delivered quickly https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/67mm-to-52mm-Stepping-Step-Down-Ring-Camera-Lens-Filter-Adapter-Ring-67-52mm/153471145592 But the equivalent spacers I can find on eBay are from Hong Kong. www.ebay.co.uk/itm/52mm-threaded-28mm-extension-tube-spacer-ring/362412022109 Still quicker than Amazon's quoted dates though. Mark
  10. Great portfolio. But Isn't it disappointing that images can be rendered on the forum (from a 3rd party provider) with much better quality than Alamy renders the banner to the portfolios. Mark
  11. Thanks. Please let us know how you get on. Mark
  12. Alright for you, potentially not so good for them. Unless you hold your breath as you walk by too. Mark
  13. Arguing with Guardia Civil maybe pointless, but I don't think this thread is. As a result of reading it my wife and I are further modifying our activities. We were going to walk from our house across open country to another village and back today, taking a picnic with us. But as a result of the posts here, we'll just walk around our own village and have our picnic when we get back. It's useful seeing the range of perspectives, some of which I hadn't thought of. Mark
  14. That's just plain daft if they live together and aren't normally isolating from one-another. Mark
  15. Camera = Canon 5D Lens = your 100mm Canon L macro lens Slideholder = Nikon ES-1 Adapters = 67 to 52mm step down ring and spacers (see exact details below) There's no particular "magic" to the ES-1 that means it will only work with Nikon. The ES-1 is just an adjustable length metal tube, with slide holder and light diffuser at one end, and a filter thread at the other. It happens to be designed so that it works without any extension tube/spacers/adaptors with the right Nikon macro lens. But it will also work with other manufacturers' macro lenses too. It's just a case of getting the right thread and the spacing roughly right (by screwing in a step down ring and some extension tube(s)) and then using the adjustment range of the the ES-1 to make the final tweak. Ken Rockwell quotes the minimum working distance of the 100mm Canon L as 133mm (see here https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/100mm-f28-is.htm#spex) He doesn't quote the front lens element diameter, but I can see from the photo see it looks to be less than 40mm, so 52mm extension tubes should be just fine (no danger of vignetting even at f2.8. I also note Kevin (above) needed around 81mm of extension to get the ES-1 to work with his 100mm (non-L) Canon, which is a similar, but not identical lens. So, if it was me ordering the bits, I'd buy the following; 1 off - Nikon ES-1 (wherever you can get the best price) 1 off - 67-52mm step down ring for £4.99 from Amazon https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00ZUCCZIS 4 off - 52mm x 28mm long extension tube spacers from Amazon at £7.99 each https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B009VPPZYQ (Thanks MDM) You may only need to use 3 of the spacers, but if you buy 4 you will have the option of shooting below 1:1. This will making slide positioning a little less critical and you can crop in PS later. Job done (providing you have a suitable light source. You could use daylight, but I wouldn't recommend it). Mark
  16. No need to bow out. It's clear that you have already photographed a 35mm slide "freehand". Set it up a bit more carefully this time using a tripod to support your camera and lens above a 35mm slide on your lightbox. Move the camera as close to the slide as you can until, either the slide fills the field of view, or you reach the point where the lens refuses to focus any closer. Then measure the distance from the front of the lens (or the lens filter if you are keeping that on) to the slide and let us know what that distance is. No need to be deadly accurate, if you can find the distance within a few mm that will be fine. Mark
  17. If you can increase the space between the slide and lightbox a little (some sort of spacer), then any dust on the lightbox surface will be out of focus which can help. Mark
  18. Hi Ian, it looks like Photo-shelter is doing something. Surely it's too much of a coincidence that the longest side on all the images you've posted is exactly 500 pixels? So although you maybe uploading a 100% crop to Photoshelter, that's not what they are "serving" back to the forum posts. Oops looks like our posts are crossing 🙂 Try uploading a 100% crop that has a longest side of 500 pixels or less. Then it should appear correctly (perhaps). Mark
  19. But I'm not looking at your image on an iMac. A retina display would make your 100% crop look sharper to you, but not to me as I've only got a regular display. I suspect Photoshelter has downsized the cropped image or it's not a 100% crop from a 3,786 x 2,635 image. No worries. I was just being curious. Mark
  20. I'm still struggling with this one Ian. The image above (according to PS dialog and your post) is 3,786 x 2,635 The area shown by your 100% crop, taken from an image of that size, would be roughly 1689 x 1464 pixels But the 100% crop you have posted is only 500 x 433 pixels. So some downsizing has gone on somewhere?? Maybe by Photoshelter, or by you to reach Alamy archive 5MB mimimum? I tried the following calculation. If your 3786 x 2635 image is downsized to the Alamy archive minimum (5MB) it becomes 1585 x 1103 and the crop should be roughly 707 x 613 But the crop posted is smaller still (500 x 433). Mark (just trying to understand why your "100%" crop looks surprisingly sharp)
  21. See later post too. Oh that helps. So archival only needs to be 5MB uncompressed. So for a 35mm 2:3 format that's an image which is 1620 x 1080 pixels or larger. So far so good. What's the size of your final cropped image in pixels 3786 x 2635? From the 100% crop I suspect it's not that big, indeed if that's a 100% crop I think the final image would be <5MB? (Sorry I'm just trying to understand what's going on). Although you clearly don't need to fill the frame, you'll get better results if you do. Then downsize to a level you feel matches the quality of the slide you've copied. It would be a shame to throw away quality unnecessarily. This might also open up the regular (>17MB) Alamy QC route for images that don't have archive value. Mark
  22. 100% agree - Rotation is the only adjustment you might have to do. Mark
  23. If the 2nd image is a 100% crop, it looks like the overall image wouldn't contain enough pixels for Alamy ? (Alamy need >~6MP, eg. 3000 x 2000) The 100% crop is just 500 x 433 pixels, and appears to be about 1/4 (by area) of the 35mm slide. So the digitised 35mm slide is only about 1000 pixels wide? It may look nice and sharp, but I think that's because it's not really a 100% crop from a 6MP (or higher) image. The 3rd image suggests Ian (Geogphotos) hasn't anywhere near filled the frame.... Mark
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.