How thick is it at the highest point of the dome? This kind of DoF is what I'd like for closeup shots.It measures about 1.75", or 4.5cm. It has quite a strong dome shape.
Nominations for the March Image of the Month (IotM) close at the end of the day on Sunday, March 31. Get your four nominations in!
How thick is it at the highest point of the dome? This kind of DoF is what I'd like for closeup shots.It measures about 1.75", or 4.5cm. It has quite a strong dome shape.
I often wonder how some posters manage to achieve such sharp images (not necessarily close ups) on MobiTog, is it superior device, camera app or just pure luckI have often been disappointed when I have a nice sharp photo to post but the process of reducing the image to a suitable size for posting removes a lot of the sharpness. Certain textures, like sand, don’t reduce well.
I often wonder how some posters manage to achieve such sharp images (not necessarily close ups) on MobiTog, is it superior device, camera app or just pure luck
Probably the sharpest image is the one straight from the camera, so less messing with apps is better yes?
About 1cm. Maybe only 9mm.How thick is it at the highest point of the dome? This kind of DoF is what I'd like for closeup shots.
These are wonderful!! And especially so considering they were made with a “cheap plastic stick on lens”.Well as I noted above, I need to source some half decent equipment so If I've gotten nothing else from this thread, I have that but won't be taking anymore photos for this thread now. I'd be disappointed with the results.
Having said that, looking back through my older material I have pulled off some good shots with what I do have. And what they all seem to have in common is strong, summer lighting or high contrast.
I'm sure better lens will allow me to get better shots more consistently across different conditions but here's what I pulled off previously with a cheap plastic stick on lens
View attachment 119340
View attachment 119341
Even when almost nothing is in focus you can get some nice shots.View attachment 119342 View attachment 119343
These are dandelion seeds. I never noticed the barbs on them before this pic, which presumably help them dig into soil, cracks and whatnot. View attachment 119344 View attachment 119345
Although I believe mobitog resamples all pictures that are uploaded these days and reduces them to 1000px on the longest size to save on server space/bandwidth.What terse did was take the full sized photo and crop it small enough to post, so no resampling was required
I think images get resized when displayed (according to display width, I think?) rather than when uploaded. On my desktop Mac, I can right-click on an image to open it in a new tab, and there I can view it at its full uploaded size.Although I believe mobitog resamples all pictures that are uploaded these days and reduces them to 1000px on the longest size to save on server space/bandwidth.
So with his crop at 1800 odd on the longest side it will have been nearly halfed in the uploading.
Oh! I've only tried that on mobile devices, I'll check it on my PC.I think images get resized when displayed (according to display width, I think?) rather than when uploaded. On my desktop Mac, I can right-click on an image to open it in a new tab, and there I can view it at its full uploaded size.
I wish I had a better understanding of what happens at the Mobi website level after I press “send” when uploading a photo.Although I believe mobitog resamples all pictures that are uploaded these days and reduces them to 1000px on the longest size to save on server space/bandwidth.
So with his crop at 1800 odd on the longest side it will have been nearly halfed in the uploading.
I think images get resized when displayed (according to display width, I think?) rather than when uploaded. On my desktop Mac, I can right-click on an image to open it in a new tab, and there I can view it at its full uploaded size.
Tried on my PC every pic had a longest length of 1000px. Even those uploaded to the site before the changes. It's the same result on both of my android devices. If the full upload is still there to view then I'd like to know how. If for no other reason, EOS must always end up @1000px even if it was a higher quality before because when I make my edit I can only ever get a 1000px download.I wish I had a better understanding of what happens at the Mobi website level after I press “send” when uploading a photo.
I remember you posting quite a few of these and being very envious of your results considering what you have. I do agree, good lighting is paramount.Well as I noted above, I need to source some half decent equipment so If I've gotten nothing else from this thread, I have that but won't be taking anymore photos for this thread now. I'd be disappointed with the results.
Having said that, looking back through my older material I have pulled off some good shots with what I do have. And what they all seem to have in common is strong, summer lighting or high contrast.
I'm sure better lens will allow me to get better shots more consistently across different conditions but here's what I pulled off previously with a cheap plastic stick on lens
View attachment 119340
View attachment 119341
Even when almost nothing is in focus you can get some nice shots.View attachment 119342 View attachment 119343
These are dandelion seeds. I never noticed the barbs on them before this pic, which presumably help them dig into soil, cracks and whatnot. View attachment 119344 View attachment 119345
I just tried the same thing on my iPad and on my iMac and had the same result. This must be something recent because I can remember some time ago doing some judging where I downloaded all the pics to my iMac to see them better in a group and they all came out at different sizes, presumably the same that they were uploaded, some at 3000 px.Tried on my PC every pic had a longest length of 1000px. Even those uploaded to the site before the changes. It's the same result on both of my android devices. If the full upload is still there to view then I'd like to know how. If for no other reason, EOS must always end up @1000px even if it was a higher quality before because when I make my edit I can only ever get a 1000px download.
I've been thinking that if uploads are being resized to 100o px, then I'll want to resize them myself and apply sharpening/structure as a final step after, rather than uploading a larger sharpened version that gets sized down (which seems to counteract the sharpening).I wonder if this means it is pointless to upload any pictures bigger than 1000 px.
That makes sense to me, too. I remember thinking, as a result of my judging experience with the image files on my iMac, that for competition purposes it was definitely worth posting higher resolution images. The 3000 px images really stood out from the 1500 px ones. I’m wondering if it is worth talking about image quality if it has become a theoretical exercise.I've been thinking that if uploads are being resized to 100o px, then I'll want to resize them myself and apply sharpening/structure as a final step after, rather than uploading a larger sharpened version that gets sized down (which seems to counteract the sharpening).
Wow, I love that first image.Since it is deep winter here and I have not had any opportunities to make any nature photos I dug into my older pics to find examples of a couple of points.
View attachment 119378
Dealing with the shallow depth of field is one of the major issues when making close-ups. One of my favourite methods is to try to compose more of the same subject, in this case a bunch of Rabbit’s Foot Clover, out of focus in the background. This helps to enhance the feeling of depth, or separation between the foreground and background in the picture. This picture use the regular lens plus a close-up lens. The depth of field was enough to cover the first bloom but not enough to extend the the second one.
View attachment 119379
Here I have 3 degrees of focus. I’ve tried to align the camera as much as possible to be flat with the face of the foreground Forget-me-not. Even so, not all of that one flower is in focus. The next flower behind it cannot possibly be in focus but it lends another dimension to the picture. The background, which is only one metre away, is completely out of focus. This was made with the first generation Moment Macro on iPhone 6. I had to look around quite a bit to find flowers in a situation where there was nothing close behind them to be too much in focus. There’s a little drop-off in height between the foreground and background which helps to keep any close flowers out of the picture and too much in focus.
View attachment 119380
You can only get this amount of depth of field using Focus Stacking, in this case 20 images were made, each at a slightly different focus position. The focus stack of images was developed in Affinity Photo. However, I did not use all 20 of the stack - perhaps only 14 or 15. Once I had covered the range I wanted in focus I discarded the extras which allowed the focus to drop off fairly rapidly beyond my target area. In a single exposure the depth of field would not be enough to keep the front of the biggest mushroom in focus as well at its stem. I used DNG format in the CameraPixels app and set the ISO to 20.
It occurs to me that there is another limitation with focus stacking. The maximum possible in-focus depth for your stack of images is defined by the focus range of your lens. In the case of the group of mushrooms, I was using the 2x lens plus close-up lenses, and the total focus range was about 5 or 6 inches. So it is important to set up the camera at a distance such that the subject lies entirely within that 4-5 inch range.
By the focus range I mean the closest focus position to the farthest. Without any close-up lenses the natural focus range of the phone camera is about 4” to infinity. As soon as you add a close up lens the entire focus range becomes shifted closer. Instead of 4 inches to infinity it might become 3” to 7”. The closer you get the narrower the range becomes, even though the lens mechanism is still moving through the same physical distance inside the camera.
With the Moment Macro, or similar macro lenses, the total focus range is only 3 or 4 mm so if your subject requires a greater depth than that a regular focus stack using CameraPixels won’t work.
Incidentally, when you use the translucent diffuser hood with the Moment Macro and place the front of the diffuser in direct contact with your subject the lens is focused pretty much at infinity, in other words the far end of the focusing range. That means that if your subject has some depth, such as a coin, the face of the coin can still be brought into focus. But if you put a couple of coins in a stack you could no longer focus on the face of the top coin.
The method used for DSLR cameras is not to change the focus of the lens but to move the entire camera and lens a few microns at a time on a track while making up to hundreds of photos. It requires a lot of care in setting up as well as some automated equipment to manage. I think in a limited way it could be accomplished manually using a focusing rail as long as there was no slack in any of the movements.
I think it is definitely worthwhile, even for extreme range scenic photos. However, it is essential that absolutely no subject movement occurs during the exposures. Anything that moves in the wind would not work.Wow, I love that first image.
I keep on thinking I must do focus stacking but it seems so much hassle to get the photo in the end and requires a tripod. Maybe I should try that in summer when there are some flowers to concentrate on.
It is really informative to make this type of test with your equipment isn’t it.Did the graph thing with all my macro lenses. I did it on my cutting board and it was interesting to see what detail come up too.
iPhone first:
Moment 10x Macro - pretty much what Brian got. Sorry mistake on image - should be 10x
View attachment 120187
Neewer +10 Macro filter on Moment 58mm telephoto lens - didn’t get the focus quite right I see. Slight bending on the outside.
View attachment 120188
Huawei P20 Pro
Cheap Apexel x15 Macro Lens on a Kase phone case with 17mm thread. I can’t understand why this is further away than the Moment Macro lens? I couldn’t figure out if the 7+ x2 zoom is also at work with the Moment Macro lens . One thing I would say though is that the detail in the middle is pretty good and at a resolution of 7296x5472 you can afford to do some cropping. Imagine how awesome the Moment lens would be!
View attachment 120189
Beastgrip Macro - part of 37mm 0.43 wide angle lens on a clip. So I’m not sure how to translate that into macro, FundyBrian, but does that mean about x2 Macro??
View attachment 120191
So I also have some 38mm close-up filters and I added a 10+ and 4+ together on a clip. Doesn’t seem that close?? All these different macro measurements are confusing to me.
View attachment 120197
Also I seem to get that purple lens flare using the clip and I wonder if it’s because it’s shiny. What paint did you use to paint your clip, Brian?
Thanks for that. For me just knowing what the results are for each lens, gives me an idea of which one to use when.It is really informative to make this type of test with your equipment isn’t it.
It is often difficult to tell what what the makers of close-up equipment mean from what the call their devices. The term “macro” is frequently misused to imply any sort of close-up lenses. The proper optical term would be to measure the lens and report the diopter value as +10 or +4, etc. I don’t know what x2 macro would be unless it means a +2 close-up lens. The only way to tell is to measure the focal length and from that calculate the diopter value. Somewhere in the close-up workshop I described how to find the focal length of your lenses. It is a quick way to tell what you have. A +10 diopter lens will have a focal length of 100mm. A +2 will be 500mm. A +4 will be 250mm.
Your wide angle conversion lens at .43 is going the opposite direction to close up lenses. A .5 wide angle should give twice as wide a view. .43 is a little more than double the width. Assuming we start with a 28mm equivalent on the phone then .43 should give you 10.75mm.
Yes, the Moment macro works perfectly well on the 2x phone lens. It gives you twice the magnification at the same focus distance.
Purple is a typical colour for lens flare. When your adapter has forward-facing shiny surfaces they can reflect on the back side of a lens attached to the adapter. I always paint my stuff with flat black enamel paint. It comes in a tiny bottle and is readily found in hobby shops, especially the type that sell plastic models of airplanes and cars. The brand name is Testors. Bottle is 45mm tall. It will probably need a good stirring up since it usually settles after sitting a while. You get a remarkably small amount of paint for the money. 1/4 oz.
View attachment 120209
View attachment 120208
The label used to have more style but putting 3 languages on a tiny label fixed that.
Since this is a US brand there may be a European product there instead. Another brand name comes to mind - Humbrol.
Yes, through the years I have collected lots of odd things for photography. After some time goes by some of them get relegated to the parts bin. From there they may be reborn as something new.Thanks for that. For me just knowing what the results are for each lens, gives me an idea of which one to use when.
Well, I know the Humbrol brand well. We have a Hobbycraft superstore 6 minutes away with a good model section and I wouldn’t be surprised if Humbrol is the brand. Great, I’m going to rush there tomorrow and get a tin so that I can paint it before we go away on Tuesday.
Honestly, I have so many accessories that I want to take with me, I have a separate bag to put them all in! I have also bought a £8 bracket which fits my iPhone to my binoculars. I’m really quite surprised at how well it works! The problem is that the setup really needs to be on a tripod to keep it still and to enable me to easily hit the shutter button but my old Leica bins don’t have a tripod mount thread. I have worked out using various bought photographic bits and pieces how I could erect one but that’s another £30 and I’m feeling a bit guilty about how much I have spent recently on such things.
As a professional photographer, you must have a room full of the stuff! I can’t believe how much is out there and how many bits and pieces I wouldn’t mind getting.
I’ve done the same.I have a Lowepro fanny pack style case big enough for some iPhone accessories. I think I will limit my accessories to what will fit in that case and no more.