Testing my new setup!

[Scott99]

I'm going to use this thread to show my trials and errors using a setup I just purchased from Ray!

Full coin shot is pretty nice I think. I may need to diffuse the lamps a little more to get rid of those small hot-spots. Will have to play with it a little more.

Will need to work on the close-ups next which will be tomorrow or sometime this week when I have some free time. :)

http://www.varietycent.com/Images/Photo/raysetup1.jpg

[georoxx]

Did a pretty good job eliminating glare right out of the gate. Right on.

-George

[jallengomez]

Looks great to me Matt. Did you end up stacking images for focus, or is that a single?

[Scott99]

Looks great to me Matt. Did you end up stacking images for focus, or is that a single?

Thanks! This was stacked but it really wasn't necessary in my opinion. A single image was overall pretty clear but I was just testing out both the setup and photoshop (since I've never used photoshop before)

[Scott99]

Here's an image I just went in and took without focus stacking.

http://www.varietycent.com/Images/Photo/nofocusstack.jpg

This one is focus stacked.

http://www.varietycent.com/Images/Photo/focusstack.jpg

[jallengomez]

Nice. I'm honestly thinking about ditching the AmScope and purchasing one of Ray's setups.

[Scott99]

Nice. I'm honestly thinking about ditching the AmScope and purchasing one of Ray's setups.

Once I get working on the close-ups, I am going to compare this to shooting through the scope.

So far on full coin shots, this setup is the winner. Close ups are the most important to me though so hopefully it will go in the favor of this setup as well.

[jallengomez]

I'll be interested in seeing those results.

[Roller]

Nice images. Is that with a 135mm enlarging lens?

[Rollem]

Great shots Matt.

What lens and camera are you using?

James

[coppercoins]

How much time per coin does it take you to get those kind of shots?

[Amadauss]

photos are really nice. Dark background also which some feel it should be white. If you are putting them into photoshop, can you list what version you are using and what you actually do while in the program.

[thecentcollector]

a white background would wash out the shots.

[jcuve]

Nice shots!

The lens of the camera and the field below are slightly out of alignment as evidenced by the left side falling out of focus faster than the right. Dropping a mirror below and aligning the lens to be centered helps.

You know when it comes to detail shots, I have found nothing faster than just doing it through the scope on the spot. If I am taking whole coin shots, then decide to switch to details or medium shots, it requires a lens change for each. Then you have to adjust the height of the camera followed by the distance between the lens and photo sensor on the camera. It takes way longer even though I have markings to tell me the height marked on the copy stand rod. For now I am just keeping the whole coin setup up all the time and use the scope for close ups unless I was having trouble and require some special shot.

[coppercoins]

I would agree fully with Jason here. Using the same setup for both micro and macro shots would take up a lot of time.

I use separate cameras for each. I have a D80 and a copy stand for the macros and a point-and-shoot with a home-made eyepiece adapter for the micros.

[Scott99]

How much time per coin does it take you to get those kind of shots?

Without focus stacking, you pretty much just shoot. The obverse of the 64P took less time than it would have with my camera I use through my scope.


Nice images. Is that with a 135mm enlarging lens?


Great shots Matt.

What lens and camera are you using?

James

Thanks! I'm not sure exactly what lenses I got from Ray, I told him what I wanted to do with it and he chose what he though would work best. I'm sure he'll respond here with the details. :) The camera is a Canon 1ds mk2 at the moment. Just got off work so now I'm going to go play around with it some more. :D

[Scott99]

Here's a couple images of a 1960P Small Date with a white background. Seems to show the colors more accurately with a white background.

I will check out the mirror test. I want it to be as level as I can get it. :)

http://www.varietycent.com/Images/Photo/60sd1.jpg
http://www.varietycent.com/Images/Photo/60sd2.jpg

[ray_parkhurst]

Thanks! I'm not sure exactly what lenses I got from Ray, I told him what I wanted to do with it and he chose what he though would work best. I'm sure he'll respond here with the details. :) The camera is a Canon 1ds mk2 at the moment. Just got off work so now I'm going to go play around with it some more. :D

I built the setup with a Rodenstock 75mm Apo Rodagon D M1:1 (75ARD1) and Nikon 4x Plan objective for detail shots.

[jallengomez]

Alright Matt, let's see the money shots.

[ray_parkhurst]

I would agree fully with Jason here. Using the same setup for both micro and macro shots would take up a lot of time.

I use separate cameras for each. I have a D80 and a copy stand for the macros and a point-and-shoot with a home-made eyepiece adapter for the micros.

How you configure your setup(s) depends on how you intend to use them. The more images you take per day, the more important it is to have separate setups, and to eliminate the need for multiple shots per image. I can imagine the following is appropriate:

Hobbyist setup (photographing a few coins a day)
- Stereo Microscope without camera for variety attribution
- Macro setup for full-coin shots, convertible for variety shooting (highest quality optics)
- Separate variety setup if varieties are primary collecting interest and funds allow

Ebay setup (photographing 10-50 coins per day)
- Stereo Microscope with camera for variety attribution and photographs
- Macro setup for full-coin shots (medium quality optics)

Pro (attributer, mega eBay seller)
- Stereo Microscope for variety attribution with or without camera
- Macro setup with medium quality optics
- Variety setup with medium quality optics

For variety setups, the higher the quality of optics, the more need for stacking, which can be tolerated by the hobbyist but not by the Ebay or Pro user due to the added processing time, and the higher image quality is not needed.

My setups mostly cater to the hobbyist (such as myself) who is looking for the highest possible image quality and is willing to put the extra effort into achieving it.

[coppercoins]

My agreement or disagreement with this would completely depend on how much time it took to do what you're suggesting. If I have to spend more than five minutes on imaging a coin, it's not worth doing...unless the coin is very valuable or rare, and the likelihood I will see another one is slim.

Micro-focusing images, screwing on lenses, connecting and disconnecting bellows, toying around with lighting, stacking half a dozen images, dealing with 20 Megapixel file sizes, and the like sounds much more like a photography hobbyist than a coin hobbyist. I, for one, am not in this to win a prize with photography. I need a clean, quick way to get good images that are not going to take up my entire day.

Although my image quality is not the best, nor is my lighting always right on the mark, I still get pretty good results, and it doesn't take all day to deal with a single coin. I can take obverse and reverse images of a coin, have them edited and online inside of five minutes. I can take 10 images of a doubled die, edit them, annotate them, save them, and upload them inside of about ten minutes.

If I were out to win a contest with the photos, mine wouldn't be up to par...but I have published books with them, and have heard no complaints.

[ray_parkhurst]

It all comes back to why I got into doing coin photography in the first place. I wanted to take a SINGLE picture of a coin, with sufficiently high resolution such that the die markers, variety details, surface finish, bag marks, etc were presented well enough for grading the coin and definitively identifying the die variety and stage/die state. I achieved this some time ago, and when I published the photos people asked about the setup and techniques I use, and if I could set them up as well. Since then I've delivered about 25 of these setups, and many other folks have used the techniques I've published to build their own. More recently, folks have been seeing the potential for using these setups to replace a microscope / camera, and in some ways they can, especially the popular but poor-quality USB microscopes. So recently I've added higher-magnification capability to the setups, still keeping the same goal of best possible image quality in variety photomicrography as I had in full-coin photomacrography. This suggests techniques like focus stacking to achieve best sharpness, but it is not absolutely required. Single images can show an excellent overall sharpness, but many folks are choosing to put the extra time into the process in order to show their coins in the best possible light. I don't know if this makes them photographic hobbyists or not, but the subject is always coins.

[coppercoins]

I suppose my statement was made in the sense that - most generally - when we are taking care of other people's coins, they need to be done quickly. And frankly with my work schedule the same holds true for my own pieces.

I am definitely not trying to take anything away from what was originally posted here, nor from what Ray is saying. The photos and setups are fantastic to say the very least. The results are impeccable! I suppose for my purpose, though, I need more 'machine' and less 'art' in the sense that sometimes I have to be able to come up with 75-100 useable exposures in a given day, and do not believe this sort of setup is capable of allowing me that speed. Perhaps I am wrong, which is why I asked how long it takes to move from beginning to end on one of these setups.

I still do plan to purchase one of these at some point. Money and time to fool with it have to be there before the timing is right for me. I will also have to purchase a different camera body before it will be worthwhile to do.

My question comes back to the amount of outlay versus the viability of being able to use such a set-up to produce output of substantially high enough consistent quality in the amount of time I have to give each item to warrant itself. I have plans for the future that could include producing higher quality images of up to 200 coins per day. Can this method prove useful in this type of setting, or am I going to have to tinker around with it for every coin?

[coppercoins]

I don't mean to steal a thread - that's really not my intent here. I will stay on-topic of 'camera setups' as much as possible here.

The life and times of 'coppercoins' is changing drastically in short order with some changes that are taking place in the background. These changes could easily warrant the need to do a much higher quantity of nice quality photography than ever before. This is the reason for my interest in the amount of time it takes to get from beginning to end dealing with a coin using this setup.

We will never have the time to sit and play with settings between each shot, take a dozen shots at different settings to see which one worked out perfectly, or take six differently focused images to stack them together for focus. It simply will not work out in our faster-paced need to crank out images.

So I suppose my question really runs in the direction of, "How can I get the speed I need without giving up too much quality, and can a Ray Parkhurst setup beat what I have now substantially enough to warrant the expense?" I can already see that the quality beats mine - easily. My question then was about the time it takes to produce output at that quality.

I can preface your answer by saying that I know little about photography and cameras. I don't understand the numbers, adapter types, lens types, fittings, or any of that jargon - it just puts me to sleep. All I do know about the subject I taught myself through trial and error. I use a Nikon D-80 with a 105mm Sigma macro lens for macro coin shots. I use a Nikon Coolpix 5200 point and shoot through a .75x-3.5x infinite zoom (with 10x objectives) stereo-microscope using a home-made adapter made of PVC for micrographs.

Can this substantially be beat without any significant addition to production time of output using what Scott has that Ray set-up for him?

[Rollem]

I am thinking that a good quality full coin shot will also let me take a slice for the variety detail i want to high light.
This is Matt coin I did just that with. I have been finding this is working good enough for my own library.

If anomaly is not achieved with this procedure then it's probably not note worthy to begin with.
James

[Roller]

I'm guilty of buying all kinds of photo/microscope equipment to try this and that. I usually sell most of it at a loss when I'm done with it or move on to a higher grade equipment. Long and short is that I wind up taking partial coin shots through my stereoscope and loathe to transport camera and coin to the stand I made for full coin shots with bellows and lenses. I figure that as long as I can depict the anomaly or parts of the coin that I'm referring to, its good enough for my purposes which is to communicate with others on the intended subject. If I start selling on the Bay, I will make the extra effort with full coin shots but for now, its the scope for me.

[georoxx]

For what we do here, "adequate" works for me. My pics are marginal at best, but I can usually get my point across and highlight even very minute anamolies well enough to get my LCR brothers and sisters to tell me what they think.

Now, the results I see from Ray's setups are unreal and make me want to improve my shots. But, Like Roller, for the time being, I guess I'm good. (Maybe one day, though.)

-George

[Scott99]

Alright Matt, let's see the money shots.

Working on it... Can't seem to get it set right and don't want to post a blurry image! LOL Has to be something I'm doing wrong! :)


I have been finding this is working good enough for my own library.

If you want a crop from the original image I'll make one for you. This image was reduced from 4880 pixels wide to 1050.


I don't mean to steal a thread - that's really not my intent here. I will stay on-topic of 'camera setups' as much as possible here.

Can this substantially be beat without any significant addition to production time of output using what Scott has that Ray set-up for him?

No worries, your questions are probably the same as a lot of people reading the thread. :) Full coin shots really don't need focus stacking so one image per side of the coin takes less than 20 seconds total. (That includes the flipping, lining up, and adjusting one setting on the camera.)

For the close-ups, I am still working on it as I must be doing something wrong but I will let you know. ;)

Switching from one to the other takes about 5 minutes.

[Rollem]

Originally Posted by Rollem View Post
I have been finding this is working good enough for my own library.
If you want a crop from the original image I'll make one for you. This image was reduced from 4880 pixels wide to 1050.


That is my point Matt, a crop from the original full shot will almost always be adequate for a close up of a variety.

And if it isn't it probably isn't worth listing anyway. "Too Minor"

Which greatly reduces time.

James

[Scott99]

That is true. :)

[ray_parkhurst]

Yeah, that's the idea I had in getting the sharpest full-coin shots I could. If you can't see it zooming-in on a 4000x3000 image, it's probably too minor.

Regarding the production time for these images, there are 3 things that take time:

Moving the coin into place
Adjusting fine focus
Changing magnification for different size coins

As long as you shoot the same denomination all at one time before changing magnification for different denominations you can achieve the 20sec per coin side that Matt estimated above. Changing magnifications takes a minute or so to get a consistent framing, and then perhaps another minute to adjust the light height. Then you're back to 20sec each.

Now, shooting variety details with a high quality objective will usually demand stacking multiple shots. Lower quality objectives or short macro lenses will give less sharpness but need only a single image. For varieties you will still need to place the coin properly, which takes longer than it does for full coins, and adjust the fine focus. Just as with a microscope setup, you may need to optimize the lighting to show the variety with good shadow details. So instead of 20 sec, you are probably talking a minute or so to produce a single image.

Usually you can get by in focus stacking with 5 images at these magnifications. Figure it takes an extra 20-30sec to take those extra images. But stacking them takes several minutes and is fairly hands-on unless you invest in a commercial stacking program. If you wanted to do a "machine" stacking process it would involve investment in a stepper-motor stage that is controlled by the stacking program. There are a few models available, and they interface with the stacking program. This can reduce the time spent on hands-on work, but the stacking process is still slower than the setup and focusing for single images.

[Scott99]

Well I figured out what was wrong. When the camera would take the picture it would shake from the mirror rotating. Luckily the camera as a mirror locking option and was able to snap these two shots. Camera still isn't level but I still think for close-ups it may require some focus-stacking. Here are the initial tests before I head off to work.

[ray_parkhurst]

Looks 100% better. You've eliminated the mirror slap, but there is still evidence of shutter shake. To prove it's the shutter I still suggest doing a delayed lighting experiment. If you get the same result with delayed lighting then you know it's the best you're going to get...Ray

[Scott99]

I think I'm going to try and get it level and then mess around with it a bit more. Giving the shots at the last minute without spending much time with the focusing I think the end results will be satisfying to me. Going to need to use that ping pong ball idea though. I can't seem to get enough light where I want it when I am doing closeups.

[coppercoins]

What you guys aren't seeming to understand is that when we list die varieties, we list a bunch of stuff that is pretty minor, and getting lighting in just the perfect spot with just the perfect diffusion is a very tricky game. I have found that through microscope optics is the best 'controlled' environment to do that.

I'm not sure the statement that if "You can't get it through a macro lens, it's too minor" is true. There would be a large number of die varieties we wouldn't list because they could not easily be photographed through a camera lens on a copy stand.

[ray_parkhurst]

What you guys aren't seeming to understand is that when we list die varieties, we list a bunch of stuff that is pretty minor, and getting lighting in just the perfect spot with just the perfect diffusion is a very tricky game. I have found that through microscope optics is the best 'controlled' environment to do that.

I'm not sure the statement that if "You can't get it through a macro lens, it's too minor" is true. There would be a large number of die varieties we wouldn't list because they could not easily be photographed through a camera lens on a copy stand.

I do understand that point Chuck. I have a stereo microscope on my bench and use it for variety determination, and for many years used a Nikon 990 on it to shoot varieties. But ever since putting these photomacrography setups together, I cannot imagine going back to a through-eyepiece system. And there's no reason the lighting has to be optimized for each shot on a photomacrographic system than it does on a photomicrographic system. You can just set it and forget it if you want.

One thing to be aware of is that the entire process of framing and focusing can be shown "live" on your computer monitor, if you have a new enough camera. In this regard, Canon cameras are the hands-down preference since the control software is excellent and free. After years of use, I now take this for granted, and it's likely the prime reason I can't imagine going back to any other system. For a similar reason, I can't imagine going back to Nikon, especially for variety shots, since Nikon cameras don't offer the EFSC anti-shuttershake technology that comes standard with newer Canon cameras.

Regarding the issue of photographing varieties through a macro lens on copy stand, the way I look at it, optics are optics, and if it works on a microscope it can work on a photomacrographic setup. A potential difference is in working distance, but there is no reason a PM setup can't be configured with similar working distance as a microscope.

[georoxx]

One thing to be aware of is that the entire process of framing and focusing can be shown "live" on your computer monitor, if you have a new enough camera.

So, no more looking through a scope..? ...and if you like what you see on your monitor, you can click to "save as" right then and there? Zoom capabilities...? If all of this is true, I'd like to see a pic of the setup, including monitor in action. (Peering through the scope gets old... and I have a 32" monitor, so I'd be ripe for that.)

-George

[coppercoins]

So, no more looking through a scope..? ...and if you like what you see on your monitor, you can click to "save as" right then and there? Zoom capabilities...? If all of this is true, I'd like to see a pic of the setup, including monitor in action. (Peering through the scope gets old... and I have a 32" monitor, so I'd be ripe for that.)

-George

While I completely understand what Ray is saying here (not ignoring his post) I can see an issue with George's post. I would steer waway from using a $1,000 camera that runs on electronics as my first-line 'searching' tool. They cost a good deal of money - more than a good microscope - and are probably best saved for the photography end of things. Not for looking through hundreds of dollars of worthless pocket change to find a few good keepers. Just seems like a waste of the life cycle of an expensive piece of equipment.

[georoxx]

While I completely understand what Ray is saying here (not ignoring his post) I can see an issue with George's post. I would steer waway from using a $1,000 camera that runs on electronics as my first-line 'searching' tool. They cost a good deal of money - more than a good microscope - and are probably best saved for the photography end of things. Not for looking through hundreds of dollars of worthless pocket change to find a few good keepers. Just seems like a waste of the life cycle of an expensive piece of equipment.

If I could get by with the camera I have, I would consider it. But now that you mention it, you make a good point about unit life, for sure. I search a lot. I no longer post the minor stuff (or the easily explained finds just for the sake of announcing "look what I found"), but I'm scoping a good 3-4 hours per day. I'd be going through batteries daily.

-George

[coppercoins]

Most of the higher end cameras do have an available adapter for a wall socket - but still...the unit itself has only so many hours of use before it's toast. I'd rather just use my eyeballs, a scope, and a light box.

Speaking of unit life - not to jinx myself or anything - but my ECO-150 light box is STILL on the same halogen light bulb that came with the new unit...in 2006!!!

[Rollem]

Oh my, I just use my hand held microscope with a boot that holds it square to a coins for searching. I made these quick shots with it and the last two quickly my cannon and macro setup with bellows and 4x microscope objective.

Hand held was 30 bucks 3 years ago.

Hardly never use my tri scope.
All the above pics were taken in less than 3 minutes with hand held and maybe three with camera.

Better color with camera but I love both setups

James

[Scott99]

Here is a comparative set on the 1995P-1DO-002. Granted there needs to be some work with the focusing on the new setup.

Canon EOS-1DS MKII with Ray's setup with NO focus stacking. (http://www.varietycent.com/95dd0.html)

Sony Cyber-Shot through the eye piece of my AmScope (http://www.varietycent.com/95dd02.html)

[georoxx]

Nice pics, Matt. (So, what's next? The molecular level..?)

:)

Good work.

-George

[Rollem]

Both are great..Picture says a thousand words.

[ray_parkhurst]

Far as I know, the lifetime of the camera is limited by shutter actions, not by viewing time in Live View. You get maybe 200k shutter actions from a modern DSLR, plus or minus. I don't personally like to use battery eliminators, as I had one blow and fry an expensive camera, so I use a pair of rechargeable batteries, one charging while the other is in the camera. I get maybe a couple of hours Live View per charge. The camera I usually recommend to folks is the Canon XS, which goes for around $200 on the used market. It has Live View and EFSC, and works well with the Canon PC tethering software.

[jallengomez]

Far as I know, the lifetime of the camera is limited by shutter actions, not by viewing time in Live View. You get maybe 200k shutter actions from a modern DSLR, plus or minus. I don't personally like to use battery eliminators, as I had one blow and fry an expensive camera, so I use a pair of rechargeable batteries, one charging while the other is in the camera. I get maybe a couple of hours Live View per charge. The camera I usually recommend to folks is the Canon XS, which goes for around $200 on the used market. It has Live View and EFSC, and works well with the Canon PC tethering software.

I will caution that the only problem with buying older Canon DSLRs is that they aren't very good at keeping up with OS systems. Just make sure that if you have Windows 7 or 8 that there is a driver available for the camera, otherwise the software isn't going to do you any good.

[ray_parkhurst]

You can download the latest version of the software from Canon, and each new version can control older cameras. You need to have an earlier version installed in order to upgrade.

The pics look good Matt. The Amscope is doing a good job. Its aperture is pretty close to the Nikon objective, maybe a bit smaller, as the depth of field looks a bit better and the sharpness is a bit less, but the quality is good enough that both setups would benefit from focus stacking.

[Scott99]

NSo, what's next? The molecular level..?

Haha, actually the magnification isn't that high. Both the date and mint mark will fit in the frame. :smile:


The pics look good Matt. The Amscope is doing a good job. Its aperture is pretty close to the Nikon objective, maybe a bit smaller, as the depth of field looks a bit better and the sharpness is a bit less, but the quality is good enough that both setups would benefit from focus stacking.

Thanks! The AmScope + point and shoot digital camera works great. Mine just doesn't have very many options to change so doesn't work well with focus stacking. (I tried and it made a normal cent look like a doubled die. :LOL_Hair:)

In any case, I have found it easier to photograph the doubling on the 1DO-002 with the Canon as apposed to the AmScope. I think it's more to do with the Sony Cyber-Shot though. I'll definitely be using both setups I think.

[jallengomez]

You can download the latest version of the software from Canon, and each new version can control older cameras. You need to have an earlier version installed in order to upgrade.


It's not just about the software; you also need a driver. I can use certain older Canons on my Windows 7 and Windows 8 computers, but I can't use my XT because there is not a compatible driver. I can use it by changing the camera settings to "Print/PTP" and use Windows software to manage images, but the Canon software will not recognize the camera.

[ray_parkhurst]

It's not just about the software; you also need a driver. I can use certain older Canons on my Windows 7 and Windows 8 computers, but I can't use my XT because there is not a compatible driver. I can use it by changing the camera settings to "Print/PTP" and use Windows software to manage images, but the Canon software will not recognize the camera.

I was only considering the Canon cameras with Live View, which all use a similar driver. My XS works fine on my Windows 8 laptop, but the XS has Live View, while your XT does not. I'm not sure how Canon is handling support for the pre-LV cameras. Of course eventually there will be another new "genre" of cameras that supplant the existing stable of DSLR. Perhaps the mirrorless cameras will move into full frame territory and DSLRs will cease to exist? I don't know if Canon's EOS Utility (which includes the drivers for all their current cameras if you get the latest version) will continue to be used into the future for MILCs. But for foreseeable future, all Canon LV cameras seem to be fully supported. This is why I have generally recommended the XS as the best choice for budget-conscious coin photographers. Another reason I like the XS is the image size is integer-scalable vs my T2i. The T2i/T3i/T4i all use the same 5184x3456 (18MP) sensor, while the XS has a 3888x2592 sensor. Scaling the T2i by 4x, or the XS by 3x, results in the same 1296x864 final image size.

[coppercoins]

Is all this stuff you're talking about with a micrography setup manual focus or is it auto-focus? Remember that I don't know the lingo terms.

[ray_parkhurst]

It's all manual focus. I don't know of anything that can go beyond 1:1 magnification and autofocus. Dedicated macro lenses go up to 1:1 and are able to autofocus but it's still better to manually focus them for various reasons.

Photomicrography = photography through a microscope
Photomacrography = photography using "regular" camera equipment from 0.5:1 and up

The lines get blurred when you use a microscope objective on a regular camera setup...Ray

[Scott99]

Finally got some time off work to play with the setup some more.
I found a coin I left in my jar of acetone after all the acetone evaporated. nearly turned the coin black with a pink/purple tone when the light hits it. Pretty cool I guess but I would have rather had the nice red coin it was. :sign10:

What I learned: Don't get side-tracked and forget about your coins you're "conserving". :LOL_Hair: Luckily this particular coin doesn't exhibit any collectible variety that I can see. I was just putting it in acetone to get rid of any fingerprints I may have put on it. :angel: :)

But to keep the thread relevant... This is taken with a Canon Rebel XSI. I do notice the colors aren't as accurately represented by the XSI as the 1D but that was expected. Still works fantastic for capturing the details of the coin in my opinion.

[Maineman750]

I've done the same thing with soaking coins....and I have the Canon Rebel with Ray's set-up...love it

[Scott99]

I've done the same thing with soaking coins....and I have the Canon Rebel with Ray's set-up...love it

Glad I wasn't the only one!
I'm loving the live-view feature to the xsi. Definitely makes focusing a lot easier. This image is without focus stacking. Some of it is out of focus but still pretty decent I think. :)

[Maineman750]

Yeah...it looks pretty good from here....but just when I'm satisfied....Ray,Jason or coop come along and burst my bubble:~

[Amadauss]

And Matt, your previous posts on this thread with pics. I am not seeing them any more.

[Scott99]

And Matt, your previous posts on this thread with pics. I am not seeing them any more.

The domain expired... arg. Repurchased. :angel: Thanks for letting me know.

[Scott99]

Decided to test out one of those little medicine cups that comes on top of the bottle as a light diffuse for highly-reflective surfaces. I really like the outcome.

[Maineman750]

I do too Matthew.....I'll have to add some to my arsenal.

[ray_parkhurst]

Try a half pingpong ball like this:

http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad273/rparkhurst/Optics%20Favorites/ForumsJan1320002_01.jpg

[kloccwork419]

Whats the settings on the camera?

[Scott99]

Try a half pingpong ball like this:

Thought about that but I don't have a pingpong ball nor a way to cut one in half. :sign10:
I am pretty satisfied with how the medicine cup worked. Think all I'd need to do is move the lights a littlebit away from it and it'd look a little better.


Whats the settings on the camera?

I'm not sure what the settings were for the last shots. I just change the ISO and shutter speed until I get the appearance I want. :LOL_Hair: I'm definitely not camera-savy.