[Rockhounds] achieving depth of field w digicam?

[Frank Daniels]

I get good results with cabinet-sized specimens using a 100mm macro lens
(non-digital 35mm) on a 10.2 mp camera (small sensor/Pentax 10D) at F32.

Frank


FRANK DANIELS MINERALS & FOSSILS
2024 Freedom Court
Grand Junction, CO 81503-9522
minerals at FrankDanielsMinerals.com
www.FrankDanielsMinerals.com

-----Original Message-----
From: rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com
[mailto:rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com] On Behalf Of Lanny R
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 11:24 AM
To: Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem collectors
Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] achieving depth of field w digicam?

Hi Tim,

There are no magic answers with the basics of digital photography; it  
is still bound by the same laws of the physics of light.

However, for 1-3 cm fossils (or minerals) you shouldn't have a problem  
with that lens. Use enough light so you can stop the lens down to f16  
to f32 and there will be more than enough depth of field for fossils  
of that size to be in focus. The depth of field focus problem is  
really only a problem when doing things smaller (micro fossils or   
minerals) so that you really need to magnify them, either with a  
microscope or extension tubes.

On the odd occasion that you might need more depth of field, shoot two  
or three photos to get the front and back in focus and hand stitch the  
photos together in Photoshop or similar software. It doesn't take very  
long to do it by hand, I was doing that with micro minerals several  
years before automatic stitching software became available. It becomes  
a lot of work if you have several individual focus shots of each of  
several specimens, but for just two or three shots of an occasional  
"special" specimen, it's doesn't take very long.

Regards,

Lanny


On Apr 16, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Tim Jokela Jr. wrote:

> This one goes out to the digital photography gurus out there.
>
> I was talking to a buddy last night about macrophotography of small  
> fossils, 1-3cm stuff, and how capturing any depth of field continues  
> to be the major challenge. He suggested three ways of doing it: buy  
> the $25,000 camera system made to do the job, take the picture 3  
> meters away from the specimen and blow up the image, or take  
> multiple shots, focusing on different areas, and stitch them  
> together with Helicon, Combine-Z, or the expensive new version of  
> PhotoShop.
>
> All are basically horrible options.
>
> So, is there anything new and interesting in the world of digital  
> photography that's giving depth of field to macrophotography in a  
> simple, affordable manner? (My weapon of choice atm is a Canon  
> Digital Rebel with a 50mm macro lens.)
>
> Many thanks for any info!
>
> Tim Jokela Jr., tjokela at execulink.com
> Business: http://www.element51.com
> Pleasure: http://www.ontariominerals.com
>
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
> Subscription Services:
> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
> List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html

-- 
_______________________________________________
Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
Subscription Services:
http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html