- 42236734 gouge small.jpg (294.98 KiB) Viewed 1708 times
1921-P VAM 48 photo
Forum rules
All posts to this forum must abide by the posting rules. Continued posting to any VAMWorld forum constitutes acceptance of the rules.
All posts to this forum must abide by the posting rules. Continued posting to any VAMWorld forum constitutes acceptance of the rules.
1921-P VAM 48 photo
I just got another one of these, and while taking photos of the very cool gouge through the bow, I noticed there's more to it than meets the eye. It actually goes up well into the lower tailfeathers. Plus, there's a second smaller gouge/polishing line on the left of the bow, and there are several even smaller polishing lines inside the bow. Strong magnification is fun!
When in doubt... don't.
Re: 1921-P VAM 48 photo
Just a thought...
@DHalladay Is it possible you may be flexing the rules with the photography you have been sharing as of late?
@DHalladay Is it possible you may be flexing the rules with the photography you have been sharing as of late?
Re: 1921-P VAM 48 photo
Flexing the rules???
I totally don't understand what you are saying/meaning.
I totally don't understand what you are saying/meaning.
When in doubt... don't.
Re: 1921-P VAM 48 photo
Dennis,
I wanted to comment on how excellent your photographs are on this site and maybe get you to share how you are accomplishing this feat. It can't be that digital camera with a set of dusty old bellows...
I am also reminded of a conversation I had here with @CascadeChris a while ago regarding magnification. I don't know what the protocol is with this but here is that conversation: I felt he was supported by LVA with his insight on magnification and Vam attribution.
Flexing those Vam rules is a good thing. No?
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2856&p=25497&hilit=50x#p25497
(We never did figure out that 78-S. Sure looks raised to me)
I wanted to comment on how excellent your photographs are on this site and maybe get you to share how you are accomplishing this feat. It can't be that digital camera with a set of dusty old bellows...
I am also reminded of a conversation I had here with @CascadeChris a while ago regarding magnification. I don't know what the protocol is with this but here is that conversation: I felt he was supported by LVA with his insight on magnification and Vam attribution.
Flexing those Vam rules is a good thing. No?
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2856&p=25497&hilit=50x#p25497
(We never did figure out that 78-S. Sure looks raised to me)
Re: 1921-P VAM 48 photo
Aw shucks...
Thanks very much.
What I use and do is not elegant and I suspect messydesk will chuckle at me, but here it is:
– I use a Nikon D7100 DSLR camera on a very sturdy Bencher copy stand. Each photo's image size is 6000 x 4000 pixels. (Newer Nikons go up to 8,288 x 5,520).
– I use a 60mm f2.8 AF Micro Nikkor lens plus two Nikon extension tubes hooked together: a PN-11 and a PK-13 for closeups. It produces images that are a maximum of around 4.1X life size. For full holder shots I use a 105mm f2.8 AF Micro Nikkor lens with no extension tubes.
– I always put the camera on "mirror up" setting and always use a cable release.
– When using the 60mm lens and extension tubes I have no choice but to focus manually.
– I only shoot RAW files (huge size) and I open/edit them in Photoshop.
Thanks very much.
What I use and do is not elegant and I suspect messydesk will chuckle at me, but here it is:
– I use a Nikon D7100 DSLR camera on a very sturdy Bencher copy stand. Each photo's image size is 6000 x 4000 pixels. (Newer Nikons go up to 8,288 x 5,520).
– I use a 60mm f2.8 AF Micro Nikkor lens plus two Nikon extension tubes hooked together: a PN-11 and a PK-13 for closeups. It produces images that are a maximum of around 4.1X life size. For full holder shots I use a 105mm f2.8 AF Micro Nikkor lens with no extension tubes.
– I always put the camera on "mirror up" setting and always use a cable release.
– When using the 60mm lens and extension tubes I have no choice but to focus manually.
– I only shoot RAW files (huge size) and I open/edit them in Photoshop.
- camera setup.jpg (144.78 KiB) Viewed 1641 times
- camera setup 1 copy.jpg (101.33 KiB) Viewed 1641 times
- camera setup 2 copy.jpg (142.85 KiB) Viewed 1641 times
When in doubt... don't.
Re: 1921-P VAM 48 photo
A trusted tool in the right hands...
Thanks for sharing Dennis. You help a lot of folks out.
*side note: D. In an effort to improve my photography I have been studying your last photographs. I have spotted one thing in common we have with our coin photography set-ups. I will post the photo as soon as I can figure out the wifes Ipad..
Can you spot it in this photo?
I found it funny...anyway.
The lenses are kind of the same... Both are 1: 2.8 Macro 60 mm fixed, but on different cameras. one is a 4/3 the other is a full frame. The cameras are taking photographs in two different directions and different light sources; both with advantages and disadvantages, as all things I think variety and experimentation are good. It sure makes learning something new fun..
Thanks for sharing Dennis. You help a lot of folks out.
*side note: D. In an effort to improve my photography I have been studying your last photographs. I have spotted one thing in common we have with our coin photography set-ups. I will post the photo as soon as I can figure out the wifes Ipad..
Can you spot it in this photo?
- IMG-0085.jpg (138.65 KiB) Viewed 1607 times
- IMG-0085_1.jpg (72.76 KiB) Viewed 1606 times
The lenses are kind of the same... Both are 1: 2.8 Macro 60 mm fixed, but on different cameras. one is a 4/3 the other is a full frame. The cameras are taking photographs in two different directions and different light sources; both with advantages and disadvantages, as all things I think variety and experimentation are good. It sure makes learning something new fun..
- IMG-0087.jpg (126.91 KiB) Viewed 1606 times