The three setups for macro photography cover a range in equipment availability over the three years from the pilot study to the beginning of the second official field season.
With each setup the specimens are first relaxed and cleaned (see Specimen Prep) and then placed directly onto the black background in a dish of either fresh water or filtered (with a sock, pillow case, coffee filter etc.) seawater. Room lighting must to be evaluated to prevent camera or light bulb reflection. Intense overhead lighting entering the camera through the viewfinder can also alter light meter readings. To overcome these two problems lights are either dimmed, or a large piece of black foamboard, etc., is held directly over the camera.
A sync cord (SC-17) was not available to use off-camera flash in 1998, so I used my weak, hot-shoe mounted flash, a mirror, and a reflective fence made of a wide piece of well crumpled aluminum foil. The foil surrounded the back and sides of the specimen, and extended up to just below the camera. Light from the flash was partially reflected onto the specimen by holding a mirror vertically in front of the flash. The flash was at maximum output for each shot, so light intensity was manipulated by varying the F stop.
Pros--This setup yielded evenly lit specimens. Time was not wasted bracketing shots since exposures were known beforehand from test shots done on different sized specimens at different F stops.
Cons--The flash was of low power (GN about 50-60), so apertures of f11 for small specimens (1 to 1 mag.) or f16 for most larger specimens (1 to 2 mag.) had to be used (instead of the preferred f22). Secondary shots taken when the "power recharged" indicator light appeared were 1/2 stop underexposed as the flash had not fully recharged. Flash reflection showed on shots of large specimens (when using the 50mm macro lens).
In 1999 another camera body was purchased so that a backup would be available. A new, inexpensive, more powerful flash replaced the old weaker one. The addition of the synch chord allowed the flash to be directed onto the specimen by hand. However, time did not exist before departure for test shots of all situations to be taken so limitations were not completely known.
Pros--Greater depth of field could be attained because the flash power allowed for smaller apertures (f22 and f32) to be used. Directed lighting highlighted textures resulting in more three dimensional images.
Cons--More shots were taken, as the flash position was altered in order to assure the best lighting of various characters. TTL (Through The Lens exposure metering) has limitations, so flash distance was varied. Highly three-dimensional species (especially smaller specimens) were not evenly lit.
Equipment
Notes:
Equipment (In order of importance)
105 mm Micro F4 AI Nikkor Lens (plus PN-11 extension tube)
A long macro lens (90-105 mm depending on the brand) is the primary piece of equipment for this work as it affords a long working distance. This particular lens (105 F4) was the least expensive model to be found used (still over $400) because, as an older model it does not support all of the automatic features of newer cameras, but on manual mode for this macro work those features are not needed, and the optics of the lens are exceptional. For this lens, the PN-11 extension ring ($100-$200) is needed to get to 1:1 (life size image on the film). With this extension ring I have the option of using my 24-50 mm zoom lens (or any other 50 mm lens) as a 1:1.5 macro lens as well. The new 105 AF D Micro lens would be a good choice if budgets allow for it because it can attain a 1:1 magnification without the PN-11 extension ring, and it fully links to the computer system of the newer cameras. I say this because I use the 105mm for almost all of my photography in all situations (except for wide-angle scenics where I use a 24-50 AF zoom lens). Drawback--the working distance for the largest specimens (those few that were more than 5 inches across) is difficult to easily accommodate while the camera is on the copy stand. A quick lens change to a 50mm macro lens, or a tripod set up for longer working distances works well.
Copy Stand
This fairly inexpensive item is generally more convenient than a tripod for vertical work. It can be placed on top of either a shipping drum or ice chest for use. The plywood base fits into a suitcase.
Focusing Rail/Macro Slider
This was indispensable for fine focusing since the lens focusing changes image size, and the tension in copy stands with spring assemblies pulls the camera slightly after you set it.
Level
A small (6-7 in) bubble level is necessary to ensure that the copy stand and camera are level, and that the camera (which is fairly tenuously mounted to the copy stand) does not shift when bumped. Otherwise, specimens will have one side in focus but not the other.
Clamp Lamp/Flashlight
A small light is needed to aid in focusing even in fairly well lit rooms. A $10, 40 watt clamp type reading lamp attached to the copy stand worked well for setup, and was then turned off for the shot. A flashlight works in a pinch.
Cameras
It is not my intention to suggest any particular camera brand over another for a beginner. Used Nikon equipment is readily available, my favorite lens is an Olympus, and Cannon makes quality equipment as well. Experienced general photographers would not recommend the equipment I use for a first time buyer because other, more expensive models do things better (i.e., faster motors, more options, rugged construction, etc.) but for this work whistles and bells are not needed. The equipment I use does have some some features I find indispensable. I try not to use my more expensive camera for this work because it is bigger, heavier, and does not like hands dripping with seawater.
Nikon N2000 and N2020 camera bodies.
These are Nikon's first auto wind cameras. They are fairly light weight (a plus when using the copy stand), and they are very inexpensive on the used market because they were quickly replaced by models with more options, faster motors, and better autofocus capabilities. They come with the basic automatic features (manual, aperture priority, P = full auto, and P Hi--I only use manual or sometimes aperture priority modes for specimen shots). The options I really like for this work are the auto wind coupled to the long electronic cable release so I can take multiple shots without touching the camera. Any time the equipment is touched directly, there is the possibility that the specimen will float out of position. The cable release also activates the LED display, so I can check exposure settings. The red LED display shows up well when shooting against a black background. I replaced the N2000 (delegated to backup) with its autofocus equivalent, the N2020, because it has a plain view screen instead of the annoying split focus ring screen of the N2000. I do not use the autofocus capability.
Water
Placing the specimens in shallow water allows setae to expand, and it reduces reflection hot spots in the image. Fresh (tap) water seems to yield clearer images than seawater, whereas shots of specimens photographed in a solution of Magnesium Chloride seem to be slightly hazy. Freshwater from the tap does tend to out gas as it warms to room temperature, and can only be used with moderately dead specimens, not relaxed shrimp, worms, mollusks, or echinoderms, due to the resulting osmotic shock. If working next to a sink, the bowls and background can be frequently rinsed of slime, dust and spontaneous snow (the white carbonate flock that mysteriously appears from even the cleanest specimens). The room dust that constantly settles onto the surface can either be blotted off by laying a paper towel on the surface, or by touching an object (finger, etc.) with a coating of soap to the surface to briefly break the surface tension.
Background
Placing specimens on the background material is preferred (except for fireworms, due to their loose setae) over the common practice of placing a glass container above a dry black backing (which results in reflection and a slightly smoky cast to the background). Positioning limbs is much easier on the cloth (velveteen more so than felt). Cotton velveteen, although difficult to find, is superior to felt in that delicate appendages tend to stick in the fibers of the felt. Velvet or velveteen made with any proportion of synthetic material is useless for this as it holds bubbles and the weave pattern appears in the image. Several pieces of material should be kept on hand since they get dirty. Dust can be removed from dry pieces with rolled duct tape.
Film
We initially chose Fuji Sensia 100 slide film for several reasons. It is an exceptionally sharp, color enhanced film, so colors tend to be more saturated than in real life (the minds eye does this as well so that we tend to remember colors as being more vivid than they actually are). Because flash photography was used, colors tended to be slightly cooler than if sunlight was used, an enhanced film helped to offset this. Sensia also produced good colors when used underwater. It is much less expensive than its professional quality counter part, Fuji Provia 100, yet yields comparable images. For the 2000 field season we incorporated the double flash system, eliminated vibration problems, and decided to switch to Fuji Velvia 50. This is the sharpest film made (resolving power 180 lines/mm at 1000:1 chart contrast). Test shots with Fuji Sensia 100, Provia 100F, and Velvia 50 yielded sharper results with the latter. We purchased the film with Fuji processing mailers (from a large mail order photo supply company in New York) so that film and processing was less than $7-$9 per roll. We shot 70 rolls during our four week, 1999 field season, and 140 rolls in 2000, so >50% cost savings over local retail film and processing was substantial.
Vibration
The combination of copy stand with a spring mechanism, handheld flash, camera mounted on the bottom (instead of on the lens collar), and long lens length with PN-11 extension ring caused fuzzy images at higher magnification due to vibration (no matter how careful I was). Various strategically placed foam wedges and bungee cords, as well as better designed equipment have subsequently helped to stabilize the system.
Color Rendition
The difference between what you see here and what is on our film can be substantial. We have color shifts due to lighting angle and intensity, as well as specimen freshness (some worms lose color in a matter of minutes). There is a color change caused by any digital scanner, by the color range supported by the World Wide Web (web safe colors), and the colors shared between PC and Macintosh systems, we have found that the major shifts we see in color and image quality are due to monitor quality and calibration. I have tried to digitally adjust colors to be as representative and informative as possible.
[Top] Micro Photography (under construction)
[Top] Underwater Photography and Video (under construction)
Images on this Site A quick note on file names: Unix systems require a file name to be eight characters long, and the system is case sensitive and can only recognize additional characters such as hyphens and underscores (no blanks or other such characters). So in order for the website to be compatible with any server system in the future we developed an eight character coding system. Each specimen photographed gets a lot number consisting of a first letter designating expedition area, a second letter designating year of the study, and four numbers (we generally live sort about 2000 lots each year while in the field, not all are photographed). This gives us a number such as vc0432 (Virgin Islands, third year of study, the 0432nd lot separated and entered into the database) (LH numbers were issued the first two years by Leslie Harris before the new system was instituted for the web files). With an initial six digit code, an additional letter can be added for different photos of the same animal (e.g. vc0432a, vc0432b etc) and the eight and final digit can be used to designate size of the file, or the html page the file was place into (a thumbnail would be vc0432as, a large image would be vc0432am (lowercase "L" for large looked too much like a "one").
Slides were scanned using a Polaroid SprintScan 35 Plus scanner with Polacolor Insight scanning software. Images were initial scanned at a size of 100% at a resolution of either 1350, 2025, or 2700 dpi. Although the Polacolor Insight software allows scanning at any resolution the user chooses to input, we have found that only at those resolutions present as defaults on the older Polaroid Sprintscan 35 import software was there no discernible degradation (checkering) of the image. The software was set to "color slide" and sRGB color profile. Color was adjusted using the Polacolor software while checking against the slide, which was lit using a MEDALight LP-100 (4"x5") color corrected miniature light panel.
The images, which generally were from 5-12 Mb in size were then saved as .tif files and burned onto CDs. For quick posting to colleagues (on unlinked web pages having private URLs) these unretouched images were place into a folder and then automatically sized and formed into a website gallery page using the File > Automate > Web Photo Gallery option in Photoshop 5.5 (thumbnail size = large, image size = 35%, image quality = medium).
To produce a clean image, the .tif file would be move to the hard drive, and the file unlocked (under File Properties (PC right click on file name)), disengage read only and/or archive boxes). The file would then be opened in Photoshop, and a duplicate layer would be made followed by layers for a blank black background, scale bar, and text for scale units, name box layer, and copyright name text. the blank black background would be dragged between the background (original image), and duplicate background (working image). This way the original image was preserved and any further manipulation could be done on the duplicate layer without fear of ruining the image.
Web only colors were used, and the blank background layer would be filled with either black (final color) or white (to check while erasing the near black original background) using the paint bucket tool. On the scale bar layer, a white line was drawn on top of the photographed scale bar. This could be repositioned at will. Text indicating units of the scale bar (e.g. 5 mm) automatically formed its own layer when the Text tool was employed. The Text tool was then employed again to add copyright information (ALT + 0169 gives the copyright symbol ©). In order to make the copyright information stand out against a dark, and/or varying background, a small rectangle was drawn on a new layer and filled with white using the paint bucket tool. The opacity of the layer was then reduced to approximately 25% to form the nearly transparent rectangle. The box was then moved behind the text layer. This technique was also used to form the inconspicuous arrows that point out the individual sponges etc.
The duplicate image layer was cut out by erasing the background using a stylus and small graphics tablet at the highest zoom possible (for the edges), and readjusted if needed. This finished, layered, image was saved as a .psd file and burned onto a CD for archival purposes. It was a time saving task to simply open a finished .psd file and pull the copyright and transparent rectangle layers over to the new file (duplicating them). For the website each .psd was cropped, resized (usually to a height of 5.5 inches, or a width of 640 pixels if narrow, at a resolution of 72 dpi), sharpened using Filter > Sharpen > Unsharp mask (Radius = 2, Threshold = 1), and the layers were flattened. This was renamed and saved as a medium quality .jpg file.The file was closed and then reopened and resharpened (unsharp mask again) at an amount of 50 (The jpeg compression reduces image quality. This cannot be seen until the file is closed and reopened in Photoshop). For the thumbnails, the overlying copyright and scale bar layers were turned off, the image was cropped, and resized to a width of 200 pixels at 72 dpi, flattened and saved as a new name.
One serious danger lies in altering these large files to web format without having a copy of each one saved either to a different folder, or better yet to a different hard drive or burned onto a CD. Several times during the beginning of the website design, high resolution files would be accidentally saved as .tifs after resizing them to the low 72 dpi resolution (forgetting to change them to .jpgs) (unfortunate, since up to several hours were spent cutting out each high resolution image to blacken the background).
We are presently using a Nikon D1 digital camera mounted on a Wild M7-A zoom stereo microscope (with XY movable stage) to record digital images of diagnostic characters from preserved specimens. We do not plan on using this in the field because it takes a relatively long time for a digital camera to save a high resolution image, so multiple shots of moving animals are not possible. And there is also a tendency to reshoot set shots of relaxed animals several times to get the best lighting or exposure. Even if we loose shots of several animals to unseen exposure problems using film, by the end of our stay in the field we will have taken pictures of far more animals using film than we would have using digital equipment. We also feel it is unreasonable to take faster, low resolution digital images just to use on the website. Most of these organisms will probably never be photographed again, so it is imperative that the images are of the highest quality possible so they can also be in the future for such things as scientific and popular publications, large format educational posters etc.