# Taking pics through a microscope



## Nerri1029 (Nov 18, 2006)

OK for a while now I've been dabbling with this.
At work we have trinocular heads with camera mounts built in. so taking great micrographs is not a problem.
Besides those scopes are for looking at very tiny things.

And after doing some research with trial and error here's what I've learned:

- the smaller the camera lens the better - to a point. 
   today's digital cameras are capable of some decent stuff 
   the really nice cameras have lenses that are to big and will give you lots of vignetting ( where you see the round border ) I looked into adaptors for my larger camera and would have spent more just on the adaptor alone than I did on the 6.1 Megapixel Fuji camera I use now 

- using a camera with a fixed ( nonmoving lens is better ) mine happens to move ( so I'm careful )

- alignment with the eye piece is VERY important. 
  (Insert physics diagram of focusing a lens on a small flat surface here )

- the wider the eye piece the better. (I got lucky on my Scope)

- a large view screen is extra beneficial. (Mine has a 2.5" screen)

- experimenting with lighting can yield some surprising results 
   currently using an LED flashlight in a holder as extra light

So here's my device to hold my camera still and infront of the eye piece



















One huge advantage is focus.
The device allows me to set the cameras focus ( pushing the button halfway) ... and then using the focus knob on the scope to fine tune while looking through the view screen on the camera. 

This works especially well if the object(s) aren't all in the same plane.  LIKE spermathecae sticking up from an exuvium.

Most cameras will use the larger portions of the view finder to focus the image. and ignore smaller items. ( this was cropped with Photoshop)
_ C. cyaneopubescens _





I was able to do this from an exuvium this size







and this one of an _H. maculata_ from an exuvium of the same size 






I posted this for those interested and to show that it's not some super tricky art/magic to get good micrographs



Some affordable dissecting microscopes:
fisher scope

carolina scope

sargent Welch Scope


----------



## becca81 (Nov 18, 2006)

Very nice!

I've had the problem of my camera lense being too big for the 'scope and holding it always causes the problems you mentioned - great idea! :clap:


----------



## funnylori (Nov 18, 2006)

That is an awesome camera mount. I have to hold the camera with my hand, and there is no way I am able to get the shot I want without standing up, and 'working' the shot for a couple of minutes. Thank you for sharing!


----------



## billopelma (Nov 19, 2006)

Many camera's now have a 'spot focus' option and some (including selected fuji models) have adjustable focus area. Either of theses option will force the camera to focus on a very small area of the frame. I can pinpoint mine to the top or bottom of fairly small spermathecae. I also find that my camera doesn't even have to be in macro mode to focus through the microscope lens. For improved depth of focus on taller objects, try zooming out farther and/or using a lower magnification on the microscope, then zooming and croping the picture afterward. Not quite as sharp this way but works well when you want to reduce the size for photobucketing anyway.
 One thing that always annoys me is when what you're looking at in the scope stands out clearly untill you look through one lens only (as in taking photos) and all depth perception goes away and what was obvious in stereo, dissapears...

Bill


----------



## Nerri1029 (Nov 20, 2006)

billopelma said:


> Many camera's now have a 'spot focus' option and some (including selected fuji models) have adjustable focus area. Either of theses option will force the camera to focus on a very small area of the frame. I can pinpoint mine to the top or bottom of fairly small spermathecae. I also find that my camera *doesn't even have to be in macro mode to focus *through the microscope lens. For improved depth of focus on taller objects, *try zooming out farther* and/or using a lower magnification on the microscope, then zooming and croping the picture afterward. Not quite as sharp this way but works well when you want to reduce the size for photobucketing anyway.
> *One thing that always annoys me is when what you're looking at in the scope stands out clearly untill you look through one lens only (as in taking photos) and all depth perception goes away and what was obvious in stereo, dissapears...*
> Bill


Agree 

I don't use macro (anymore) through the scope.
This camera being a model with fewer bells and whistles didn't have the adj focusing area. My other one does. 

and YES it is frustrating when what you see as plain as day through a stereo scope looks barely visible in a photo.
- I've combatted this with additional lighting from an angle. adding just enough shadow to enhance details.

Still pleased  over all.


----------



## Gwegowee (Nov 21, 2006)

Oh yes this is a great method... but for the sake of art... it limits you only one camera angle, and you wont get an over sized top quality art print from them (like one of my 13 by 20 or 13 by 44 inch prints or even a 36 by 44 inch print). very good indeed for the purpose of sexing very small spiders by exuvium.

Also... your camera should have a manual focus mode. so you can just set it and leave it, and then use the focus on the microscope alone. you could use auto focus, press the shutter release button half way, let it focus change to MF and leave it set up for another picture.


----------



## Nerri1029 (Nov 21, 2006)

Gwegowee said:


> Oh yes this is a great method... but for the sake of art... it limits you only one camera angle, and you wont get an over sized top quality art print from them (like one of my 13 by 20 or 13 by 44 inch prints or even a 36 by 44 inch print). very good indeed for the purpose of sexing very small spiders by exuvium.
> 
> Also... *your camera should have a manual focus mode.* so you can just set it and leave it, and then use the focus on the microscope alone. you could use auto focus, press the shutter release button half way, let it focus change to MF and leave it set up for another picture.



Yes. my "real" camera does have manual focus. but the lens is too big. the "point and shoot" type has a lens about half as big, allowing for a better eyepiece to camera lens interface.

for my other camera the end diameter is 55mm and would require the costly adapter and likely a lens in the interface. 

I'd love to be able to use my nicer camera but $$ was a factor. 

since it's through a dissecting scope I can move the specimen for different angles, 

As far as ART goes.. I'm just doing this for the ease of sexing and hopefully to add to the pics out there of spermathecae.

I will be doing some urticating hairs pics and some other anatomy stuff 

Art wasn't my aim here...


----------



## becca81 (Nov 21, 2006)

Gwegowee said:


> Oh yes this is a great method... but for the sake of art... it limits you only one camera angle, and you wont get an over sized top quality art print from them (like one of my 13 by 20 or 13 by 44 inch prints or even a 36 by 44 inch print)


I'm not sure the demand is there for high-res, framed photos of a tarantula's naughty bits.  

The entire purpose of this, from my understanding, has nothing to do with "art" and everything to do with photographing spiders under a 'scope for the purpose of sexing, etc.  Practical purposes.


----------



## Gwegowee (Nov 22, 2006)

becca81 said:


> I'm not sure the demand is there for high-res, framed photos of a tarantula's naughty bits.


hahaha... nice... but

I understand that this is here for doing it for the practical purpose of sexing...  but in the original post. saying art majic tricks. just seems somewhat derogatory to me... and I just had to speak up.

micrographs can also be art. something that I'm doing. I actually got some brand new Micro/ultra/uber macro photos just last night. I was inspired by this post actually to take it a step further. I'll post them in a bit.


----------



## becca81 (Nov 22, 2006)

Gwegowee said:


> I understand that this is here for doing it for the practical purpose of sexing...  but in the original post. saying art majic tricks. just seems somewhat derogatory to me... and I just had to speak up.
> .


Re-read what he said.

He was saying that it's not a tricky art to get good pictures.  He wasn't equating art with a magic trick.

All he was saying is that anyone can take good pictures with a microscope and here's how you can do it.


----------



## Gwegowee (Nov 23, 2006)

becca81 said:


> Re-read what he said.
> 
> He was saying that it's not a tricky art to get good pictures.  He wasn't equating art with a magic trick.
> 
> All he was saying is that anyone can take good pictures with a microscope and here's how you can do it.


I read it perfectly fine the first time... but Nerri did remove the "art majic tricks" bit.  -- Thanks Nerri

Saying that "art is majic" is not something that is ment quite litterally. used almost scarcasticly to imply a negative connotation to art. being that "majic" *twingkling fingers* is kid stuff, and bringing art to that level. as an artist myself I found it somewhat insulting.

However... I think there is a problem with reading things writen rather than hearing the words aloud. you dont hear the tiny inflections of the voice. and things can be taken the wrong way, which is where I am probably at fault.


----------



## Gwegowee (Nov 23, 2006)

And back to the original subject of the post...

one very good method also cheaper is to use a wide aperture 50 mm portrait lens for any 35 mm camera.

turn the lens around and use tape to mount it. ducked tape works well. just dont leave it on for more than a few days, because it will leave residue on your camera.  also an M42 converter can be used. alot of point and click cameras have a screw mount adapter for filters to fit on. the converter can be bought for about 10 bucks. tape works well, but if your going to do this often the M42 converter will be cheaper. so it depends on how much you use it.

this can be hand held but its difficult. I have a few hand held pictures that look pretty good.
if you dont like that. use a mount..  a stack of books and binders often works better than a tripod.

for the 50 mm lens a wide aperture is best. F2.8 or lower. 
if you have any old SLR camera.. Canon Nikon Pentax Minolta Anything with a removeable static (non zooming) lens really. they will all have quite wide apertures.
and for the digital camera your working with a camera with a high zoom ratio will yield best results. the higher the zoom ratio the better. the more you zoom the more it magnifies. the smaller the lens will also get more in focus and less of that black ring that nerri speaks of.

so if you already have a decent camera with a nice zoom. and any old film camera with portrait lens. you should have no problem.

its all about working with what you already have.

Another way... MUCH more difficult is taking photos through a magnifying glass. cant tell me it doesn't work because I know for fact that it does Ive done it... its just very difficult and takes alot of patience. 

with this method...  you will need a steady hand or mount(s) for the magnifying glass and camera. Tripod for camera and tripod with rubberbands for magnifying glass worked well for me. (and trust me with the wide lenses of my camera it is much more difficult than with a standard point and click.) basically its making your own 100% Ghetto microscope. get behind the stationary camera and move the magnifying glass in and out, dont move to quickly you will miss it go in and out of focus. (50.0 mm away could be in a complete blur 50.1 will be in focus and 50.2 mm will go out again. like I said its difficult)  if this doesn't work. half the distance between camera and subject and try again, if still nothing.. then double the distance. after you have found a spot.. play around with the distances zoom and focus of the camera making only small movements. the ratio of distance between camera and magnigying glass to magnifying glass and subject will always be the same for that lens (at a given focal length and focal distance) and mag, but will provide different magnifications.

you can adjust focus with the, mag distance, camera distance or even the camera zoom. higher zoom will also result in higher magnification. every time you try it gets easier. with enough practice you will have outstanding results.


----------



## Nerri1029 (Nov 23, 2006)

Gwegowee said:


> I read it perfectly fine the first time... but Nerri did remove the "art majic tricks" bit.  -- Thanks Nerri
> 
> Saying that "art is majic" is not something that is ment quite litterally. used almost scarcasticly to imply a negative connotation to art. being that "majic" *twingkling fingers* is kid stuff, and bringing art to that level. as an artist myself I found it somewhat insulting.
> 
> *However... I think there is a problem with reading things writen rather than hearing the words aloud. you dont hear the tiny inflections of the voice. and things can be taken the wrong way, which is where I am probably at fault*.



Gweg,

you are right, reading something posted misses the inflections.  
I however did not remove the statement.

I will repeat myself and then get back on topic.



> I posted this for those interested and to show that it's not some super tricky art/magic to get good micrographs


I am saying one thing very clear here ( or so I felt) that taking good pics through a scope requires NEITHER a high artistic ability NOR magic. 

But also that it doesn't require anything fancy. 
JUST a method of holding the camera it the right place. 
and a few techniques that are easy.

I was pushing the point and shoot digitals because many people are more likely to have one of those. 

Also .. SLR's and other 35mm film cameras are becoming worthless. (If you doubt that look on E-bay)

My thread was not aimed at people with knowledge and skills already, but rather the average person who might be interested in taking micrographs.

as for your advice.. 
- I've never had a camera fall off a tripod before but I have had one require repairs from slipping off a pile of books. 

- zooming is good as long as you use only the optical zoom. Once you start using the digital portion of the zoom range you start losing image quality, due to using less and less of the CCD.

- I will try one of my 50mm lenses I have as it has a 1.4 aperture.

Oh one more thing.. if insulting phrases are a problem for you, you might not want to use the phrase "100% Ghetto"


----------



## Gwegowee (Nov 23, 2006)

Nerri1029 said:


> I am saying one thing very clear here ( or so I felt) that taking good pics through a scope requires NEITHER a high artistic ability NOR magic.


WHA!  I am not so sure you know what you just said...  atristic ability for expression maybe not.. but artistic ability to take photographs even with a point and shoot camera for practical purposes of sexing a tarantula... yes.
think about this... who is Lionardo Da Vincci? your first thought is probably a famous artist or something along that nature.
Da Vincci actually considered himself a Scientist, and wanted nothing to do with the idea of being an artist. no camera to work with, he drew and painted what he saw and forever advanced our knowledge of our own body most of his time spent on disecting and drawing the human body. and is not the only well known artist to do so. modern medicine would be nowhere without this scientist with artistic ability.

taking photos of spider bits is an art. just not something you would want on your wall just as alot of Da Vincci's work. science and art are closter than you might think. you probably dont want a picture of a disected fetus on your wall either.





Nerri1029 said:


> ...was pushing the point and shoot digitals because many people are more likely to have one of those....


Im not saying to take the photos with film. Im saying.. use the digi with an actual lens as a filter. I know alot of normal people with SLR cameras and havent even used them in decades. if you have the slr camera a portrait lens is most likley what they will have attached.



Nerri1029 said:


> ... Also .. SLR's and other 35mm film cameras are becoming worthless. (If you doubt that look on E-bay)...


WHA! Worthless?  I beg to differ. if you know how to use it... you will and get much more in return from a film camera. there is no way at this time can a digital camera even compare to a film camera quality wise. I still rank my 1980 Pentax higher than I do my Professional Canon D20 but I like the instant results of the digital. as soon as my skills are good enough I will continue my work on FILM. I can find a few film cameras that cost thousands of dollars more than any digital camera. and many Film cameras that cost the same as a digital. but im not talking about 35 mm anymore. even on E-bay...  if you know what your looking for youd see what I mean. search for leicia.

as an artist and photographer myself I have a bias for very Good Film cameras... and will always lean toward film. those cameras will take better pictures than any digital could ever DREAM of.

However...   for the average person not selling art for a living.. and with the instant results... I agree a digital is the way to go. 



Nerri1029 said:


> ...as for your advice..
> - I've never had a camera fall off a tripod before but I have had one require repairs from slipping off a pile of books...


hahaha...
well..  when using the camera on a tripod... it is probably safer yes.. but you risk knocking the camera out of focus by barely touching the tripod... even more so with a better camera.

when using a stack of books.. you must be carefull. I have never dropped any of my cameras... maybe because I love them too much.




Nerri1029 said:


> - zooming is good as long as you use only the optical zoom. Once you start using the digital portion of the zoom range you start losing image quality, due to using less and less of the CCD.


isn't that obvious tho?



Nerri1029 said:


> - I will try one of my 50mm lenses I have as it has a 1.4 aperture.


oh nice. f1.4 lenses dont come cheaply, the aboration will be practically non existant. I'd really like to see the results.



Nerri1029 said:


> Oh one more thing.. if insulting phrases are a problem for you, you might not want to use the phrase "100% Ghetto"


Im not quite sure about this...  because I mentioned the fact that I actually have used this method of making a 100% ghetto microscop for photography.... if you didn't think about it... pretty much calling MYSELF ghetto. is that insulting to you? I'm ghetto and I often use ghetto methods to produce my high quality art. people dont buy the equipment and processes of art they buy my results, skills and tallents.

and before you argue that I am not by the fact that I have a $5000 photography production setup... over the course of several years I have chosen to acquire these items rather than having a liveable apartment, a car, a working bike, or even a healthy amount of food, I eat one meal a day, walk to and from work and school because I dont want to pay for the buss... work graveyards at a gass station for that extra 50 cents an hour just over minimum waige so that I can pay for college and my art supplies... I'm surviving and living on my own without the help of others and I'M a GHETTO starving artist and im proud OF it. 
Thankyou verymuch!


----------



## billopelma (Nov 23, 2006)

Actually I understood Nerri's intent and meaning perfectly well, it seems to me that you are the one with the distorted view on this. You sound a bit full of your self and your "art" and it's clouding your judgement. Please stop buying equipment and feed yourself, malnutrition may be at work here...:wall: 

Bill


----------



## Tegenaria (Nov 24, 2006)

Cool setup, and nice binoc scope!
I have a basic monoc student scope as i only have one eye, and i take pics thriugh it using my phones 2MP cam. 
I get decent results too, tho i wouldnt call it art.....(tho holding a phone with one hand and focusing with the other while operatinng the camera button could be!)

http://www.members.lycos.co.uk/numanoid27/photoalbum21.html


----------



## Nerri1029 (Nov 19, 2007)

UPDATE :


My latest discovery for equipment.

I stumbled on it while shopping for work.
It's designed for telescopes, but most of us ( microphotographers ) can use it as well.

*the Celestron 93626 Universal Digital Camera Adapter*
I got mine from Amazon. but have found them decently priced other places too.  If you take pics through the eyepiece ( afocal ) 
Even I don;t have access to a decent stereoscope with a trinocular head.







so for about $40 I can now attach my camera to my microscope and take some really decent pics.. like the ones above. The only difference now is the camera stays put. It's surprisingly sturdy and larger than it looks.


----------



## Nerri1029 (Feb 15, 2008)

http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=116676

New set up


----------



## Tegenaria (Feb 16, 2008)

Nerri1029 said:


> http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=116676
> 
> New set up



cool stuff Nerri!

Love the Lexx avatar too!


----------



## Nerri1029 (Feb 16, 2008)

Tegenaria said:


> cool stuff Nerri!
> 
> Love the Lexx avatar too!


Umm that would be FARSCAPE ... but they were on one after another for a few seasons.. so I'll forgive the digression...

Still working on how to get the best picture form the scope...


----------



## Tegenaria (Feb 16, 2008)

Oh yea so it is! I've not watched Farscape but loved Lexx


----------



## Nerri1029 (Feb 18, 2008)

here are some new pics


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Feb 18, 2008)

Now that has to be some fun!
Looking at those shots makes me want to go get one for me!


----------



## Tegenaria (Feb 18, 2008)

Oh yes cool shots,but have you thought  of trying  stacking software like combine z which allows you to get everything in sharp focus. Takes a lot of work but the results I've seen on photomacrography2.net are amazing!


----------



## Nerri1029 (Feb 18, 2008)

Tegenaria said:


> Oh yes cool shots,but have you thought  of trying  stacking software like combine z which allows you to get everything in sharp focus. Takes a lot of work but the results I've seen on photomacrography2.net are amazing!


I would certainly be interested in that kind of software.

these shots took me 10 minutes total to get, scope to computer.

I'll give it a look .. thanks 

If I end up trying to publish any I'll def need something like that.

***off to Google ***


----------

