Charisma,
My first question just has to be "what should the subject
magnification to the negative
(or digital file) be?" What DOF is required?
Then, one should (preferably) know the required magnification
to final print. One would then be able to provide some more
meaningful advice.
Three dimensional subjects might be better served using scanning
light photomacroscopy.
Or... perhaps, low magnification with greater DOF than film/direct
digital... one could employ
Scanning Electron Microscopy (B/W film, or digital) resulting in less
expense than $$ investment
in new hardware.... along with the time consuming learning curve for
a one-off job.
Ken
On 4-Dec-07, at 10:06 AM, Bob wrote:
Charisma L Riley wrote:
I am a technical writer who suddenly finds herself in a position
wherein there is a critical need to take high-quality photos, with
little-to-no light loss, of very tiny things... many are
borderline-to-microscopic, metallic or otherwise, and require a
microscope to be dealt with... but the camera also requires the
flexibility to be used on regular-sized objects. I am researching
Digital SLR cameras and various macro lens systems, but am really
unsure what it all means. I would love it if some actual
photographers who were used to working with macro photography could
recommend some systems? Also, we are not expert photographers, so
one with some automatic functionality would be extremely helpful.
Please respond to me directly, if possible.
Thanks in advance!
~Charisma Riley
Your request for info brings up a few questions:
Seagoon: Any cases of frozen feet?
Eccles: You didn't order any cases of frozen feet!
