Surely number 3 must be a fake? The size of the crystal compared to the size of the wood grain? Plus the fact that the camera would be unlikely to get that macro without a microscope?
I agree, #3 looks like it might well have been taken with a microscope.
Decent microscopes are actually quite cheap (I've been researching the costs not too long ago because I want one for photographing tiny cracks in welds, fittings, and GRP), and there's an appropriate adapter ring available for pretty much any make of digital SLR.
Of course, it could also have been done with extension tubes or a set of Macro lenses.
Both parts of the photo are achievable with a normal macro, but I very much doubt they're the same shot. Bear in mind a 10MPix camera has an image quite a lot larger than the screen - just chop the middle out...
That said, 10 mins with photoshop and the photographer has a good image, up on the Beeb, and the kudos that goes with is... Credit to them...
Comments 4
Decent microscopes are actually quite cheap (I've been researching the costs not too long ago because I want one for photographing tiny cracks in welds, fittings, and GRP), and there's an appropriate adapter ring available for pretty much any make of digital SLR.
Of course, it could also have been done with extension tubes or a set of Macro lenses.
Reply
Reply
Reply
That said, 10 mins with photoshop and the photographer has a good image, up on the Beeb, and the kudos that goes with is... Credit to them...
Reply
Leave a comment