# Micro image clarity tips / white balance issue



## DaShiznit (Mar 3, 2008)

I own an Olympus E-510 10.0 megapixel digital camera. I am in charge of all the digital product images for our online catalog. 
I have tried many settings to get the best overall image for our customers to view online but many times have issues with focusing
in on the very tiny teeth or tips of these surgical instruments. Was wondering if anyone else has experience with shooting anything similar.

Camera settings:
Macro dial
High Key Gradation
WB 6600K (have tried others this works the best for our photo box)
ISO 100
Noise Filter: Off
Noise Reduction: Off
Manual Focus
Spot Metering (seems to give the whitest background over other metering settings)

Primary issues:
1. Not getting a true white background on the unedited pictures.
2. Not being able to get a very crisp and clear image of the instrument tips even in macro mode. If I focus so the top tip is clear the bottom gets blurry and vise versa.

*Unedited image*







*Photoshop edits with background whitened*


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 3, 2008)

Welcome to the forum.

It looks like your first image is underexposed and maybe that the white balance if off a bit.

It will be underexposed because of all the white...it tricks the camera's meter.  So no matter what metering mode you are in...you need to add exposure above what the camera tells you in auto mode.

To really get the white balance accurate, try setting a custom white balance.

As for getting the whole object into focus, you need more DOF (depth of field).  You do this by using a smaller aperture. (Higher F number).

I suggest using aperture priority mode, if you have it, and set the highest F number you can.  This will require you to have longer shutter speeds, so use a tripod and a remote (or the self timer).


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 3, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> Welcome to the forum.
> 
> It looks like your first image is underexposed and maybe that the white balance if off a bit.  It will be underexposed because of all the white...it tricks the camera's meter.  So no matter what metering mode you are in...you need to add exposure above what the camera tells you in auto mode.



Yes...  welcome!  I suggest reading off a gray card placed into the scene and then removed for the exposure.  Once you have the proper exposure determined, you won't have to meter again until you change the lighting.




> To really get the white balance accurate, try setting a custom white balance.



I can't imagine any other way than this.




> As for getting the whole object into focus, you need more DOF (depth of field).  You do this by using a smaller aperture. (Higher F number).



I would shoot at the smallest aperture possible for this kind of work.




> I suggest using aperture priority mode, if you have it, and set the highest F number you can.  This will require you to have longer shutter speeds, so use a tripod and a remote (or the self timer).



Do we know what the lighting is here?  He doesnt say directly.  I think it's strobe considering the result and the 6600 degree K setting.  Either way....  strobes or hot lights...  I would recommend shooting manual.

-Pete


----------



## DaShiznit (Mar 3, 2008)

When in Aperture mode the F value goes up to 22. I will try this and repost another image later this afternoon.

The bulbs we are using are TCP # 28927M, Model ESM27, 5100K. In the current light box I only have 1 bulb on each side.

Would different bulbs be better for us to use to get a better quality?

I have to apologize, I have been doing digital photography for a few years now and this is the first "real" camera we have had 
for picture taking so I do not have the technical background of a professional.

I appreciate the help!!! Will post another image later with the recommendations you two suggested.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 3, 2008)

I don't think the bulbs are a problem.  As long as your lights are consistent (same light/color temp) then you should be OK because that's easy to change with digital.

I believe you can shoot in RAW with that camera?  If so, that might be something to consider.  This would allow you to adjust the white balance on the computer, after the shoot, without degrading the image.  However, if your light doesn't change, it should be easy to just get it right and keep it there.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 3, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> I don't think the bulbs are a problem.  As long as your lights are consistent (same light/color temp) then you should be OK because that's easy to change with digital.



Agreed.  Wow...  fluorescent bulbs.  I forget about those.



Big Mike said:


> I believe you can shoot in RAW with that camera?  If so, that might be something to consider.  This would allow you to adjust the white balance on the computer, after the shoot, without degrading the image.  However, if your light doesn't change, it should be easy to just get it right and keep it there.



Again, good advice.  Once you get all this nailed down on one, you should be very close on everything.  I've not worked with fluorescent bulbs, but I suspect you can expcect a slight chage in color over the life of the bulb.

-Pete


----------



## DaShiznit (Mar 3, 2008)

OK this might seem like a "noob" question and might be part of the problem...

Our lens has 14-42mm on it does that mean the object should be that far away from the cameras lens? Those images above were taken at a distance of about 250-300mm or about 10-12"


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 3, 2008)

That is the focal length of the lens.  The shorter the focal length, the wider the FOV (filed of view) that you will have (and the longer the focal length, the narrower the FOV will be).

Each lens will have a minimum focus distance (check the manual), so as long as you are at least that far away, you will be able to focus.

You might want to use the longer end of the lens, to avoid wide angle distortion...but that might not be too important to you.


----------



## TCimages (Mar 3, 2008)

For the type of work you're doing, I would consider a dedicated macro lens with external flash and diffuser. Be careful going to small on the aperture as it will affect image quality. I think you can accomplish what you want around f16, but personally I wouldn't go smaller. Although, it does depend on the level of detail you want. 

One trick I use for macro is I actually do not use the minimum focus all the time. Try actually backing away from the subject some and crop in PP. This will help open the DOF more.


----------



## DaShiznit (Mar 4, 2008)

Would you have any recommendations on which lenses upgrade might work best for close up images?

Here is the link to the lenses for our camera
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/lens/dea/products/lens/index.asp

Seems like maybe the ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 50mm F2.0 Macro?


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 4, 2008)

I personally don't think that a new/different lens is required here...certainly not from the one shot that you have shown us.

A macro lens will allow you to get closer to the subject (more magnification) the that doesn't help if you want to get the whole object into focus.  Also, if you are using a light tent, you probably don't want the camera to be so close to the subject anyway.

OK...I went back and read that you also want to get close up shots of the instrument tips.  In this case, a macro lens would help.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 4, 2008)

DaShiznit said:


> Seems like maybe the ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 50mm F2.0 Macro?



Well...  if you intend to work with the same camera for a while yet, I do think you'd benefit from this lens.  Remember, this lens may place you farther away from the product than what you've used in the past.  If you've been shooting zoomed all the way in at 42mm, it won't be very different.  This 50mm lens doesn't zoom.  So adjusting with the size of the product means physically moving the camera in and out.

Are you using a tripod?

-Pete


----------



## DaShiznit (Mar 4, 2008)

Well we used to take a super close up of just the tips. But since we got the
E510 I have just been putting up a super high res of the whole instrument.
Most cases the end product turns out just fine. But some of these tips are
0.12mm wide and extremely delicate in which case if the end user cant see
them clearly online they call to complain.


*Example of tips that do come out clearly
*These tips are about 1.0mm in size so the camera does a great job picking
up the details. The issue comes into play on only the very small delicate instruments.


----------



## DaShiznit (Mar 4, 2008)

Here is the setup we have currently. Maybe this could have something to do with the overall quality of lighting?

If anything will give you "pros" a good laugh


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 4, 2008)

DaShiznit said:


> Here is the setup we have currently. Maybe this could have something to do with the overall quality of lighting?
> 
> If anything will give you "pros" a good laugh



Actually, this is pretty good.  If I was doing this work with your gear, I would want a better tripod and some dulling spray.

-Pete


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 4, 2008)

DaShiznit said:


> Well we used to take a super close up of just the tips. But since we got the E510 I have just been putting up a super high res of the whole instrument.  Most cases the end product turns out just fine. But some of these tips are 0.12mm wide and extremely delicate in which case if the end user cant see them clearly online they call to complain.  ...The issue comes into play on only the very small delicate instruments.



Maybe post two images?  ....One overall view and one detail view?


----------



## DaShiznit (Mar 4, 2008)

http://www.amblersurgical.com/store/product.cfm?pID=785

The click to zoom will bring up the larger image.

Our website is being overhauled currently and with the new launch I am re-shooting all the images for the website. Hence the new camera and questions about using it.


----------



## TCimages (Mar 4, 2008)

Personally, I would take a shot of the overall subject and superimpose the tips in a zoomed circle.  I think you're doing fine with your current setup, but recemmended the macro for the smaller stuff.


----------



## Flash Harry (Mar 7, 2008)

This is a specialist area of photography that probably is still best done with a LF camera with bellows extension and the knowledge of how to obtain a correct exposure, although a decent prime macro lens for your camera would help, your shots are under exposed not due to the white balance issue but to the fall off of light inherent with macro photography, a correct exposure sometimes needs multiple exposures to build up an exposure and is calculated using the formula M+1 SQUARED, where "M" = magnification. Also F16 may be fine photographing normal subjects but in this situation you need the lens stopped right down and focus 1/3 into the shot, I've done this professionally and its not as easy as it looks, critical focusing and large DOF is the way forward . H


----------



## Helen B (Mar 7, 2008)

Your camera has TTL (through the lens) exposure metering, so you can forget about the extension factor that Harry mentioned - this only applies when taking a separate meter reading, not for TTL exposure systems. They take it into account automatically. I think that the underexposure is for the reason already mentioned - your camera is 'seeing' a predominantly white field.

The overall/detail view idea sounds the best. That Zuiko 50 mm lens will get close enough for 0.52x magnification. The sensor has about 200 photosites (pixels) per mm, so a 1 mm object would become about 100 pixels wide, I reckon. That means that a 200 x 200 inset could represent 2mm x 2 mm without resampling, and a 0.12 mm tip would be 12 pixels wide.

A small focus slide would probably help - you adjust the lens until you are nearly in focus, then do the fine focus by moving the whole camera using the focus slide. This assumes that you are using manual focus. The 'live view' function helps a lot in this respect.

If you want to get deep focus with macro, then consider 'focus stacking' software such as Helicon Focus.

Best,
Helen


----------

