I could guess along with you. My suggestion would be to talk to an Optometrist or Opthamologist who actually do this for a living. I know that some don't do this, but mine does. It's been a while, & I don't remember the technique.
I'm thinking you need a well lit room with lots of indirect lighting and the subject facing a dark or black background. Any light shining into the subjects eye will result in the reflections seen in your reference photo.
____________________________________________________________________ When no one is looking, Pigs can walk on they're hind legs
Sun 30-Sep-12 07:55 AM | edited Sun 30-Sep-12 08:00 AM by IanCT
Since you don't have a macro lens, if you're trying to get closer (your distance seems adequate already) it may be difficult to get the results you desire depending on how much detail you want to achieve without one.
Have you considered renting a macro lens?
I would stand with my back against a black backdrop if available, with nothing else to either side to prevent possible reflections in the eye. Other than that I think the photo you posted is great, just need to eliminate the light coming through the window.
This was a quick test I shot with my daughter when I received my 105mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor. Focus is sometimes tricky - I shot it handheld and I think I moved a smidge when I hit the shutter release.
You might do some research on Iridology and the best known practitioner Bernard Jensen. He perfected the photographic techniques in the 1950s and has a few books on the subject. Also be aware that it is bordering fully or partially on quackdom and there is not affirming studies that support it. The worst contraindication is that the believers claim the eye's iris reflexes the general state of the body and zones in the iris reflex specific organ current state and history. The only problem with that is the the iris markings are a phenotype that forums in in the embryo and does not change in later life. If the iris was so not so individual and stable throughout life it would be useless for identification which it is in ever increasing ways such as the biometric passport control eye scans. I would be very wary of a tutor who believes in such pseudoscience. He can't present any controlled studies that support it. It is a fun parlor game but is not something to base a diagnosis on. I studied enough to conclude that for the claims of success, it requires a willingly duped subject, usually with enough money to attract quacks. Stan St Petersburg Russia
The pic I posted would have been ideal if the background light wasn't there. That was my problem when I was trying to do this. I was using a small compact camera which meant putting the lens right into the persons face, it felt uncomfortable.
I tried my 70-210 lens, cant remember what settings but the end result wern't as sharp compared to the compact camera.
Either a macro lens or extension tubes are needed, I haven't got either so we've sorta forget about this project, for the meantime.
If I get back to doing it again with success I'll put some pictures on to show you.
Mon 07-Jan-13 02:17 AM | edited Mon 07-Jan-13 02:20 AM by mkbee1
Steve; What is the detail needed that is not shown in the posted photo? Is the iris not dilated enough? Are you trying to see deep into the eye, like the retina?
IIRC, there is or used to be, a lens...the Micro Medical Nikkor...that would probably do what you wish. But,it is likely very expen$ive.
In your stable of lenses, there are at least two that will help you achieve what you want.
While neither are Macro, your 18-105 and 70-210 can get you close at minimum focusing distance, maybe close enough.
If not, a good-quality and relatively inexpensive "Close up" diopter can get you close enough, with a bit more working distance. Buy it for your largest lens diameter, and invest in step-up rings for the others.
Amazingly sharp, but you have to keep them clean. Next, comfortable seats for your subject, patient, victim,...choose one...and yourself!
Tripod,and the MLL3 Ir release,or a copy.
Dimly-lighted room, not dark, to promote better eye dilation, and a well-diffused flash. Small aperture, at least f/11, to provide enough DOF. Focus carefully.
Orient the seats so windows, doors, etc. ,don't leave a reflection in the eye. Then experiment, so the flash doesn't do the same.
People get antsy: so...like in debate, Be Brief, Be Brilliant, BEGONE!
Steve; The Nikon or Canon close up lenses are expensive, highly-corrected 2 element creations that work very well. Their advantage: EVERYTHING works; AF, metering, etc. But there is also some marveous work done with the better-quality single element "close-up fiters", too. I'm not really sure how they work, but RAYNOX close-up lenses seem to be well-regarded.
Just avoid the $4.98 or similar "bargains",and buy from a good manufacturer, like B+W, Tiffen, or Hoya. A relatively minimal investment.
Chances are, you will not be using the item a lot, so it might meet your needs. But, if you find the quality is not what you want, or you are doing close-ups all the time, you may want to spend the money for more expensive items, or as an alternative, buy a good set of extension tubes. Kenko comes to mind, but there are others that are less expensive, and will do just as well for occasional use. But read the description...sometimes ad departments will get overly-enthusiastic in their list of capabilities. Con't be overly enthusiastic and use all three tubes in the set, then wonder why your excellent 70-210 causes the combination to droop!
Just don't be in a real hurry to either buy what you may not need, or sell the equipment, once you have it...I sold both my Nikon 6T, and AF 25mm extension tube after several years of non-use, thinking I'd have no more need for them...then I got interested in Macro photography again! Oh well; live and learn!
Youve gotten some good information so far; here are my thoughts.
The eye is roundish and highly reflective due to the constant bathing in fluid. Normally catch lights are desired, except in your circumstance. Unfortunately being a highly reflective round surface means the family of angles is huge and trying to eliminate them would be akin to herding cats; darn near impossible. A source of light anywhere in front or to the sides is most likely going to cause a spectral highlight.
My thought is that if you cant beat it, control it. The normal practice is to diffuse and make the source larger to minimize shadows and harsh lighting. But in this case I dont see harsh lighting as being too much of an issue; and your diffused light source would need to be huge to cover the family of angles. Making the light source as small as possible helps you control the catch light size as well as the placement.
This is the setup I devised. I used index cards with the face blackened out with a small hole cut in it. I used the Nikon supplied diffuser covered with a black microfiber cloth to minimize any light spill and taped the index card to the front. I then placed it as on axis to the lens as I could. I would have liked to get the flash a little further forward, but I dont have a boom for my light stand and didnt feel like resetting up with the tripod legs entangled (I was doing this by myself as the subject and photographer which was a pain!!).
And this was the result. Although there still is a catch light, it is in the pupil area which is not detrimental to your task I believe. If you are the photographer with a separate subject and want to take the time, you could probably even use a small GOBO to block that light source and eliminate the spectral highlight without impacting the overall illumination.
Yo, Pete; Great solution! Did you completely cover the whole diffuser with black microfiber, or make a small hole in it just behind the one in your index Cards? And what power was your flash set on? Inquiring minds (nosy people?) want to know!
No, I just wrapped it around the perimeter leaving the face of the diffuser open. Originally I just held the card up there but noticed my hand reflected in my eye. I then put on a wool glove to mask my hand, but noticed the spill from behind the card so wrapped the cloth around it and taped the card to it this time instead of holding it. The hole in the card was about ½ an inch in diameter.
The flash was set to TTL with a minus 1 2/3 EV.I originally had it just on TTL, but there was these weird flecks of white scattered around the catch light so I dialed in the minus EV to see if they would disappear, they did. But then that made me have to recover the lowered EV in post.
The flash was attached to the camera via an SC-29. The camera was set to M mode with 1/200 shutter and f/32. The ISO was set to 200, only because evidently thats what it was set to last time I used the camera, otherwise I would have preferred 100.