Why You Need To Diffuse Jansjos

On the other hand, far better to diffuse a point source than try to extract contrast from area lighting. You can see the Jansjos' tight focus by the beam they cast downwards - it isn't much over 15 degrees.

Axial might work best with an OLED panel tilted at the same angle as the beamsplitter.

Back to pseudo-axial and we'll see how that goes...Ray

in my experience: Janscos and axial lighting just do not work. The only lighting I have found effective is a panel of LED lights. The other lighting I think would work very well is the Olymmpus transilluminator:
http://www.alanwood.net/photography...minator.html

Problem is its an expensive beastie. But I have an idea( not sure how it would work)... I have a cheap old 50mm lens... Using some rear lense caps and an extension tube I plan to put together a lighting system that uses the old lens to focus the beam. The full plan: the old lens is a minolta MD 50mm F 1.7. : mount it on a MD- MFT adapter ( one that has a tripod mount) and then fit a cheap MFT extension ring set to the adapter. Mount a suitable Light( my plan is an E14 12 watt Led light on a MFT lens cap And then fit that to the extension tube. Doing that would also enable the use of polarized light by fitting a polarizing filter to the old lens.

I really think it is dependant on your skill set. My best photos are always with Axial lighting( admittedly they may not be equivalent to your best). I understand it and am very comfortable with it. Janscos: I love to hate. For direct lighting and extreme close ups they are unbeatable but for axial they are worse than useless.

I think you guys need to try a different lighting source with axial lighting to get a better result. From some of the comments I think the criticism of Axial comes from not having tried alternative lighting. I am yet to see criticism ( Perhaps I have missed it) that has been based on using better light sources.

My understanding With the optimal beam splitter only a quarter( in perfect conditions) of the original light intensity gets to the sensor, that suggests to me you need to up the illumination by 400 % to get the equivalent lighting to that produced by Janscos in a direct lighting set up.


Edit: Heres an axial shot of a Prager Groschen ( stack of 15 as using the lens wide open) I did everything to minimise incidental light. The picture is true to life in colour



Same lighting set up but with a Proof liberty 20 dollar(single shot):

I'm not all that worried about a niche lighting style which immediately throws out at least 50% of the available light and does not show luster.

Well, what we're doing with it here has little to do with its' intended purpose, which is to carry an optical product (usually words) to a projection. The stuff that needs to be optically-accurate makes that turn through the glass.

Meanwhile, we're staring through that glass sideways. I suspect the sharpness will go away however you light it, when you try to look through angled glass at the subject.

rmpsrmps How is this set up not axial?

{All photos are unedited)
Note the size of the light source against the beam splitter set up. Its exactly the same width of the beam splitting glass.



I use 50/50 edmunds beam splitting glass albeit an older type without an anti reflective coating

Light is only allowed into the system through the opening pictured ( note I have other lights on to take these pictures they are off when I am using this set up). The coin is positioned so as to only receive the reflected light. No other lights are on except for the LED light panel when I take the pictures. Room is blacked out at the time the pictures are taken

Second picture shows coin in place( With over head lights on)




Third picture shows the coins reflection in the beam splitter. PHoto taken from behind the LED light source ( turned off in this shot( using over head lights for this picture) The black background is the Frame I use to prevent unwanted reflection




But to give you some credence I then decided to make doubly sure. The next shot is taken with the LED light panel on( no other lights) the coin mounted exactly as it is when the beam splitter is in place but with the Beam splitter removed:




Then here is a shot with the beam splitter in place plus an extra "shroud" to only allow light reflected from the beam splitter to strike the coin ( note the difference between the two shots). The shroud is a plastic cup with the bottom cut out at an angle to match the angle of the beam splitter the shroud is shown in place with the last two pictures.

To prevent unwanted back reflection behind the beam splitter is a black towel stretched and nailed over a wooded frame. Please note this axial lighting picture shot is very much like the stacked picture that RMPSRMPS so expertly declared wasn't a true axial lighting shot! How is this picture not an axial lighting shot?





Note you can see the light path highlighted on the blue cup. The coin sits well below that light line.





I repeat how is this not an axial lighting set up? Given that I am up late with a bad dose of gout you will forgive the tone of the post.

Vignetting in the coin pictures is caused by the lens combination I used( I didn't bother changing what was mounted on the bellows in this case a Schneider Kreuznach 210 F5.6 (wide open) the second lens Minolta 100 MM f4 bellows lens set at F8