|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 64 |
Sep 23 |
Reply |
Hi Stan,
Yes, I could certainly give it a sepia tone using Affinity, or any other tone for that matter. I left it as it was as it's both an accurate record of its colour, and it's mono. Had I noticed what Chris noticed, I'd have cloned out the offending bits of colour.
I took one focussed on the impellor, but preferred this version. I could have taken two and focus merged them, although time was pressing, but again, I rather liked this version as it can remind us of how dangerous mining was. But you are welcome to prefer the alternative!
|
Sep 22nd |
| 64 |
Sep 23 |
Reply |
Gosh, I think you're right about the traced of colour. The reason the conversion didn't work is that there wasn't one! It seemed mono to me, and when I did put a mono layer in, I got the usual black & white mono tones, whereas I preferred the more golden original.
In terms of focus, of course it was dim in there and the depth of field was compromised. I should have tried some focus stacks, but the tour was moving on and wouldn't let me stay behind! My OM-1 is so quick at doing computational photography that I could have done it hand held, but I was (still am really) in the learning phase of how this model differs from my previous M1 mk2 that I didn't have time. Focus stacking is on a button now! |
Sep 17th |
| 64 |
Sep 23 |
Reply |
Thanks!
You're right I think, it's so easy to keep buying new bits and pieces in hope. I also tried Topax Sharpen AI, and got little benefit, so I'm sticking to the free version to try occasionally and see if it is any help to me. |
Sep 17th |
0 comments - 3 replies for Group 64
|
| 95 |
Sep 23 |
Reply |
Ah, very good. As a whole, our group is still tending sometimes to get not close enough (me included!) and then perhaps crop to get closer to macro reproduction. However you haven't here, which is great.
So, I can now say, you've done a great job. Its all nice and sharp, well exposed, fascinating pattern and well balanced, in my view. Getting closer still, as Gloria suggested, might be difficult with "normal" macro equipment. Adding a Raynox, or an extension tube or two, would do the trick, but I guess you didn't have those to hand. Zooming in to the picture and moving around does give me some more interesting pictures. It's a matter or taste I think as to what's best. I'm perfectly happy with the original.
|
Sep 17th |
| 95 |
Sep 23 |
Comment |
It's an interesting photo with pleasant colours and textures, I think. What are the objects, and what size are they? |
Sep 15th |
| 95 |
Sep 23 |
Reply |
Your Nikon might be different, but in my Olly, if you select focus stacking in the camera, it takes all the images into the stack, and you can't weed out any that you decide you don't want to be in that merged final image. However, my Olly keeps all the images in the bracket even if I selected stacking as well, so I can always process them again in Helicon, when I can weed out as needed. |
Sep 12th |
| 95 |
Sep 23 |
Reply |
Great, do try the function out and see what you get.
Focus bracketting with a macro rail is great, but it takes some seconds between shots and so the subject must be stationary, and the camera on a tripod. Bracketting done by the camera can occur very quickly assuming the shutter speed isn't slow, so hand-held brackets of even slowly moving subjects are possible. But even if it moves too much, one frame might have the focus point you had really wanted anyway! |
Sep 10th |
| 95 |
Sep 23 |
Reply |
Thanks, Keith.
In defense of extension tubes! Extension tubes, per se, have no optical elements in them, so it's all up to the lens used as to the sharpness of the result (assuming the photo was in focus, of course!). I bought my first ones back in the 1960s, when my 58mm Helios lens was my only lens! But the combination worked quite well, and as the lens focussed by moving the whole lens away from the camera, it was easy to see how extension tubes worked - they just added to the focus extension.
Nowadays many lenses focus using movement of lens elements inside the lens body, so it's not so obvious. But the same considerations still apply.
So, if you use an extension tube(s) and get a soft result even when you were certain it was in focus, then try another lens.
The mysteries of compound lens design are not open to me, so I can only say that some lenses, which work well at "normal" focus distances, work less well when placed on extension tubes (or bellows, for that matter). Others work really well on tubes, all you can do it try them!
I found a couple of years ago that my Panasonic 100-400mm lens works really well with 50mm or more extension, when the working distance was a metre or so! I don't think I quite got it to 1:1, but it was a great fun set-up |
Sep 10th |
| 95 |
Sep 23 |
Reply |
Thanks, I like the colours here too.
Yes, I noticed that lack of sharpness, and did try to sharpen the fly. I even got a trial copy of Topaz AI Sharpen, but it didn't help.
Looking at the items at different distances, though, I think that the flower bud is sharp at closer distances than the fly's head. So what does that tell us? Maybe it's the nature of the subject? I've noticed before how some subjects just never look sharp. The 2nd leg from the left is also a puzzle, as it's blurred, and looks to be at a distance where I'd expect it to be sharp. Or is it a right hand leg? If so, it's further away, and understandable.
Whatever, the subjective reaction is "it's blurred"! Pity.
The closest green area is blurred, I couldn't help that! |
Sep 8th |
| 95 |
Sep 23 |
Reply |
Yes, I hadn't noticed, the back of is right eye is sharp, too. Looks like a merge of 2 images taken with the focus points too far apart, but Keith doesn't mention a second image. My other thought was the left eye is blurred through movement, but if the shutter speed was 1/1600 sec, that's not an explanation.
Puzzle! |
Sep 8th |
| 95 |
Sep 23 |
Comment |
There's lovely detail in the center, Carol. An imperfect flower is just as good as a perfect specimen, it just shows it's part of the real world.
I'm not so sure about the Color Efex processing though. It's too red for my liking (and red is my favourite colour!) and some purple areas have appeared which I'm not very fond of. Sorry!
|
Sep 7th |
| 95 |
Sep 23 |
Comment |
I wish my nails and fingers looked like that! Mine are rather more battered.
I love the skin texture, and the nail is nice and sharp. The depth of field is adequate, althought I'd crop out some of the soft skin on the left, there's too much for me. Nice background.
But what are the dark outlines at the top and bottom edges of the finger? They look quite odd and distracting.
But I've got to say, the best (macro) camera in the world is the one you've got with you (with a macro accessory lens) :-)
|
Sep 7th |
| 95 |
Sep 23 |
Comment |
As a photo put up for critique, I'd comment on some white areas being burned out, the background beyond the table top being unattractive, etc. But that's not what you were doing here, you were trying focus bracketting and stacking. Good, well done!
I presume you had your camera on a sturdy tripod. Did you use a focus rail to move the camera, or an inbuilt focus bracket setting in the camera? Either is fine. The question is, why do you have some halos? I'm not sure, it might be the software setting or camera movement. I suspect the former. I would go back to the bracket of photos. 35 is quite a lot, at f6.3 and this distance I'd have thought 10 would be enough if properly spaced. However, it takes much longer to work it out from theory than to take several brackets with different settings (ie step length and number of shots) and see which works best. I would also look at the "closest" and "furthest" shots in your bracket. If any are not sharp in the area you want to come out sharp, them discard them.
As you have Helicon Focus, do try Helicon Remote if you can. It's amazingly simple. You move the camera to the closest and furthest points you want in focus, and it works out the step length and how many shots. If you have a motorised rail, it then takes them all for you and sends the results directly to Helicon Focus.
Another thing to try with this set of shots is to try the other rendering methods in Helicon, and fiddle with the radius and smoothing parameters. This might get rid of your halos. |
Sep 7th |
| 95 |
Sep 23 |
Comment |
Great, fascinating subject, Keith!
I guess you know what I'll say though - it's not sharp on the vital spot, the frog's eye. The little bugs are nicely sharp, so it was just a matter perhaps of moving slightly in the short time between the camera focussing and the shutter firing.
I don't know which Nikon you are using, but if it does focus bracketting, I suggest you try it for shots like this. Not for doing a focus stacking necessarily, just for taking several shots with a small change in focus distance each time. Of course if the bracket is suitable, you could stack them in Helicon or whatever. But I often set my camera to take 4 shots with a medium step length, then afer transferring them to my computer, I either stack them, or I select the one whose focus point I like best, and delete the other 3. It's a bit like burst mode for macro! |
Sep 7th |
5 comments - 6 replies for Group 95
|
5 comments - 9 replies Total
|
