Groundhopper + Rhingia hoverfly stacks
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Groundhopper + Rhingia hoverfly stacks
This is my latest stacking attempt - a small groundhopper. (or pygmy grasshopper, from this thread http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... oundhopper - This one a tad smaller, than Doug's - around 10-11mm body length).
Stack of 53 shots, E330, OM Bellows, reversed OM50/1.8, at f5.6.
Here's a pixel crop of the stack output. This is unsharpened so far, though the smaller image above had a fairly mild unsharp mask..
I used some additional diffusion around the subject here - I made a tube from this flexible white thin bendy plastic foamy packaging material I have a bit of, and put that around the subject..
I'm not sure I haven't gone a diffuser too far, what do you think? I'm using a twinflash for lighting, with a small diffuser on each flash head, and this additional tube around the subject... I think for my next subject I'll probably try with the tube and no diffusers on the flash heads.
Here's another one from a couple of days ago with my new diffusion tube, this one is a hoverfly of the genus Rhingia, not sure which one it is though!
Stack of around 75 shots, E330, OM Bellows, reversed OM50/1.8, at f5.6. (The rear antenna seemed to stick back at quite a bad angle, that's why this was such a deep stack, the last 15 or so shots were to get this one antenna all in focus!!)
I've still got some shine on the 'beak' so I suppose it's not too much diffusion?
As per the new forum guidelines (which are fine with me!) I should state that both of these bugs are dead. Both shots aligned in CZM and stacked in Tufuse pro.
Comments welcome as always!
Edited to add:
I did a very small amount of cloning to get rid of some very minor halo around the grasshopper, it has a well delineated edge so it was a pretty easy job, but the halo was so mild I probably would not have bothered if it had been a complex hairy edge!
I have to say I'm really pleased with Tufuse! I am however finding the auto align in CZM (though very good IMO) is certainly not perfect! I'm guessing some of you guys have also found this, what workarounds have you come up with when auto align does not quite work?
Stack of 53 shots, E330, OM Bellows, reversed OM50/1.8, at f5.6.
Here's a pixel crop of the stack output. This is unsharpened so far, though the smaller image above had a fairly mild unsharp mask..
I used some additional diffusion around the subject here - I made a tube from this flexible white thin bendy plastic foamy packaging material I have a bit of, and put that around the subject..
I'm not sure I haven't gone a diffuser too far, what do you think? I'm using a twinflash for lighting, with a small diffuser on each flash head, and this additional tube around the subject... I think for my next subject I'll probably try with the tube and no diffusers on the flash heads.
Here's another one from a couple of days ago with my new diffusion tube, this one is a hoverfly of the genus Rhingia, not sure which one it is though!
Stack of around 75 shots, E330, OM Bellows, reversed OM50/1.8, at f5.6. (The rear antenna seemed to stick back at quite a bad angle, that's why this was such a deep stack, the last 15 or so shots were to get this one antenna all in focus!!)
I've still got some shine on the 'beak' so I suppose it's not too much diffusion?
As per the new forum guidelines (which are fine with me!) I should state that both of these bugs are dead. Both shots aligned in CZM and stacked in Tufuse pro.
Comments welcome as always!
Edited to add:
I did a very small amount of cloning to get rid of some very minor halo around the grasshopper, it has a well delineated edge so it was a pretty easy job, but the halo was so mild I probably would not have bothered if it had been a complex hairy edge!
I have to say I'm really pleased with Tufuse! I am however finding the auto align in CZM (though very good IMO) is certainly not perfect! I'm guessing some of you guys have also found this, what workarounds have you come up with when auto align does not quite work?
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23562
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Wow! These are impressive, Laurie.
The lighting looks just about perfect to me. Detail easily seen in both the darkest and lightest areas, good modeling of the overall shape, just the right hint of glossiness on areas that I would expect to be glossy, like the eyes.
With the groundhopper, that view from below the head, looking up, is very effective. Combined with the large DOF, it makes the thing look enormous!
The fly head is technically excellent but a bit sterile due to the viewpoint, almost exactly perpendicular to the fly's axis. Turn that critter just a few degrees so we could see a little bit from the front, and it would be a complete knockout.
I don't have any great wisdom to share about alignment in CZM. I believe that Alan's website has a new macro named "Strict Alignment" that might help, but as I understand it, it's really designed for a different type of problem in which even the first and last frames have recognizable points in common. I have no idea whether it would help or hurt for this problem.
BTW, I hope you're saving the input frames for these stacks. I can imagine them making really nice test material for future software development.
Lovely stuff...looking forward to more!
--Rik
The lighting looks just about perfect to me. Detail easily seen in both the darkest and lightest areas, good modeling of the overall shape, just the right hint of glossiness on areas that I would expect to be glossy, like the eyes.
With the groundhopper, that view from below the head, looking up, is very effective. Combined with the large DOF, it makes the thing look enormous!
The fly head is technically excellent but a bit sterile due to the viewpoint, almost exactly perpendicular to the fly's axis. Turn that critter just a few degrees so we could see a little bit from the front, and it would be a complete knockout.
I don't have any great wisdom to share about alignment in CZM. I believe that Alan's website has a new macro named "Strict Alignment" that might help, but as I understand it, it's really designed for a different type of problem in which even the first and last frames have recognizable points in common. I have no idea whether it would help or hurt for this problem.
BTW, I hope you're saving the input frames for these stacks. I can imagine them making really nice test material for future software development.
Lovely stuff...looking forward to more!
--Rik
-
- Posts: 212
- Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:03 am
- Location: Sourthern California
- Michigan Michael
- Posts: 193
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 6:12 pm
- Location: SE Mi.
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
Superb lighting. I like the reflection on the snout of the Rhingia which shows the shiny surface.
For a change from black backgrounds you could try a third flash on a white or coloured background (cloth, card or foliage).
Harold
For a change from black backgrounds you could try a third flash on a white or coloured background (cloth, card or foliage).
Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.
Many thanks for all the kind words! I guess I will stick with my diffuser tube!
I'll try to post some shots of my current stacking rig over in the equipment forum in the next fw days so you can see exactly what I'm talking about...
Rik, yes I'm a hoarder of images, I've got all my RAW files from all shoots... I've currently got all the TIFFs as well, but at the rate my new 750gb disk is dissapearing I may have to rethink the TIFFs!
Harold, I've been meaning to do something about the backgrounds, I've tried white background but that also tends to look a bit clinical, plus I find sometimes the subject appears a lot softer on white, not sure why that would be... I intend to start working on some sort of naturally colured backdrops soon!
I'll try to post some shots of my current stacking rig over in the equipment forum in the next fw days so you can see exactly what I'm talking about...
Rik, yes I'm a hoarder of images, I've got all my RAW files from all shoots... I've currently got all the TIFFs as well, but at the rate my new 750gb disk is dissapearing I may have to rethink the TIFFs!
Harold, I've been meaning to do something about the backgrounds, I've tried white background but that also tends to look a bit clinical, plus I find sometimes the subject appears a lot softer on white, not sure why that would be... I intend to start working on some sort of naturally colured backdrops soon!
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23562
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Can you show us an example of "appears a lot softer on white"? I'm assuming you've considered lens flare. But another possibility is that you're seeing bright reflections of the background off surfaces that are seen almost from the side. Many surfaces become almost specular reflectors under those conditions. Or it could just be a trick of perception -- eyes do funny things sometimes.
What I often use for background is some section of a gradient made on a photo printer. For high mag shots that's no problem. But for lower mag shots I have to be sure it's far enough back that the dots don't show!
--Rik
What I often use for background is some section of a gradient made on a photo printer. For high mag shots that's no problem. But for lower mag shots I have to be sure it's far enough back that the dots don't show!
--Rik
It's not the best example, as actually I think the on white version is maybe better, the softness doesn't seem to hurt this one to my eye... But the on white shot is definitely softer! This was from a couple of months ago when I was using a lot less diffusion!
I think I did actually use two different backgrounds, one white, one dark grey (which got a little washed out from the flash), both at roughly the same distance behind the subject. (These are slight crops to try to match up the two pictures fov!)
I do suspect lens flair of some sort is the cause - that was my thought at the time - I've sometimes noticed it in camera and not continued with the stack on white but changed the background.
I've definitely found with my lighting setup I get the best contrast in the subject when it's shot on a dark background... (which is a piece of black velvet about 2-3 feet behind the subject to avoid catching any significant amount of flash)
I think I did actually use two different backgrounds, one white, one dark grey (which got a little washed out from the flash), both at roughly the same distance behind the subject. (These are slight crops to try to match up the two pictures fov!)
I do suspect lens flair of some sort is the cause - that was my thought at the time - I've sometimes noticed it in camera and not continued with the stack on white but changed the background.
I've definitely found with my lighting setup I get the best contrast in the subject when it's shot on a dark background... (which is a piece of black velvet about 2-3 feet behind the subject to avoid catching any significant amount of flash)
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
The mid tone is the more successful. Somewhat like an ND filter, the grey avoids colour casts, in this case from reflections onto the subject.
Harold
Harold
Last edited by Harold Gough on Fri Sep 19, 2008 2:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.
Just found these shots thanks to a link you posted. They're brilliant Laurie! I love these stacked shots-i wouldn't know where to begin!
Canon 5D and 30D | Canon IXUS 265HS | Cosina 100mm f3.5 macro | EF 75-300 f4.5-5.6 USM III | EF 50 f1.8 II | Slik 88 tripod | Apex Practicioner monocular microscope
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England