Rik: I love ZereneStacker!
Eric
Robber fly from Mexico
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Robber fly from Mexico
Here is an image of a Saropogon sp. (Asilidae) from Michoacan, Mexico. This male specimen was collected many years ago near the village of Capirio; recently photographed using Canon 40D & MP-E at 5x, f/5.6. Zerene Stacker, 50 images (0.05mm ea.), some retouching of antennae; cropped on sides.
Rik: I love ZereneStacker!
Eric
Rik: I love ZereneStacker!
Eric
Worked very well!! I'm just astonished about the 50 pics, did you shoot wide open?
Klaus
http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV diary
http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV diary
Robber fly from Mexico
Thanks Klaus,
Well, I'm sure I got carried away with the layers! Although the antennae add lots of depth to the image, I probably could easily have used just every other layer...
Eric
Well, I'm sure I got carried away with the layers! Although the antennae add lots of depth to the image, I probably could easily have used just every other layer...
Eric
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23621
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Eric, this image came out well, and of course I'm pleased to hear that you like the software. Thanks for the kind words!
Klaus, I calculate DOF using the geometry formulas at these settings as being 0.05 mm, exactly what Eric used as a step size. This also gives a calculated effective f-number of f/34, which will give a couple of pixels of diffraction blur on his camera. So I think Eric's settings were just about ideal for this subject. If the goal were only to produce a web-resolution image, then he could have stopped down a little more. Using every other frame might end up looking OK, but it might also produce some OOF banding on the eyes on close inspection. This is too close to call given the uncertainties.
Crosscheck #1 . . . let's see . . . 0.05 mm = 0.002 inches. Yes, that's about what I would use for this subject too, except that I might open up to f/4 and step even a little bit finer.
Crosscheck #2 . . . The numbers discussed here are consistent with NikonUser's results shown at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=6221. Near the bottom of the first page (here) he ends up concluding that 0.06 mm was OK at f/5.6 and m=4.9, and that 0.05 mm would be a good setting for his Proxxon table.
--Rik
Klaus, I calculate DOF using the geometry formulas at these settings as being 0.05 mm, exactly what Eric used as a step size. This also gives a calculated effective f-number of f/34, which will give a couple of pixels of diffraction blur on his camera. So I think Eric's settings were just about ideal for this subject. If the goal were only to produce a web-resolution image, then he could have stopped down a little more. Using every other frame might end up looking OK, but it might also produce some OOF banding on the eyes on close inspection. This is too close to call given the uncertainties.
Crosscheck #1 . . . let's see . . . 0.05 mm = 0.002 inches. Yes, that's about what I would use for this subject too, except that I might open up to f/4 and step even a little bit finer.
Crosscheck #2 . . . The numbers discussed here are consistent with NikonUser's results shown at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=6221. Near the bottom of the first page (here) he ends up concluding that 0.06 mm was OK at f/5.6 and m=4.9, and that 0.05 mm would be a good setting for his Proxxon table.
--Rik