Latest efforts

Roadwart · Post by **Roadwart** » Wed May 20, 2009 3:49 pm

Found this Green bottle fly on my window yesterday afternoon. Popped him in the freezer overnight, knowing I had a day off today & managed to shoot a stack.

34 images stacked in Zerene Stacker PMAX output.

One of my best yet I think, even though there`s still room for improvement. I think I may be hitting the limits of my set-up & lens capabilities. Will seriously have to look at spending a couple of quid on some bits & bobs soon.

Aynia · Post by **Aynia** » Thu May 21, 2009 1:23 am

I think you should put this in the Technical and Studio photo gallery.!!

Roadwart · Post by **Roadwart** » Thu May 21, 2009 2:25 am

I`ll take that as official confirmation that I`m no longer a beginner

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Thu May 21, 2009 3:16 am

Roadwart wrote:I`ll take that as official confirmation that I`m no longer a beginner

Either that or you have had more than your fair share of beginner's luck.

Harold

Roadwart · Post by **Roadwart** » Thu May 21, 2009 3:47 am

I think you are probably right there Harold

lauriek · Post by **lauriek** » Thu May 21, 2009 5:20 am

As an admin now I can assure you this shot would be welcome over in Technical forum. I definitely think you've got the hang of this mate!

Note. There's _always_ room for improvement!

Roadwart · Post by **Roadwart** » Thu May 21, 2009 5:34 am

Cheers for the clarification mate. Can you move it over or do you just want to leave it here & I`ll just make any other posts there from now on?

I know theres room for improvement. Like Bob Ross once said "If you are completely satisfied its time to stop because you`ll never better it"

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Thu May 21, 2009 10:11 am

Clearly appropriate for the Technical and Studio gallery. I just now moved it over. Sorry, mate, you're no longer a beginner!

Now, as for possibilities for improvement, the usual laundry list says to think about posing, framing, lighting, and sharpness. No doubt there's a few more I left out.

Posing is classic profile, nothing wrong with that especially for starters. Framing is tight but not too tight, no cramping but no wasted space either. The copyright notice complements and does not distract from the fly. Lighting is diffuse enough to pull out the fine details, but specular reflections on the thorax are blowing out. Maybe just a bit more diffusion would help, but that's a tricky balance.

About sharpness, the whole image looks just a bit soft. What illumination, magnification, lens, and f-number was this shot with? Is there more detail hiding in the original pixels, or is what we see here pretty much it?

--Rik

Roadwart · Post by **Roadwart** » Thu May 21, 2009 2:27 pm

rjlittlefield wrote:Clearly appropriate for the Technical and Studio gallery. I just now moved it over. Sorry, mate, you're no longer a beginner!

I can live with that

rjlittlefield wrote:Lighting is diffuse enough to pull out the fine details, but specular reflections on the thorax are blowing out. Maybe just a bit more diffusion would help, but that's a tricky balance.

I did notice the blowouts, but not until I started loading the RAW`s into adobe raw converter to adjust the exposure & WB if needed.

rjlittlefield wrote:About sharpness, the whole image looks just a bit soft. What illumination, magnification, lens, and f-number was this shot with?

I have to admit it could be a lot sharper, especially compared to the one NikonUser posted in this thread.

I used a 400D, Tamron 55-200 (set to approx 180mm) lens with an Olympus OM50 f/1.8 reverse mounted. Both lenses set to f/5.6. ISO 400, 1/125s. Its basically the same setup I posted here but the fibre bundle has now been unwrapped & split approx 60/40 into 2 bundles. These I wedge either side of the lens, pointing downwards so the light is diffused as it bleeds out of the sidewalls .

rjlittlefield wrote: Is there more detail hiding in the original pixels, or is what we see here pretty much it?

I`ve uploaded a single frame here which is the raw file loaded into photoshop & saved as jpg. I`m wondering if its my workflow that caused it. I mean, Raw loaded into adobe raw converter, adjust wb & exp if required, load into Elements 5 to save as tiffs. These are then stacked in ZS. The resulting tiffs are then loaded back into elements to adjust levels & crop if required, then saved out as jpgs. There`s quite a bit of to-ing & fro-ing. If its not that, then its definitely time for some better equipment.

AndrewC · Post by **AndrewC** » Thu May 21, 2009 2:58 pm

Do you ever do any sharpening ? You don't mention it in your workflow.

If you want I can sharpen a copy and post it back here.

Andrew

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Thu May 21, 2009 2:59 pm

Your source image looks good. It contains way more detail than we can see here at web posting size. Your workflow sounds fine too. Raw to tiff to tiff and finally to jpeg should be fine. Check your last full-sized image. I'll bet that one looks good, and the loss of sharpness appears only in the last shrunken jpeg.

In my Photoshop workflow, I usually end up doing a last-moment sharpening of around 35% at 0.7 pixel USM. That restores the apparent loss of sharpness that comes from the resizing.

If I'm interesting in printing or posting crops, then I'll usually also sharpen with a wider/stronger USM, whatever it takes to make the image look best.

If you're into theory, what's going on is that the combined MTF for lens/sensor/resizing/compression/display is falling off for fine detail, and you're trying to compensate by USMing the pixel values so that the overall system MTF is more flat.

In practice, what I usually recommend is just to sharpen as much as you can, while stopping short of either an unnatural appearance or obvious artifacts like sharpening halos.

You're the fellow with the subject in front of you. If the image accurately reflects the subject, you did good. If it doesn't, you can do better.

--Rik

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Thu May 21, 2009 3:09 pm

Roadwart wrote:especially compared to the one NikonUser posted in this thread.

NU's the only one who could tell us for sure, but I suspect that image has been sharpened pretty heavily. It's the only way I know to get some of the pixel-level "checkerboard" effects that I see in the actual pixels crop of the PMax output.

--Rik

Roadwart · Post by **Roadwart** » Thu May 21, 2009 3:43 pm

Thanks guys. I wasn`t sure sharpening was allowed so I played it safe & didn`t sharpen at all. Now I know its not frowned upon, I`ll insert it into the equation. I`ll run it through PS again tomorrow & see if that helps.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Thu May 21, 2009 4:40 pm

Roadwart wrote:I wasn`t sure sharpening was allowed so I played it safe & didn`t sharpen at all.

All techniques are allowed; a few are supposed to be mentioned. Here is what the posting guidelines say:

Digital enhancement of an image is allowed. Common enhancements such as contrast control, color corrections, cropping/resizing, noise reduction, and routine sharpening can be done without comment. However, any enhancements that alter the "naturalness" of the subject must be declared in the image post. Any type of "stacking" or image compositing should be noted; so should extreme or unusual amounts of cropping, sharpening, etc.

The meaning of "extreme or unusual" is a judgment call. As examples, if the surface texture of a bone has been changed from smooth to etched by lots of sharpening, or if an image has started to go soft because it's been cropped to approaching actual pixels, then those should be noted. Of course you're permitted to tell us anything that seems relevant. Sometimes I'll mention that an image is only 50% of original frame width, just to explain how it could possibly have been made with the equipment I was using.

--Rik

Roadwart · Post by **Roadwart** » Fri May 22, 2009 1:44 pm

Thanks for the clarification. I ran up Elements tonight & loaded in the adjusted but unresized image. Resized using bicubic sharper rather than just bicubic. Also added USM with the settings Rik suggested.

A much nicer result. I have a few more subjects in the freezer & as its a 3 day weekend, I should be able to get some more practice in