| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Insect-O-Saurus
Joined: 27 May 2011
Posts: 37
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:15 pm Post subject: three handheld stacks |
 |
|
a wee hoverfly, 11 shots, natural light - F5.6, 1/100, iso 400
a blue-tailed damselfly, 26 shots, natural light - f4, 1/100, iso 400
an early bumblebee, 48 shots, natural light - f4, 1/80, iso 400
Thanks for looking
Iain
_________________
my heap of flickr stuff
Last edited by Insect-O-Saurus on Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:29 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ecooper
Joined: 06 Jul 2012
Posts: 163
Location: Vancouver
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pau
Joined: 20 Jan 2010
Posts: 1310
Location: Valencia, Spain
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Incredibile good handheld work, I most like the bumblebee, a difficult subjet and the big nose fly
_________________
Pau |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pierre
Joined: 04 Jan 2010
Posts: 138
Location: France, Var, Toulon
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nicely done !
_________________
Regards
Pierre |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeVil
Joined: 09 Dec 2010
Posts: 314
Location: Serbia
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harold Gough
Joined: 09 Mar 2008
Posts: 5710
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
naturalmente
Joined: 25 Apr 2012
Posts: 58
Location: Barcelona
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
emueller
Joined: 11 Nov 2010
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Understandably, there is no exif when using stacking software. So, I'm curious how you managed 48 slices of bumble bee without support (hand-held stacks.) Shutter speed? Thanks!
_________________
Eb Mueller
Chilliwack, BC, Canada |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 12557
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's a video of his technique linked from this other thread that won last months Administrators Appreciation Award.
--Rik |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
emueller
Joined: 11 Nov 2010
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rjlittlefield wrote: | There's a video of his technique linked from this other thread that won last months Administrators Appreciation Award.
--Rik |
Thanks for the link, Rik! It looks like the the technique limits subject location to where there is some level of support for camera and hand. That's understandably necessary for so many slices, but still remarkable output for any field technique! Congratulations, Iain!
I'll have to keep this in mind as an alternative to the unsupported lean-into and spray approach which yields only a half dozen to dozen or so slices. Unfortunately, the bugs are usually neither so docile, nor in places where there is natural support. I have tried gimbal head on monopod to steady the load, but, by golly, it is hard to approach skittish bugs when encumbered by any kind of contraption!
_________________
Eb Mueller
Chilliwack, BC, Canada |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Insect-O-Saurus
Joined: 27 May 2011
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Didn't realise there was no EXIF info, I wonder if this is somehow stripped out in the upload process - fairly sure it started out with some... I've now updated the info at the top of each image to reflect the settings used for the individual shots.
| emueller wrote: | | It looks like the the technique limits subject location to where there is some level of support for camera and hand. |
Although it's a more reliable method when lying in a heap on the ground none of these shots were actually taken using that method - the bumblebee stack is the nearest, as I was leaning on a stone wall for support.
The first image of the hoverfly was me holding the leaf in one hand and resting the lens on that hand while 'pulling' the leaf to a point where there was sufficient strain to help stabilise the whole setup.
The second image I'd actually removed the rush with insect attached (to improve light) and was simply holding it free in one hand again with the lens resting on that hand. I would have tried to put it down to take a shot but in this instance there was simply nowhere suitable to allow for a decent stack.
I'll try and get some more videos together to show the other techniques in action, but it probably means bribing my daughter with ice cream...
Hope that helps a wee bit
Iain
_________________
my heap of flickr stuff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harold Gough
Joined: 09 Mar 2008
Posts: 5710
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Insect-O-Saurus wrote: | | 'pulling' the leaf to a point where there was sufficient strain to help stabilise the whole setup. |
I sometimes do this to keep the insect in position in breezey conditions. In this case, a momentary lack of concentration has been known to allow my grip to loosen and the insect to be catapulted into the distance. 
Harold
_________________
Happiness is having the right adapter.
My manual flash setup for high magnification:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=117843#117843 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 12557
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Insect-O-Saurus wrote: | | Didn't realise there was no EXIF info, I wonder if this is somehow stripped out in the upload process |
If this was stacked with Zerene, then the EXIF disappeared in the stacking. It's an annoying limitation of the libraries that Zerene uses for image I/O. If EXIF is important, then one straightforward workaround is to use copy/paste in Photoshop to merge the pixel output from Zerene into one of the original source files, then save to a new file. The new file will retain the EXIF from the original source, while showing the stacked result from Zerene.
--Rik |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Insect-O-Saurus
Joined: 27 May 2011
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Already do that Rik and that's why I was surprised to find it gone. I suspect it's because I used a 1280 wide image which was resized to 1024 wide for the forum and that during this process the EXIF was dropped. I see it's retained in other images in the forum so I'll resize mine before upload the next time and check the result.
Iain
_________________
my heap of flickr stuff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 12557
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
That makes sense. If I recall correctly, resizing by the forum software only involves the pixels. It's good to avoid the forum's resizing in any case because you have no control over the quality. Sometimes interpolation artifacts will appear in images resized by the forum that would not appear in images resized by Photoshop.
--Rik |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
