The improvement is slow and labored but I am learning, thanks to the expertise of this group.
I am struggling with images that are crisp and not sure if it is the subject, the equipment, my incompetence or perhaps a combination. Please feel free to offer suggestions for improvements and altering the image is acceptable.
D800e, pb6 closed approximately 3.5x, cone, Amscope 4x, 1/200, ISO 100, 300 slices @ 12 microns, Controlmynikon, Stackshot, Zerene.
A bug
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23626
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
This looks pretty good except for severe "transparent foreground" artifact on the lower parts of the legs.
See https://zerenesystems.com/cms/stacker/d ... foreground for discussion of that.
For sharpness, it would be helpful to see some non-resized crops showing "actual pixels", as discussed at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=36168 .
What other aspects are bothering you?
--Rik
See https://zerenesystems.com/cms/stacker/d ... foreground for discussion of that.
For sharpness, it would be helpful to see some non-resized crops showing "actual pixels", as discussed at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=36168 .
What other aspects are bothering you?
--Rik
-
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:03 am
- Location: TN
Thanks much for the links Rik, I had no idea about the retouching that is explained in the tutorial. Studying that is definitely high on the list.rjlittlefield wrote:This looks pretty good except for severe "transparent foreground" artifact on the lower parts of the legs.
See https://zerenesystems.com/cms/stacker/d ... foreground for discussion of that.
For sharpness, it would be helpful to see some non-resized crops showing "actual pixels", as discussed at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=36168 .
What other aspects are bothering you?
--Rik
I cannot explain the "other aspects" it is just like something is not right, like the image is not crisp. I am not even sure that "sharpness" is the issue perhaps it is more like the image is "cloudy" for a lack of a better adjective.
I very much appreciate the comments.
-
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:03 am
- Location: TN
-
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:03 am
- Location: TN
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23626
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
I agree, this one does look better.
In the previous one, I think a lot of the cloudy appearance is due to the bright blueish background reflecting off the subject.
There may also be some spill into shadow areas through veiling glare. If you have not flocked that cone and possibly the inside of the rear bellows mount, then now would be a good time to do that.
But I notice that areas of the subject that are far away from background look much cleaner than areas that would be directly subject to reflections from the background, so I'm inclined to think that those reflections are more important than overall glare.
Your actual-pixels crop does not look sharp, but a lot of this is likely just diffraction at play. Your objective is what, NA 0.1? So then at 3.5X, you'll be running at about effective f/17. That's plenty small enough to provide diffraction blurring at actual pixels on a D800E.
The only good treatment for diffraction blur is aggressive sharpening, for example with unsharp mask at a size and strength that would reduce a non-diffracted image to junk. See the discussions at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=33724 and http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 198#203198 .
--Rik
In the previous one, I think a lot of the cloudy appearance is due to the bright blueish background reflecting off the subject.
There may also be some spill into shadow areas through veiling glare. If you have not flocked that cone and possibly the inside of the rear bellows mount, then now would be a good time to do that.
But I notice that areas of the subject that are far away from background look much cleaner than areas that would be directly subject to reflections from the background, so I'm inclined to think that those reflections are more important than overall glare.
Your actual-pixels crop does not look sharp, but a lot of this is likely just diffraction at play. Your objective is what, NA 0.1? So then at 3.5X, you'll be running at about effective f/17. That's plenty small enough to provide diffraction blurring at actual pixels on a D800E.
The only good treatment for diffraction blur is aggressive sharpening, for example with unsharp mask at a size and strength that would reduce a non-diffracted image to junk. See the discussions at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=33724 and http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 198#203198 .
--Rik
-
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:03 am
- Location: TN
Some good suggestions Rik, thanks. I will definitely look into flocking those areas. My diffusion could probably stand some attention also.rjlittlefield wrote:I agree, this one does look better.
In the previous one, I think a lot of the cloudy appearance is due to the bright blueish background reflecting off the subject.
There may also be some spill into shadow areas through veiling glare. If you have not flocked that cone and possibly the inside of the rear bellows mount, then now would be a good time to do that.
But I notice that areas of the subject that are far away from background look much cleaner than areas that would be directly subject to reflections from the background, so I'm inclined to think that those reflections are more important than overall glare.
Your actual-pixels crop does not look sharp, but a lot of this is likely just diffraction at play. Your objective is what, NA 0.1? So then at 3.5X, you'll be running at about effective f/17. That's plenty small enough to provide diffraction blurring at actual pixels on a D800E.
The only good treatment for diffraction blur is aggressive sharpening, for example with unsharp mask at a size and strength that would reduce a non-diffracted image to junk. See the discussions at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=33724 and http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 198#203198 .
--Rik
-
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
- Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.