Echinocereus

[DaveW]

I am a photoprocessing novice, always being used to using slide film for projection until I changed to digital last year. Here's my first attempt at sharpening, sizing and posting an image of a bog standard Echinocereus shot. Criticisms of the subject and also my attempts at processing very welcome. DaveW

Edit 8th Jan 07 Looking around my greenhouse it would seem this plant is Echinocereus pamanesorum, but the plant seems to have grown a bit since the shot was taken!

[DaveW]

Help!

My picture did not attach. I clicked on "upload picture" found the file and when it said it had loaded clicked on the "send" box, but when I looked at your site it had not attached but disapeared somewhere! What did I do wrong?

Edit:- Thanks it seems to have done it now. Your image posting system works differently to another site I am on. Thanks everybody!

DaveW

[MacroLuv]

Dave, after click on "send" button of "UploadPic" window you must wait to see it inside the same window and then you must click on link "insert picture: standard". (click on standard). After that you will see something like:
" [img_]http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/u ... 0610_1.jpg[/img_]"
but with your picture name of course. (I added underline "_" after "img" to disable picture viewing. [img] ----> [img_] for my example)
I am eager to see your photograph (cylindrical cacti I guess).
One more thing, position of the link "insert picture: standard" is just under uploaded photograph. Roll it down if necessary until you see.
I assume you hit "send" button twice instead #1 - "send" button, then #2 - link "standard" under uploaded photograph. Result: two upload - zero view.
Well, now your photograph is already uploaded and no need to upload it again, you can click on "Upload picture" and when "UploadPic" window open hit on link "gallery", find your photograph (I think you will find at least two identical) and click on "insert picture: standard.

[beetleman]

Dave...what was the name of the file. You can click on edit in your post and try it again.

[DaveW]

Should have added for the equipment freaks:-

Nikon D200, 60mm f2.8 micro nikkor, Benbo Mk 1 tripod, available light.

DaveW

[MacroLuv]

Wow! Beautiful!
Dave, you got all parts of the flower in DOF range!
60 views even before photo were attached.
A master with film stays a master with digital, would say.
I like that green pistil. Is it common to all Echinocereus?

[DaveW]

The green stigma lobes are a generic characteristic of Echinocereus Macroluv, although there are a couple with grayish ones.

I would hardly call myself a master of film, I know more about the theory than it's practical usage!

I still cannot yet get used to the "machine gun" approach used with digital where you take dozens of shots at various apertures and focus distances in the hope one will be spot on. I have a mean streak, and when I had to buy expensive Kodachrome I only took a couple of shots of each subject because I was paying for expensive film. I therefore never got the practice in those who self processed and used cheap black and white film did! I never had monochrome eyes though, I always saw in colour!

I do have depth of field problems with multiflowered plants this close up where the DOF will not cover the whole subject as in this example of Mammillaria guelzowiana where the far flowers are going out of focus

DaveW

[MacroLuv]

... I do have depth of field problems with multiflowered plants this close up where the DOF will not cover the whole subject as in this example of Mammillaria guelzowiana where the far flowers are going out of focus

DaveW

It's OK for me. Wait a minute... ... this is a static object... I think this is a point when our stacking crew could say much more about.
Very nice Mammillaria. They usually produce a whole bunch of flowers.
I like cacti with white long hair appearance as well.

[Ken Ramos]

Those are beautiful, would you just look at the details in those flowers.

[DaveW]

Macroluv,

"This is a static object... I think this is a point when our stacking crew could say much more about it."

I did ask a week or two ago if stacking worked OK for t two or three image stack and I believe it was Rik who said it did. When I get a suitable computer I may give it a go. At the moment I have problems and am running on a spare disk that is almost full because the main disk has hung! If I try and crop with Elements 4 at the moment I simply get the message "scratch disk is full"!

I would think only 2-3 images would be needed for a stack to cover the depth of field on the flowers at that magnification?

Afraid the images are only record shots and nowhere near as artistic as Irwin's.

DaveW

[MacroLuv]

I haven't experience with stacking but think 3 images could be OK. You already have more then 50% within DOF range.
About 15-20% minimum disk free space is recommended for a stable and comfort work.
Well, artistic expression is a tricky thing. Art muse likes those who like to experiment. Someone said: "One photo out of focus is a mistake, ten photo out of focus are an experimentation, one hundred photo out of focus are a style."

[DaveW]

Guess I am quickly developing a style then!

DaveW

[rjlittlefield]

I did ask a week or two ago if stacking worked OK for t two or three image stack and I believe it was Rik who said it did.

Yep, that was me.

Seeing your images here, I think you may want to use a few more.

Here's some quick theory. Suppose you want an image that has a circle of confusion of size N pixels. Look in your current single frame and estimate the size of the blur circles at the closest and farthest distances that you want to be in focus in your stacked image. Divide the current blur circle size by your N-pixel requirement, and that's how roughly how many frames you'll need. Example: Suppose you want no more than 2 pixels blur circle, but you currently have 10 pixels blur at front and back. Then you'll need 10/2=5 more frames in front, same in back, 11 frames total. It's hard to judge from these web-sized images, but for your first picture I'd guestimate something like 5-7 frames to get all the petals tack-sharp.

Two other things come to mind.

First, stark black backgrounds are particularly vulnerable to halo, and last I checked, Helicon Focus was more vulnerable than CombineZ5 (now superseded by CombineZM, by the way). Be prepared for some messing around, to get the same clean subject-background transitions that you're used to in single frames.

Second, alignment of frames within a stack can be a problem if the entrance pupil of your lens moves too much and thus changes the perspective. For magnifications much less than 1:1, as you have, it's best to shoot the stack by turning the lens focus ring, as opposed to locking the focus ring and sliding the camera along a rail. Example: Suppose you want to stack 4 inches deep. Sliding the camera along a rail, the entrance pupil would move by 4 inches. But turning the focus ring, it'll move by only a fraction of an inch -- much better.

These are beautiful flowers, and beautiful pictures. I'd say that you're adapting to digital just fine!

--Rik

[cactuspic]

Good shots Dave, tack sharp, great color. I concur with Rik. When less than 1:1 move my focus by twisting the focus ring on the lens. Higher magnifications, such as 1.5:1 I use a focusing rail. in the magnification of a bit over 1:1 I do a bit of both.

The number of images you need is a function of three factors,
1. Magnificationn-with greater magnification the more images you will likely need.

2. Depth of the field you need in focus-the deeper the field, the more images you will need.

3. f stop

To see whether you have covered, start your sequence with the nearest focus. Stop after the furthest point you want to get into focus gets tack sharp. You can check either through the viewfinder or through using your screen and magnifying the image at the appropriate point.

Now to the IMPORTANT PART...glad to see your images. They do a cactusman's heart proud. You will feel more comfortable with the process. The trick is to keep shooting.

Best to you

Irwin

[Carl_Constantine]

What beautiful cactus flowers! I don't think I've seen anything quite like those on the cacti around here. Wonderful lighting, focus, and DOF.