
Is this a bee or what?


Nikon D200, 70-180 Micro Nikkor, ISO 100, Available light.
DaveW
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
They look great to me. I don't see any halos either, and all of the fine textures like hair look completely believable. (Extreme sharpening can drastically change textures even without introducing noticeable halos, see this post, image 3, for example.)DaveW wrote:Do you think these are OK, or have I over-sharpened, because I was not able to detect much in the way of sharpening halo's on my screen?
Consider genus Eristalis, in family Syrphidae. The preceding link goes to BugGuide, which has quite a few pages of pictures. Again, I don't know the British syrphids. Some poking around on http://www.syrphidae.com might narrow it down. Eristalis tenax, the drone fly, comes to mind.georgedingwall wrote:They are usually known as Bee Mimic Flies for obvious reasons. I don't know the proper names for them, but they look similar to some I photographed back in July.
are you operating on the image as it came from the camera or raw converter, or on an image that has already been reduced to forum size?Amount 94%
Radius 1.0 pixels
Gaussian Blur
Angle 0
Yes, true RGB like Foveon would be very nice, assuming we can get it without paying some other tradeoff such as lower resolution, higher noise, or smaller gamut. I don't have a clue how long we're going to have to wait. The Foveon technology has been difficult to perfect, and meanwhile the mosaic folks have kept raising the bar with higher pixel densities.it would be nice if they would perfect a sensor like the Foveon where what the sensor actually sees is what you get with no demosaicing etc.
Yes, in the sense that 1) I suspect these images show more contrast for fine detail than the real subjects had, and 2) I suspect the same procedure applied to other more contrasty subjects and/or different lens setups would produce visible artifacts such as halo.Do you think I have oversharpened the original images then?