A Beetle On The Prowl

georgedingwall · Post by **georgedingwall** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:59 am

Hi all,

Here's a tabletop setup of the same beetle I used for the "Jaws of Death" image. I used a stone from the garden that had some moss on it and a nice texture, plus a few out of focus leaves in the background.

The image was made from 25 frames each 1mm apart. Due to the nature of the subject, it is very hard to get a good exposure in a single frame that gets it right for the underside of the subject if the rest is correctly exposed.

In this image I processed the RAW files to produce three separate sets of images for stacking. One was normal for the midtones, one to tone down the highlights and the third to lighten up the lower parts of the beetle and the shadow areas underneath.

I ran all three sets through Helicon focus and then combined the three images in Photoshop CS2. I used layer masks to reveal the parts of the over and under exposed images to end up with the final result which is posted below.

D200 with Sigma 150mm Macro Lens
2 sec exposures @ F8
25 frames stacked in Helicon Focus
Home made focusing rail
Tungsten lighting
Finished in Photoshop CS2

Carl_Constantine · Post by **Carl_Constantine** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:37 am

That's an amazing shot George. I an't imagine how long that took to do, particularly the post processing. I'm glad you know how to do that cuz I sure couldn't.

Well done. the beatle almost looks 3D'ish, like he's coming out of the picture.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:17 am

Beautiful!

A very attractive and technically excellent image!

Your HDR (High Dynamic Range) technique reminds me of discussions in the Panorama Tools group (now Yahoo PanoToolsNG).

People there used to do exactly what you describe -- shoot raw once, convert to 8-bit images multiple times with different settings, stitch those to make multiple 8-bit panoramas, then blend appropriately to make a final 8-bit result.

For panoramas, however, the software has evolved to the point that the whole rendering chain now supports 16-bit images (48 bits in total, of course -- 16 each for red/green/blue).

So the current wisdom for panoramas is that if a single raw exposure catches everything you care about, then the best approach is to convert raw to 16-bit images with a linear map, stitch and edit in 16-bit mode, then run the 16-bit almost final result through one of the HDR software packages to pack it into an attractive 8-bit final image.

It seems like the same approach would be ideal here. The trick is that the stacking software has to support it. I know that Helicon Focus can read some types of raw files directly, but I have not explored whether it can stack and output in 16-bit mode. If it does not, then I suggest opening a dialog with its developers to see if you can get 16-bit mode added to some future version.

You're definitely on the leading edge with this one. I shoot raw for everything else, but my camera records raw so slowly that for stacks I stick to JPEG ("low quality" JPEG, in fact).

It'd be really cool if HF got 16-bit support sometime before I get my next camera!

--Rik

Cyclops · Post by **Cyclops** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:30 am

Thats a really shiny beetle,looks like he's had a polish and buff up!
Super shot!

georgedingwall · Post by **georgedingwall** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:53 am

Hi Rik,

Thanks for your kind comments.

For panoramas, however, the software has evolved to the point that the whole rendering chain now supports 16-bit images (48 bits in total, of course -- 16 each for red/green/blue).

I don't really understand 16 bit images that well. The panorama software I use, (Panorama Factory), will open 16 tiffs, but I don't know if it is able to use them in the way you suggest for PanoTools.

What exactly do you mean when you say "Convert to raw with a linear map".

HF can read my Nikon D200 raw files but I have no idea what it actually does with them. It will produce an equivelent quality stack, but does not allow any of the sort of adjustments you might do in the raw converter before saving. It is also slower than the same stack done with tiff images.

I don't know if I understand enough about the benefits of 16 processing to start a meaningful discussion with the developers.

You're definitely on the leading edge with this one. I shoot raw for everything else, but my camera records raw so slowly that for stacks I stick to JPEG ("low quality" JPEG, in fact).

I shoot everything in Raw these days. Even If I only intend the image for web use. I figure that if I get a really good image, I want to be able to print it on my A3 printer, or maybe submit it to a magazine. For the images I post to this forum, I usually save to a max quality jpeg, but reduce the size from inside the converter.

Bye for now.

beetleman · Post by **beetleman** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:08 am

Great job George...a lot of the tech stuff is a little over my head but the results speak a whole volume. Reminds me of the Exhibits you see at the Natural History museums, but of the macro world. Execellent