stitched stacks

[Wim van Egmond]

I have not posted much lately but that was because I was busy with several projects. One is an art commision for an office. And I thought it would be nice to give a preview. That is becasue Rik was also stacking stitches, or is it stitching stacks? I have made several recently and I hope you don't mind me posting them. Before you all say I am not very original.

For this project I have to make very big prints. These stitches are between 8000 and 11000 pixels wide. The computer can just manage the files. It works a bit slow but that gives me enough time to drink some coffee, or walk towards the window and see how wet and cold it is outside.

The bug and the grasshopper each consist of 5 or 6 stacks. They were stitched manually in photoshop. Like Rik I used a blown up part of the grasshopper as a background. So I was surprised to see Rik doing the same!

Soulmates?

Wim

[MacroLuv]

Impressive! Pity, it could't be done with moving subjects.

[puzzledpaul]

This is my favourite of the current selection of stitched stacks on offer

To me, the colours and composition seem 'just right' (except for the plain bits of bg, which spoils it imo) and there's less obvious duplication present.

A mammoth (now there'd be a subject!) task in all senses and impressive results - but the possible tendancy to 'showcase' the (results of the)technology at the expense of composition etc is maybe something to resist - however tempting it might be?

pp

[beetleman]

This is a very impressive project Wim. Did you have to do multiple stacks on the insects to get the whole insect for the picture? I am trying to get the whole picture here (sorry about the pun). I think the word stitching is throwing me off

[Ken Ramos]

Would ya just look at all that detail. Looks like a set for a prehistoric sci-fi. Excellent!

[rjlittlefield]

This is very nice, Wim! Wonderful surface detail on these subjects, and the colors go together very nicely.

The composition is a bit "busier" than what I'd probably frame for my own living room, but blown up big and stuck on the wall of a natural history museum, copies would be going home in thousands of cameras -- with many small children standing in front of it!

--Rik

[Wim van Egmond]

Thanks friends,

Very useful comments! I'll react on some of them.

Paul, interesting remark about the background. Did you mean the blueish part? And about the composition. The disadvantage of these panoramas is that it is not so easy to predetermine the composition. When you take one image you can frame it much easier and create a perfect composition.

These images are more chaotic than I would normally make. There is a reason. This project is a collaboration with a friend who makes landscape pictures. We combine them so I have to work a bit towards his results. I try to make these pictures as landscapes, made out of insect parts. That is why I added a bit of blue sky, the insects are like mountains. Perhaps I should make the blue less blue?

I have also done other subjects in this series. And one of the intentions is not to make them just beautiful, but also a bit weird:) I am experimenting with compositions that are hardly a composition:)

They were many stacked images combined. These rather elongated insects were done with the camera vertical and than shifting the insect.

Wim

[puzzledpaul]

<< Did you mean the blueish part? >>

The 2 / 3 bits actually - the 'sky' right at the top of the image and then the (different coloured) bit above the GH's abdomen, right side of the pic.

I'd assumed the topmost parts were intended as 'sky', but (to me) they seem somewhat incongruous with the overall nature of the pic.

Considering the 'busy-ness' of the image (which I like), to have 3 (relatively small, but high contrast) featureless areas tends to draw the eye to them (or the interface between them and the subject matter) to the detriment (imo) of the overall viewing experience.

If, with a 'normal' pic, the intention is to isolate the subject from the bg, then this often involves fairly large areas of (oof?) bg - eg sky or foliage ... and this generally works well - but the situation here seems different because of the areas involved.

Also, the 'sliver' above the abdomen is *very* sharply defined / cut out ... and again tends to 'draw the eye' and makes me wonder why it's there / what's it for?

As regards the bg in general - some techniques I've used in the past (as well as blurring and changing scale - as you've done) involve the use of desaturation (complete / partial), median, posterize and add noise.

These allow the subject matter and the background to still be graphically 'linked' - but also allows for a series / group / sequence of images to have a common theme - or 'corporate identity' of some sort

Depending on techniques used, then parts of the bg may not be instantly recogniseable - but not making things easy for the viewer - ie getting them to figure stuff out a bit may also be useful sometimes.

(When I saw the 'desaturated bg trick' for the first time (photoshop 3 wow book - p89) ... I thought 'that's got some mileage' (or kms for you ) as a technique.)

Since you're creating (rather than capturing) an image and thus (imo) 'truthfulness / integrity' may be compromised / adjusted for artistic impact I'd suggest 'anything goes' as regards available techniques?

At the end of the day this is very subjective territory

pp

[Wim van Egmond]

I accidentally posted my reaction twice and I couldn't delete it. So I just deleted the first of the double text and wrote this as an introduction of the posting below!

Wim

[Wim van Egmond]

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your extensive reactions and these are the type of discussions I realy appreciate because it is about the meaning of the images instead of just the technique. But indeed it is subjective. But fort a large part it should be possible to describe what we think when looking at a picture.

This image still has some areas that I have to retouch. I did desaturate the blue at the top but perhaps I should try it with less colour, or perhaps a bit more towards green. This would be more subtle. The part at 2/3 is the out of focus hindleg and it should be a bit more blurry. It has too hard egdes and an interception. But perhaps I'll remove it completely.

When creating a composite instead of making one image it is more difficult to be spontaneaous. Before you know it it is too artificial. So what I do now to make it less over-constructed is work spontaneous, quite fast without too much of a plan. I let it grow a bit. And than at the final stage. I make the final composition by cropping and some shifting. This is a bit like how you would normally take a picture.

Making a composite like this is a like making a painting. I prefer to work in several sessions and work on several different montages at the same time. When you work on an image for a long time continuously you don't see it anymore:) So than it is better to wait some time before continuing to work on it.

In this case I don't want to isolate the subject. The insects form a landscape. But I'll have to see if I can create a sort of path for the eye:)

About truthfulness. I think when you make a composite it is best if it looks natural. I will try to improve that on this image. I think it is a matetr of making it less cut out and indeed perhaps some desaturation.

If I succeeded in improving this image I'll post it!

Wim

[puzzledpaul]

<< In this case I don't want to isolate the subject... >>

Wim - sorry if I gave the impression that's what I was suggesting (with the sky / foliage bg mention in my previous post) - it wasn't my intention - I like your current approach.

I certainly agree with your comments about how 'close / involved' one gets to an image when working on it

Would you have any objection to me messing around with your pic, btw?

pp

[Wim van Egmond]

Yes, I did understand what you meant! It was merely a comment on this type of photography. Normally my pictures have the organisms realy stand out. In this case I liked to try a different type of image.

If you like to experiment a bit with the picture, please do! I am working on some other images at the moment but I'll work on it when I have finished these.

It is easier to discuss these subjects by giving examples! So I am curious what you would do.

Wim

[puzzledpaul]

Wim - You'll be able to do a far better job than me - even if you do like any of the ideas (doubtful ) ...

Lowered the horizon to get a little more on the same level as the subjects - this also gave a 'reason' for the 'sliver of blue' on the RHSide of pic to be there - 'ties in' with the sky around GH's head.

Tried to introduce some texture / clouds in the sky, so it wasn't plain col.

Used a different bit of GH for bg as was looking for something that had a change of scale as it transitioned from foreground to horizon. (could have done with a bigger bit / sample to lose some of the clunkiness)

Green tint / gradient - for a link to natural habitat.

Blurry horizon line as didn't want a stark change ... with a hint of trees / foliage on horizon - to fit in with the 'landscape' approach.

Various bits of duckin' 'n' divin' to smudge stuff up etc ...

Feel free to tell me to get my eyes tested

pp

[Wim van Egmond]

Dear Paul,

Thank you! I think I will indeed remove the unsharp leg in the right top area. But I also think I will distort the image of the grasshopper a bit so it will be higher on the right. The whole image has a sort of downward slope towards the right. I am not sure about the colour green. It is a bit too dark and too saturated. I think a more greyish moss green would be nicer as a combination with the browns.

I'm not sure if I should add the blue (it was originally there) on the left below the head of the grasshopper. With the brown below the head the head is brought more to the background and become a part of the landscape.

I'll have a go with it!

I think it is interesting to play around with eachothers images like this. It makes it easier for me to decided what to do.

best regards,

Wim

[puzzledpaul]

Wim
<< not sure about the colour green. >>

I'm probably a 'green' fan, because many of my own GH pix have been taken with a green (grass) bg + my monitor is uncalibrated, so it (the shade) could easily be way out - I should also have tried my own 'desat' suggestion - but wife came along with 'other ideas' of what I should be doing ...

<< I'm not sure if I should add the blue (it was originally there) on the left below the head of the grasshopper >>

To me, the positioning of the horizon line was one that caused me some problems, because of the thin 'wedge' above the GH's abdomen.

There are only 3 options
Horizon above / below or intersecting wedge

Above needs matching bg colour (not sky) ... unlike your original pic.
Intersecting - gets messy because of the shape / thin-ness of wedge

- hence the reason I went for the result shown.

Other option I considered was to modify the GH and essentially get rid of this areaa - but didn't have time / inclination + wanted to leave the main subjects 'undoctored'

Best of luck with your endeavours - and I doubt that I'm the only one who'd be interested in seeing what the final image(s) end up like

pp

edit
<< not sure about the colour green. >>

Having just seen my version on someone else's monitor ... I couldn't agree more, Wim ... needed the specs from Jody's spider


edit2

Amazing what some ppl can do with p/shop (and no camera) , btw

http://scrawnypaws.cgsociety.org/gallery/