Frontonia

[Wim van Egmond]

A series of Frontonia.

The last 2 were made with a 63X plan apo and a 100X planachromat. The 100X gives better contrast but the 63X gives has as least as much detail as the 100X. The first was done in photoshop the others in lightroom. There are details lost because of the jpeg compression. I am nto sure if there are ways to improve this.

Wim

[Cactusdave]

It is possible to restore a good degree of lost detail by sharpening again after reducing to web size, either with Photoshop sharpening tools or with a smart sharpening plugin like Topaz Detail. This may introduce additional unwanted noise which can be easily removed with your usual noise reduction method, usually without sacrificing the regained detail. I tried this with three of your images and a good degree of detail was regained to my eye at least.

[Jacek]

Beautiful and detailed images

[myriophyllum]

Hi Wim,

very nice. :-)

Greetings

Jens

[canonian]

There are details lost because of the jpeg compression. I am not sure if there are ways to improve this.

Most cameras will give you a quality option to set varying levels of compression. Check your camera manual for this option.

If the above are single shots, just shoot in RAW format (.NEF) next time and edit afterwards.
You have more control over compression and will result in better detail.

With stacking, all frames have to be shot in RAW format and converted into 16-bit TIF files.
You can even think of pre-sharpen these TIF files before rendering in Zerene.
Zerene accepts TIF format files.

Hope this all make sense but to clarify:
http://zerenesystems.com/cms/stacker/do ... _raw_files

[rjlittlefield]

There are details lost because of the jpeg compression. I am not sure if there are ways to improve this.

First, check to be sure that the loss is actually due to JPEG compression and not due to resizing. In Photoshop there is a Preview checkbox that can be toggled on and off while you are adjusting the compression quality. If this preview shows details getting lost, then your problem is definitely in JPEG compression. Otherwise, detail may be getting lost at an earlier stage, perhaps in the resizing.

Within Adobe tools, the only techniques I know to reduce or avoid lost detail are to 1) sharpen before saving, and 2) use "Save for Web" as opposed to "Save As". The first approach may avoid low contrast detail being discarded. The second removes some overhead in the files, which frees more space for image content. There may also be some difference in the compression algorithm; I don't know for sure about that.

I ran a test just now where I started with your third image (size 298,086 bytes), then resaved it to be Save As quality 4 at 106,607 bytes, Save For Web quality 46 at 105,248 bytes, and Save For Web quality 41 at 104,705 bytes after USM 50% at 0.7 pixels. The last one lost some of the fine striations in the wide area of the gullet (?), but other than that I can't see any detail loss despite file size being over 2.5 times smaller. The Save As quality 4 lost a significant number of the fine striations.

--Rik

[Wim van Egmond]

Thanks friends,

Rik, I never thought of the save for web dialog. I must have tunnel vision. I have tried it and it is much better at saving in a low file size and retaining enough detail.

Fred, I do shoot in raw for single shots but for insect stacks I never do because I get so many files. For stacks I shoot jpegs with the least compression. But I could try it with raw and see if there is much difference.

Wim

[Bruce Taylor]

All gorgeous!

[RogelioMoreno]

Wim, very nice!

Rogelio