Eastern Tailed Blue Butterfly - only 9mm total length

Images of undisturbed subjects in their natural environment. All subject types.

Moderators: Chris S., Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20746
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

1of1snowflakes wrote:
1of1snowflakes wrote:Can anyone tell where I spliced them together??
The reason I am asking about whether you can tell where I spliced them together, is because I can see it distinctly, but in my print I ordered, it is not quite as visible. After I started this thread I decided to do another splice at a different part, and am actually happier with that image than I am my first. Here's what I came up with (and is the same one on my flickr account https://flic.kr/p/2hevmq4
Ah yes, comparing pano at top of thread against the Flickr download, loose scale in thorax region indicates that the first splice must have been farther back. But I still can't see the splice itself in the size 1024 pano posted at top of thread.

--Rik

1of1snowflakes
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:30 pm

Post by 1of1snowflakes »

rjlittlefield wrote:
1of1snowflakes wrote:Can anyone tell where I spliced them together??
Working from a full resolution download from https://flic.kr/p/2herT32 ...

I can tell only by checking specific details against the source tiles. Alignment of palps and antenna, light spot at top of eye, alignment of front legs, and one loose scale above the middle knee indicate that those areas came from the front tile. Other loose scales on the thorax and middle leg indicate that those sections came from the back tile. The main framing is consistent with back tile also. I don't see any seam in the wing scales, or any reason why a seam would be required farther back than the neck.

Taken together, I'm guessing it's antennae, head, and some or all of the front legs from the front tile, everything else from the rear.

But certainly I don't see any misalignments that would say "there's a seam here". It's a very good splice. Without the separate tiles, I would have no idea.

--Rik

Perfect and you are exactly right!!!! Thank you!

1of1snowflakes
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:30 pm

Post by 1of1snowflakes »

rjlittlefield wrote:
1of1snowflakes wrote:
1of1snowflakes wrote:Can anyone tell where I spliced them together??
The reason I am asking about whether you can tell where I spliced them together, is because I can see it distinctly, but in my print I ordered, it is not quite as visible. After I started this thread I decided to do another splice at a different part, and am actually happier with that image than I am my first. Here's what I came up with (and is the same one on my flickr account https://flic.kr/p/2hevmq4
Ah yes, comparing pano at top of thread against the Flickr download, loose scale in thorax region indicates that the first splice must have been farther back. But I still can't see the splice itself in the size 1024 pano posted at top of thread.

--Rik

in the first picture, halfway through the wing, the wing suddenly gets a tad darker. That's where the splice is.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20746
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

1of1snowflakes wrote:in the first picture, halfway through the wing, the wing suddenly gets a tad darker. That's where the splice is.
Yep, painfully obvious once seen. Have to confess, I never even looked that far back.

--Rik

1of1snowflakes
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:30 pm

Post by 1of1snowflakes »

rjlittlefield wrote:
1of1snowflakes wrote:in the first picture, halfway through the wing, the wing suddenly gets a tad darker. That's where the splice is.
Yep, painfully obvious once seen. Have to confess, I never even looked that far back.

--Rik
That's why I redid it and actually in the process grabbed more leaf and feet in the process. This was my first time ever splicing any image, so it was a learning process. I've only been doing macro for a little over a year, and photography for about 2.

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 5079
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Post by Pau »

aveslux wrote:
Pau wrote:
1of1snowflakes wrote: Let's see if this works:

https://flic.kr/p/2herT32
It works nicely.

Now I can better see an issue with your otherwise excellent image:
Some parts like the legs and antennae are very sharp while the wing and even more towards its distal part is somewhat unsharp and fuzzy.
I think that this is due to movement and the more likely culprit would be the flash itself.
This is an effect several times discussed that can be due either to the thermal expansion of the air close to the flashgun generating an expansive wave or due the thermal expansion of the air close to the subject that is instantaneously heated by the energy of the light pulse.

Of course, being image stacks, it also could be due to vibrations generated by the camera or more likely by the environment. Carefully checking the source files could help to isolate the cause

Umm..now I see that this is placed at the Nature forum, so the subject must be alive...another possible source of movement, of course
Did you download and inspect the full size image at 100%?

I think some of the reason is the detail being captured, at full res you can see so much that I just don't think the resizing down algorithms do the photo justice with the nature of the scales and the translucency.
Finally I had the time to better study your image and I agree with you and Rik: There is not motion blur like I guessed. I still can "see" more unsharpness at the wing but it is a visual effect. Looking at the scales details it is the same at different parts of the picture. If I apply some strong sharpening in PS this weird effect disappears at 100% view and clearly diminishes at lower sizes.
Pau

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20746
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

1of1snowflakes wrote:This was my first time ever splicing any image, so it was a learning process.
Thanks for the background. That's very helpful.

So then, the general rule is that it's not a good idea to try splicing across the middle of a uniform area filled with rich detail. Even if the tones are well matched, there's a lot of potential for misaligned details that will haunt you after you see them. Much better to place seams along natural boundaries if possible.
I've only been doing macro for a little over a year, and photography for about 2.
Welcome aboard!

You're advancing quite quickly.

I've been doing both macro photography and spliced panoramas for over 50 years, so my own learning curve is a lot more gradual. When I started, lenses were pretty good even by modern standards, but the image capture technology was all film. To actually see a result meant sending film out to be processed, or at best, doing it myself in a wet darkroom. Splicing a panorama meant carefully cutting and mounting paper prints so the physical seams didn't show. It was a very different world!

These days I joke that I'm mostly some sort of "enabler", spending most of my time developing technology and helping other people make photographs instead of making them myself. I'm the fellow behind Zerene Stacker, so answering support emails from that, plus discussions here at photomacrography.net, is what keeps me sort of aligned with modern learning curves.

Your spliced butterfly looks great. Keep it up!

--Rik

grgh
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 4:55 am
Location: Lancashire. UK

Post by grgh »

Not sure what is going on, but when i access https://flic.kr/p/2herT32 .
I get your info but no picture, just a blank rectangle?
used to do astronomy.
and photography.
Zeiss Universal Phase contrast.
Zeiss PMII

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20746
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

grgh, I edited your post to put a space after the URL

With that mod, it works for me when I click the link.

I suggest to try some other Flickr pages. If they all fail in the same way, check your browser settings to see if you have popups or cookies disabled for Flickr.

Also, the image itself comes from a slightly different domain, https://jubilee-live.flickr.com/65535/4 ... cf19_b.jpg for me at this moment. If you're behind some firewall, that might be blocking the image.

--Rik

grgh
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 4:55 am
Location: Lancashire. UK

Post by grgh »

Rik

thanks for the edit
yes works perfectly now.

must say i get a better picture from your suggested domain.
used to do astronomy.
and photography.
Zeiss Universal Phase contrast.
Zeiss PMII

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20746
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

grgh wrote:must say i get a better picture from your suggested domain.
The web page may be doing some resizing that just the .jpg does not. On the other hand, the main Flickr page allows to zoom by just clicking the image, and that accesses some higher resolution version.

BTW, all the URLs that used internally by Flickr pages are subject to change without notice. That's why I said "for me at this moment".

--Rik

Post Reply