Eastern Tailed Blue Butterfly - only 9mm total length

[1of1snowflakes]

I took this image with my Olympus EM1 mark 2, 60mm Olympus macro lens and two Raynox 250s combined. I took one of the front of the butterfly with antennae visible, and one of the main portion of the wing with the back orange pattern visible. I then stitched two images together to make the panoramic. For all the shots, the butterfly did not move a bit. Each shot that was stitched together was a focus bracketed shot of 70+ images to get the one combined image. I shot at f5.6, iso100, with a Godox speedlight flash.

You can see that the butterfly has a stray scale that is attached to its antennae!

I have a 12"x30" print of this arriving today for my office at work!

[1of1snowflakes]

I took this image with my Olympus EM1 mark 2, 60mm Olympus macro lens and two Raynox 250s combined. I took one of the front of the butterfly with antennae visible, and one of the main portion of the wing with the back orange pattern visible. I then stitched two images together to make the panoramic. For all the shots, the butterfly did not move a bit. Each shot that was stitched together was a focus bracketed shot of 70+ images to get the one combined image. I shot at f5.6, iso100, with a Godox speedlight flash.

You can see that the butterfly has a stray scale that is attached to its antennae!

I have a 12"x30" print of this arriving today for my office at work!

Here are the two shots I used...

[aveslux]

It's beautiful but can we the see the high res finished product somewhere?

[1of1snowflakes]

It's beautiful but can we the see the high res finished product somewhere?

Let's see if this works:

https://flic.kr/p/2herT32

[aveslux]

It's beautiful but can we the see the high res finished product somewhere?

Let's see if this works:

https://flic.kr/p/2herT32

Absolutely lovely, the lighting for butterflies under flash is hard to get right and look natural.

It's one of those photos where the detail on the scales and such is so fine and they are slightly translucent so the quality and detail only really comes out when viewed close or large. It almost looks out of focus when viewed small.

But you might want to clean up your stack a little around the antennae as there is a bit of ghosting from them moving slightly between exposures.

Otherwise incredible work

[1of1snowflakes]

It's beautiful but can we the see the high res finished product somewhere?

Let's see if this works:

https://flic.kr/p/2herT32

Absolutely lovely, the lighting for butterflies under flash is hard to get right and look natural.

It's one of those photos where the detail on the scales and such is so fine and they are slightly translucent so the quality and detail only really comes out when viewed close or large. It almost looks out of focus when viewed small.

But you might want to clean up your stack a little around the antennae as there is a bit of ghosting from them moving slightly between exposures.

Otherwise incredible work

I agree, sad thing is I do not have Photoshop and don't have any training in how to do that....I do have Lightroom but I dont think I can do anything about it there, can I?

Did you see the butterfly wing scale that is stuck to the end of the antennae?!

[aveslux]

You should use Helicon for your stacks, it allows retouching of the stack so you can override the algorithm with a brush (painting in the area from the right shot you want) in places like that.

https://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconsoft ... con-focus/

[1of1snowflakes]

You should use Helicon for your stacks, it allows retouching of the stack so you can override the algorithm with a brush (painting in the area from the right shot you want) in places like that.

https://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconsoft ... con-focus/

I do have Helicon and use it for my stacks, 7.0. I didn't realize I can do that....
I'll have to find a youtube video to see how it's done! Thank you!!!

[rjlittlefield]

Retouching is provided by both of the major stacking programs, Helicon Focus and Zerene Stacker.

The major difference is that Zerene Stacker provides retouching at all price points, where with Helicon Focus you have to buy in at Pro or Premium.

--Rik

[Pau]

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

[aveslux]

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.

[rjlittlefield]

Did you download and inspect the full size image at 100%?

The full size image looks clean to me, no indication of motion problems. In the rear tile alone there are echoes with one antenna, but that does not appear in the assembled pano.

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.

I agree. As noted by aveslux, the downsizing makes them look out of focus. I've had this happen even with studio work using dead specimens and continuous illumination.

--Rik

[1of1snowflakes]

Did you download and inspect the full size image at 100%?

The full size image looks clean to me, no indication of motion problems. In the rear tile alone there are echoes with one antenna, but that does not appear in the assembled pano.

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.

I agree. As noted by aveslux, the downsizing makes them look out of focus. I've had this happen even with studio work using dead specimens and continuous illumination.

--Rik

Yes, I am not sure what is being seen. Here's a crop of the middle of the wing just in-case anyone is curious...it is dark, but I do not see any difference in sharpness.



The difficultly with this is that it was a live stack and it's very rare to get two 70+ focus bracketed sessions so clean without the insect (especially a butterfly) moving.

Can anyone tell where I spliced them together??

[1of1snowflakes]

Did you download and inspect the full size image at 100%?

The full size image looks clean to me, no indication of motion problems. In the rear tile alone there are echoes with one antenna, but that does not appear in the assembled pano.

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.

I agree. As noted by aveslux, the downsizing makes them look out of focus. I've had this happen even with studio work using dead specimens and continuous illumination.

--Rik

Yes, I am not sure what is being seen. Here's a crop of the middle of the wing just in-case anyone is curious...it is dark, but I do not see any difference in sharpness.



The difficultly with this is that it was a live stack and it's very rare to get two 70+ focus bracketed sessions so clean without the insect (especially a butterfly) moving.

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

[rjlittlefield]

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