| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
1of1snowflakes
Joined: 06 Sep 2019
Posts: 46
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:55 am Post subject: Eastern Tailed Blue Butterfly - only 9mm total length |
 |
|
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!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
1of1snowflakes
Joined: 06 Sep 2019
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:23 am Post subject: Re: Eastern Tailed Blue Butterfly - only 9mm total length |
|
|
| 1of1snowflakes wrote: | 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...
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aveslux
Joined: 28 May 2019
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It's beautiful but can we the see the high res finished product somewhere? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1of1snowflakes
Joined: 06 Sep 2019
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aveslux wrote: | | 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aveslux
Joined: 28 May 2019
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 1of1snowflakes wrote: | | aveslux wrote: | | 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1of1snowflakes
Joined: 06 Sep 2019
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aveslux wrote: | | 1of1snowflakes wrote: | | aveslux wrote: | | 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?! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aveslux
Joined: 28 May 2019
Posts: 49
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1of1snowflakes
Joined: 06 Sep 2019
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
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!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 20653
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pau
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Jan 2010
Posts: 5050
Location: Valencia, Spain
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
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
_________________
Pau |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aveslux
Joined: 28 May 2019
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pau wrote: |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 20653
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aveslux wrote: | | 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.
| Quote: | | 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1of1snowflakes
Joined: 06 Sep 2019
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rjlittlefield wrote: | | aveslux wrote: | | 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.
| Quote: | | 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?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1of1snowflakes
Joined: 06 Sep 2019
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 1of1snowflakes wrote: | | rjlittlefield wrote: | | aveslux wrote: | | 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.
| Quote: | | 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
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 20653
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
