Do you know of any review of CS5 for image stacking? I know it's there
but haven't tried it yet. Whatever, it's gotta be easier to use than
CombineZ.
Chuck Norcutt
On 6/14/2011 8:04 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> There's nothing wrong with the image. It looks very good. But the
>> resolving power of the sensor isn't being taxed at all. You're just
> not
>> aware of how much detail has not been recorded.
>
> Yes, I agree. The small OOF area closest to the cam doesn't seem to
> detract.
> Most times when I find a largish dof is required, yet am worried about
> diffraction softening, the smaller apertures with aperture
> bracketing almost always are better. Seems the blurring from lack of
> dof is more pronounced than diffraction at least wehn avoidng the
> extreme small apertures. I think Moose has commented on this in the
> past as well.
>
> One can always focus stack, but it is more work. Curiously have seen a
> bunch of images focus stacked for 2-3X macro with flash yet
> claimed to be hand held. Seems difficult to me. Rather the opposite
> of using the gizmo below for auto stacking:
>
> http://www.cognisys-inc.com/stackshot/stackshot.php
>
> Looks like a cool gizmo anyway. RRS has some manual gear driven
> flavors too.
>
>
> I always found this comparison of stacking software interesting, though
> it is a bit long in the tooth now.
>
> http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_72/essay.html
>
> Ouch, just looked at the price for the stack shot macro rail package,
> Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|