I hope Chuck is correct. My wife's identical twin was smitten by a
couple of the orchid shots and want them for her office.
I'll have to contact THE MAN for prints 'round here, i.e Bob, if he
thinks they will print OK. I can restack with the sharpening turned all
the way off.
The last stack--green Paph-- was a hassle. Required F4 to keep the
background as I wanted---no room to
work if moved the orchid further away (working in the calm before the
storm Irene). The finer focus cuts at F4 still did not work as well as
the others at about same mag at f5.6. The individual images look spot
on including the far right petal. Combine Z has known difficulty with
stacking highlight areas--sometimes " Do soft stack" routine or another
included algorithm works better. I cleaned up about 80% of the
artefacts and for web view, it seemed passable but I knew the eagle
eyed list members would see them.
The stacked images can take on an analytical feel, but I hoped the nice
backgrounds softened that. It is just one technique to use on occasion.
The nice detail in the orchids just seemed to tell me to try this
approach.
Hey, the Moose and Carol Ann will be in the area??
Sometimes stack em, sometimes not, Mike
I'm not sure that is focus. For example, at the end of the petal at far
right there are still a lot of halos/artifacts at the edges and a bit
of
blur toward the center. Mike says he spent a lot of time cloning such
things out but obviously hasn't gotten them all. But for my less than
optimal vision I think it would take a very, very large print before
such were visible.
Chuck Norcutt
On 9/2/2011 4:18 AM, Moose wrote:
> On 9/1/2011 10:29 PM, Moose wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Hope others liked the orchid. :-)
>>
>> I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about your recent stacked
shots.
>> They are technically strong, capturing
>> clearly focused detail that would have been impossible in
photography until
>> recently.
>
> For whatever reason, I hadn't looked at the full size images. What
looks
> fully in focus at smaller sizes isn't quite so
> at full size. There are bands of sharper and softer focus. Doesn't
matter for
> any normal size version. But if you were
> to want to have large prints made, you need more shots, spaced more
closely
> together, and/or perhaps a smaller aperture.
>
> Moose
--
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|