Thread: Macro Shots

Ed still impressed

Now all you need to do is photograph some tools that have been sharpened

Hope this new found passion is getting you out and about.

Ed let me see if I got this right.

164 shots of the tip of a pine cone??

Are you sure you don't need to get a life??

You should take up woodturning or something.

Ed mate, all this is ment in jest of course.

Cheers

Tim

Focus stacking????? I had to google that one and came up with this. Sounds like something similar to HDR, can you give us novices a but more info Ed.

Tim...your absolutely right about me needing to get a life - completely ruined the one I have now with 50 +/- years of debauchery, imbibing liquor, womanizing (), etc., etc.

Yep...164 shots. At a distance of lens (90mm) to object of 233.68mm the focus area is ridiculously small, so consequently a very small distance increase (or reduction) from lens to object will result in a small slice of area that is in focus (hope this is clearer than mud)

Attached are 2 images - the first taken and the last taken in the "stack". Note the different focus areas.

When taking the stack, exposure and shutter speed remain the same throughout the shoot.

Processing the stack is done using a program called Zerene Stacker (have tried others but Zerene was the best). All 164 shot files were added, the program did it's thing and the end result was an in focus image with a pretty good depth of field.

Cool stuff, huh?

Hey GJ...focus stacking is different from HDR in that when taking shots for focus stacking the camera's exposure settings remain the same throughout.

In HDR, the aim is to get the same image with different exposure settings, eg. - 3 shots underexposed, 1 shot perfect exposure, 3 shots overexposed.
Those shots are then processed in a program that results in one high dynamic range exposure.

Lot's of examples of each technique on YouTube.


How's Collingwood doin' this year???

Originally Posted by Ed Reiss

Hey GJ.........

How's Collingwood doin' this year???

GREAT!!!!!!
19 Wins - 1 Loss. Top of the ladder.

GO THE MIGHTY 'PIES

Attachment 179261

watch out for the hawks there are flying,

Originally Posted by Grumpy John

GREAT!!!!!!
19 Wins - 1 Loss. Top of the ladder.

GO THE MIGHTY 'PIES

Attachment 179261

GJ, your credibility has just dropped.

Altho i did put $20 on your lot last year to win the final.

I wont mention our two

Originally Posted by John T

watch out for the hawks there are flying,

Originally Posted by fenderbelly

GJ, your credibility has just dropped.

Altho i did put $20 on your lot last year to win the final.

I wont mention our two

This is getting off topic. I only responded to a question from Ed.
Perhaps this conversation could be continued here.

Originally Posted by Ed Reiss

Yep...164 shots. At a distance of lens (90mm) to object of 233.68mm the focus area is ridiculously small, so consequently a very small distance increase (or reduction) from lens to object will result in a small slice of area that is in focus (hope this is clearer than mud)

I wonder why the need for 164 images? A 90 mm lens at 234 mm @ F2.8 has a DOF of 0.7 mm but at F22 it has a DOF of 5.6 mm so increasing the exposure time so that F22 is possible should only need about a dozen shots to cover the DOF for that object.

Granted that when you stop higher, you get more of an area in focus...but the tradeoff is DOF gets less - final product does not seem to be so "deep"

Originally Posted by Ed Reiss

Tim...your absolutely right about me needing to get a life - completely ruined the one I have now with 50 +/- years of debauchery, imbibing liquor, womanizing (), etc., etc.
?

.

Ed that's the only way to go.

When I reach the end of my life journey, I don't want to depart leaving behind a perfect body.

I want it to be totaly exhausted and worn out, used to its limits.

My parting words?

"Wow what a ride that was."

Cheers

Tim

Originally Posted by Ed Reiss

Granted that when you stop higher, you get more of an area in focus...but the tradeoff is DOF gets less - final product does not seem to be so "deep"

It sounds like you don't understand what DOF means. At higher value stops the volume (not just the area) in focus becomes greater and the DOF becomes greater not less.

Maybe the increased apparent depth has something to do with the software or maybe the ability to set the actual focussing distance? How do you set the focus for the 164 images? Is it done systematically (ie 233.68, 233.70, 233.72 etc) or do you just take randomly focussed images across the object depth?

It would be interesting to see the same image done with 164 shots at low stop versus fewer shots at higher stops.

BTW those values of DOF were obtained using an website called DOFMaster. I also have the iphone app and find it very useful for checking all this sort of stuff out in the field.

Hmmmm...could very welll be operating under a misconception regarding DOF in general.
It's a bit late in the day for me to set up and compare the shots at different F/stops. I will do so tomorrow and see how it plays out - you are undoubtedly correct, and I need to go back to DOF 101 for a refresher

Thanks Bob...look for the results tomorrow.

BTW- I use a Velbon Super Slider Rail to advance the camera - object is stationary