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/
|