A day or two ago I was breezing through a training video on PS image
stacking. Near the end the presentor took on the job of cleaning up
halos and artifacts. He pressed a couple of magic keys and then took
his brush and magically swept all the undesirable stuff under the rug in
a few fell swoops. I was bowled over but was in a hurry at the time and
didn't really follow what he had done. I recalled that this morning
just before time to get on the road. I spent about 5-10 minutes trying
to find where I had seen this. Totally unsuccesful and then I had to
get on the road. Whatever bread crumb trail might still exist is back
home on the desktop.
I'm still thinking about it. Hope I can find it eventually.
Chuck Norcutt
On 9/2/2011 6:29 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> 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/
|