Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | City, Street & Architecture | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2017 · Waverly Tuner

  
 
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Waverly Tuner


Had to try out the new Zeiss Makro from Samy's and since I had just ordered these Waverly "Butterbean" tuning machines, I decided to use the seventy year old spruce top of the recently purchased Martin 000-18 as a surface. Single light with reflectors and 42 focus slices, but not all the way through - just wanted the front one sharp. Probably didn't need that many slices but the focus helicoid is so fine on this that I made smaller increments than normal.





Waverly "Butterbean" tuning machine




Nov 28, 2017 at 01:00 AM
JWilsonphoto
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Waverly Tuner


Excellent Peter, but that is kind of your usual


Nov 28, 2017 at 10:26 AM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Waverly Tuner


Thanks Jim. Was also just in your great state shooting in Austin and Johnson City. Great music and even better food. Can't wait to go back. And, get these new tuners on that old guitar.

Actually, this image was an experiment to see how well only doing part of the focus stack would work and whether Helicon would indeed make a smooth transition into what was purposefully left out of focus, and I think it worked pretty well in that regard.



Nov 28, 2017 at 11:44 AM
gregfountain
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Waverly Tuner


42 shots. Wow. I barely have the patience to do 10, and that is with the camera tethered to a laptop, without which I wouldn't even attempt two!

Excellent shot Peter! Thanks for sharing. I sure wish Fred would create a "Still Life" forum so these types of shots are easier to find and admire

Greg



Nov 28, 2017 at 11:57 AM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Waverly Tuner


Greg - Thanks. It wouldn't have been that many if I had been used to the ultra fine pitch of the focusing thread. It took longer than usual to crunch in Helicon but not too too bad. I agree with you about the still life/product type of forum. I've mentioned it to Fred before but was ignored. Oh well. And yes, it was tethered. I've done as many as 60 images before and it works fine, just takes a while to process but really, it's not any more difficult doing 40 or fifty than ten.


Nov 28, 2017 at 03:51 PM
tntcorp
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Waverly Tuner


great closeup..

i can never figure out the quality difference between a brand name versus a no-name tuner. your close-up shows that both are consisted of similar parts, i.e. machined thread rod with remainders of rolled, stamped, die-cast and plated steel.

are there any advantages in using helicon or zerene versus photoshop for slides stacking?

any online reading references (not videos since my internet connection is slowed) on how to: 1) remove blurred remnants and 2) add missing details (when no additional slides are available? the online articles I have read provided only overview and not any details instructions.

thank you!



Nov 28, 2017 at 07:22 PM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Waverly Tuner


The differences are in the smoothness, precision and quality of the machining. There is no backlash and no slipping with the Waverly's and you can generally get them to be a perfect match with older vintage but crappy tuners. But really, when you use them, they're so smooth and precise and it's so easy to tune exactly and they just hold their tune with no slippage that this is the first thing you want to change. The vintage Grovers on this guitar are 12:1 ratio and the Waverly's are 16:1. There are also modern Grovers with an 18:1 ratio too that get good reviews.

Differences between Helicon and Zerene: Yes. I have both. Zerene is about ten times slower but in difficult stacks, especially those with large areas of smooth tone with no detail, Zerene is smoother with less stair stepping in those areas. In some complicated stacks, Zerene is just cleaner with better edges and fewer artifacts that need to be cleaned up. I really got it for doing focus stacks on speaker grills where Helicon was having an issue and it saved my hide a few times so I guess it was worth the money, but frankly, I only use it when Helicon doesn't work. Photoshop's own built-in focus stacking is a joke. It just doesn't work. At least it doesn't work on any high res images where I've tried it. Surprised that Adobe hasn't tried to buy Helicon but they do have a working relationship with Phase, so maybe that's keeping them from it.




Nov 28, 2017 at 09:04 PM





FM Forums | City, Street & Architecture | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.