I know a few shooters Brian who stack but they only use two frames and it's often difficult to tell that the shot is a stack -looks like a really sharp F16 image instead of two F11 shots stacked. If memory serves me correctly Mark Plonsky does some of his stacks that way.
One of the compositional issues I've had viewing stacked images is that there is often too much detail in the background and objects that would normally be out of focus are instead distracting. Two years ago I shot a dragon for a stack and didn't like it because I got robbed by the background. Probably not an problem if you do the stack by hand though...
good demonstration Brian. as John says stacking just 2 frames can look as good as a single, if not slightly more detailed & still look natural. i seem to be using less frames stacked,too many can look un natural.[but then i did stack 10 frames on raft spider head shot]
phil
It's human nature to look at the eyes first Amy -we are predators so we look at the eyes of other creatures to determine if it's something we can kill, or if we need to run. That's why you can take a macro shot of a critter and as long as the eyes are in focus no one will complain about the out of focus areas in the image.
I've also learned that for certain compositions the leading edge of an insects face has to be in focus as well as the eye, otherwise people will complain that there isn't enough depth in the shot. So if I'm shooting a dragonfly at 2x to 3x I look for an angle and Fstop combination that will let me get the "nose" in focus as well as the leading edge of the eye(s). The leading edge of the face is the second place that your eye will go in a photo -right after you look at the critter's eyes...
i dont really mind if people focus stack or not, personally myself i enjoy photography for the reward of taking that perfect shot without any computer to aid me.
very cool I also love stereograms...... first time I've ever seen a bug with a dent in it's eye
great job stacking , I think it adds so much to the pic but how you do it with the mp-e is beyond me I have tough enough time with one pic let alone 5 or 7
Doug- glad you liked the 3-D . I still get a thrill when I first construct these and see the subject in 3-D again.
The1- can respect your POV but you must have problems processing digital pics
Brian V.
didn't quite mean it like that, i still pp, i just dont do anything that actually alters the detail of the photo on the screen. I only crop, add border, exposure etc
The1 wrote:
didn't quite mean it like that, i still pp, i just dont do anything that actually alters the detail of the photo on the screen. I only crop, add border, exposure etc
The1 wrote:
didn't quite mean it like that, i still pp, i just dont do anything that actually alters the detail of the photo on the screen. I only crop, add border, exposure etc
Do you sharpen? :-)
I see your point also, but in the end you cannot avoid manipulating, somewhat. It's only a question to which degree, and what level of manipulation is acceptable, to you.
MichAg92 wrote:
really - I would have assumed that I saw a focal gradient based upon on what portion of the subject I was focusing....
Mich,
Human vision is much more complex than that. The pictures that we 'see' are completely constructions within our brain. Our eye/brain only has the ability to focus on a small area of our whole wide angle view. The periphery of what we see is not oof as such, it's just not being looked at directly.
This is why it's possible for us not to be able to see things which are right in front of us. Although the eyes see the item the brain doesn't expect to see it there so you don't see it.
Lots of info on this subject out there, try googling for "psychology human vision" or variations on that theme!
The one thing I haven't really tried yet but have mentioned the possibility, is focus stacking shots taken at different apertures to smooth out DOF boundaries.
This can definitely work although I expect it would be bloody hard with with live bugs. I've used this technique on a few occasions. Start the stack with a shot at f11, then one at f8 then do the main bulk of the stack at f5.6 then another single shot at f8 and another at f11 to finish off...
Human vision is much more complex than that. The pictures that we 'see' are completely constructions within our brain. Our eye/brain only has the ability to focus on a small area of our whole wide angle view. The periphery of what we see is not oof as such, it's just not being looked at directly.
This is why it's possible for us not to be able to see things which are right in front of us. Although the eyes see the item the brain doesn't expect to see it there so you don't see it.
Lots of info on this subject out there, try googling for "psychology human vision" or variations on that theme! ...Show more →
thanksf or the info. Had never considered this issue before.
MichAg92 wrote:
thanksf or the info. Had never considered this issue before.
Amy - as already commented we see with our brain more than our eyes. It's my excuse for why photographs sometimes look nothing near as good as the original subject when viewed
lauriek wrote:
This can definitely work although I expect it would be bloody hard with with live bugs. I've used this technique on a few occasions. Start the stack with a shot at f11, then one at f8 then do the main bulk of the stack at f5.6 then another single shot at f8 and another at f11 to finish off...
Thanks Lauriek - will have to try it sometime with a nice "tame" bug
Brian V.
I need to find some time to practice with this focus stacking business 